It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the ...

It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in evolution debate

There are 157326 comments on the Asheville Citizen-Times story from Mar 15, 2009, titled It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in evolution debate. In it, Asheville Citizen-Times reports that:

I would like to respond to the letter 'Recent letter offered no examples of Darwinian disingenuousness,' . He responds to an article with, 'He says evolution is 'so riddled with holes,' yet fails to provide a ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Asheville Citizen-Times.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111708 Mar 6, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, disambiguation is important here. By Fact of evolution do you mean the observed fact that the distribution of characteristics for a population of an organism vary thru its generations?

Close, but not exactly. A better definition is given by Wikipedia "Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
KAB

United States

#111709 Mar 6, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Alright, I went back a couple pages and found a sample post in which you actually said something.
<quoted text>
Yet, there is no evidence for a global flood. Not even trickling forth most meekly. So when we couple that with your statement,
<quoted text>
it becomes even more undeniable that you DO NOT consider either evolution OR the Bible objectively, by evidence, by supportive data or on their own merits.
What do you find if you look in the Pinqualit Meteor Crater Lake global scale flood gauge in Northern Canada?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111710 Mar 6, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Just as a reminder, I respond to your dataless assertions at my discretion. If you want guatanteed response, include specific data or reference to such.

I am not truly concerned if you reply or not.

I respond to many of your posts and 99%* of them are dataless assertions.

If you fail to respond to a point I, or others are making on a continuous basis then that is your failure.

You chant the "dataless assertion" mantra, but it seems as if you just don't want to address the issues.

When you ARE given the data you draw inappropriate and unfounded conclusions about it. Often that seems to be due to your ignorance of how science works as well as the need to deny the obvious conclusions.




* personal estimate. I have not actually counted them.
KAB

United States

#111711 Mar 6, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes KAB, it has been verified that there was no global flood. It has become a given that the flood story is a myth.
There is no genetic bottleneck. There is no meteorological mechanism capable of it. There is no evidence of it in paleoecology, in taphonomy, in botany or in any other field of study. There is no geological evidence of it. The archaeological record is contiguous throughout the period it supposedly took place.
We've beaten that horse into hamburger and God Himself has told you to be honest.
Yes, and honestly, I see you provided no data, whereas I have.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111712 Mar 6, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The verse, as you acknowledge, defines (supports) what is Bible approved faith. Without such a supporting verse one would be free to imagine the Bible supporting something like blind faith. It's not like saying what you stated at all.
If I had an answer to your request under the conditions you impose, it wouldn't be pending.

Actually, the verse seems to be supporting faith in things unseen. That is, at least, 20/200 so it is at least Legally blind.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111713 Mar 6, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>It's not an assertion.

Interesting assertion.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#111714 Mar 6, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
For the first part, it's not blind faith if it's based on supporting data, which is what Heb. 11:1 seems to require.
For the second part, remove the condition(s), and see what you get.
We've been over this already. For the first part, the verse SPECIFIES blind faith, even by the highly questionable translations of the NWT. "Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld." It is not your province to manipulate, misconstrue and misinterpret "not beheld" as anything other than "blind."

For the second part, no. The conditions are required to keep you on topic.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111715 Mar 6, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The global flood claim hasn't been verified either way. I meant to include that, of course, only claims which are testable to a conclusion of either true or false are meaningful to the evaluation. I knew if I didn't, you would act as if that wasn't a given, and you did.

The scientific evidence is in. It didn't happen.

The story isn't even original to the bible. There are older surviving stories that tell similar (though very different in the details) stories.

The bible copies one of those stories word for word for a couple of sentence!

There is no evidence of a global flood and there certainly would have been had it occurred.

Where did that much water come from?

Where did that much water go?

We are talking many times the amount of water in all of the oceans of the world.

You like to think it COULD be true. Flying pigs COULD be true. No one has ever observed one (no evidence - just like the global flood).

Without evidence you might as well be claiming that flying pigs are real. It is true that flying pigs are not mentioned in your "reliable source", but talking donkeys and talking serpents ARE. There are also people being turned into salt, living inside a fish,...... You know the drill.
KAB

United States

#111716 Mar 6, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
So then you are a hypocrite, since you deny the existence of leprechauns but accept the existence of your god based on the same amount of evidence.
You're still not getting it. The evidence for each is vastly different. One is based on a demonstrated reliable source. The other is not. As you like to state, it's that simple. You seem to be confusing reliability with sheer number of sources.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#111717 Mar 6, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, and honestly, I see you provided no data, whereas I have.
What data have you provided that indicates there was a global flood?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111718 Mar 6, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
For the first part, it's not blind faith if it's based on supporting data, which is what Heb. 11:1 seems to require..

