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

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

There are 163074 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.

KAB

United States

#111733 Mar 6, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
It is not your province to ignore the qualifiers "assured" and "evident demonstration". They remove the blinders except for those so willfully blind they refuse to see.

You indicated that you wouldn't get a response even without the conditions, but you are unwilling to test that water. Why is that do you think?

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#111734 Mar 6, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, leprechaun myths are from demonstrably reliable sources, so you believe in them since the god you believe in is mentioned in a demonstrably unreliable source.
How about it KAB? Would you say that the certain and obvious evidence of the Tower of Babel proves the Bible is demonstrably reliable, and the absence of Irish castles proves leprechauns are mythological?

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

United States

#111735 Mar 6, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I know the drill very well, dataless, you being among the vanguard of that sort.
KAB

United States

#111736 Mar 6, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
What data have you provided that indicates there was a global flood?
Sample item: Contents of global scale flood gauge in Northern Canada.
os2al

Bronx, NY

#111737 Mar 6, 2013
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
So what does believing in God have to do with the theory of evolution?
One says life evolved from the primordial soup, random mutation, et. al, which means no direction, no purpose (Merriam-Webster: "without definite aim, direction, rule, or method" ...

The other view says life proceeded from a purposeful mind. See the difference? It's not complicated.

Al
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#111738 Mar 6, 2013
os2al wrote:
<quoted text>
One says life evolved from the primordial soup, random mutation, et. al, which means no direction, no purpose (Merriam-Webster: "without definite aim, direction, rule, or method" ...
The other view says life proceeded from a purposeful mind. See the difference? It's not complicated.
Al
Actually evolution makes no mention at all whether or not a God was involved. Evolution doesn't care whether a God started it all off or not. All it needs is for life to be here. Life IS here. Life evolves. Facts.

So IF there is such a thing as (a) God, it used evolution. Or it's a liar.

It's just that fundies like to tell their god what it can and cannot do.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#111739 Mar 6, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It is not your province to ignore the qualifiers "assured" and "evident demonstration". They remove the blinders except for those so willfully blind they refuse to see.
You indicated that you wouldn't get a response even without the conditions, but you are unwilling to test that water. Why is that do you think?
Why shouldn't I ignore the qualifiers when