Heb 1:11 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.- NIV

11 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. NRSV

11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. KJB

CLEARLY this verse is not saying what you think it is saying.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111719 Mar 6, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The reasons aren't the same. That's just your dataless assertion which will never make anything true which isn't.

That's just your dataless assertion which will never make anything true which isn't.
KAB

United States

#111720 Mar 6, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
You guys are on a roll today. "...setting an example..." Yeah, an excellent example on how to ignore multiple lines of evidence that your flood never occurred.
I ignore assertions. I don't ignore data, as you have discovered in the past. Try me,... AGAIN!
KAB

United States

#111721 Mar 6, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Close, but not exactly. A better definition is given by Wikipedia "Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
That works for me.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#111722 Mar 6, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I ignore assertions. I don't ignore data, as you have discovered in the past. Try me,... AGAIN!
Nah. We've been over this multiple times. You've ignored geological data. You've ignored archeological data. You've ignored anything that does not agree with your desperate belief in Noah's flood. Then you lie about it. So, no, I'm not going to waste the time once again on the incorrigibly delusional.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#111723 Mar 6, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you find if you look in the Pinqualit Meteor Crater Lake global scale flood gauge in Northern Canada?
http://www.wondermondo.com/Countries/NA/Canad...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/...

What about it, besides being completely and wholly irrelevant to middle eastern events 4,500 years ago?

Is "global scale flood gauge" a term you invented specifically for this forum?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111724 Mar 6, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm the one who about two years ago initially raised the demand for evidence in this forum upon noticing that very little was being provided. I have continued driving that and setting an example of providing data ever since.

When you say things like this it is not possible for me to take you serious.

You rarely post any evidence and when you do it is often goofy stuff. Your out of context biblical verses, for example. You respond to data with incredulity and angst. You try to manipulate what is actually said and inject your own opinion as to what the data says.

So, based upon your posts and on the above assertion I am force to conclude that either:

1. you are lying.
2. you are delusional.

As I don't want to set up a false dichotomy, I am grasping for other alternatives. OH!

3. you are a poe.

Now, I find actual POEs to be rather rare and short lived. I also don't believe that anyone would continue to say what you do if they knew they were lies.

You see where this is going?

Now, religious beliefs are (no matter how wacky) not generally considered delusional if they are shared among a body of believers. But here we are not talking about your religious beliefs, per se, but about what you believe you are actually providing in this forum in terms of evidence, so......

Evidence: KAB's body of posts in this forum.
KAB

United States

#111725 Mar 6, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, the verse seems to be supporting faith in things unseen. That is, at least, 20/200 so it is at least Legally blind.
Actually, the verse seems to indicate how faith in things unseeen can and should be acquired via evidence. We can't directly see subatomic particles, but we can gather evidence so as to have faith that they exist.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111726 Mar 6, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Per Heb. 11:1, Luther was wrong. True faith harmonizes with and thrives on reason. Blind faith does not. Perhaps Luther had blind faith in mind.

Actually, I got to give Luther credit. In this one instance he is spot on.
KAB wrote:
<quoted text> To accept evolution, one must have faith that all the existing variety of life occurred in the available timeframe set forth by the data, since observed mutation rates don't get the job done.

Do you believe that mutation is the only mechanism for evolution (your ignorance is showing)?

Maybe you better Google "mechanisms of evolution".

Further, were mutation rates always the same in earths history?

Can you name at least three reasons why they might have been higher in the past?

Isn't belief in creationism "blind faith"?

Now remember, you have no objective evidence for creation but evolution has hundreds of thousands of research papers & books, over a billion fossils and TRILLIONS (low-ball estimate) of pieces of data.

vs. a book that could not be bothered to only give one creation account but instead gave two conflicting ones.



“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111727 Mar 6, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, the verse seems to indicate how faith in things unseeen can and should be acquired via evidence. We can't directly see subatomic particles, but we can gather evidence so as to have faith that they exist.

In what way is that implied in the verse? It reads just the opposite. That we should have (blind) faith in things unseen.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 min Into The Night 51,336
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 37 min Regolith Based Li... 24,639
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 41 min Regolith Based Li... 218,714
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 1 hr ChromiuMan 1,117
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 7 hr Dogen 460
How did reproduction start for any living thing? 7 hr Dogen 90
The Fossil Record Does Not Support The Theory O... 7 hr Dogen 45
More from around the web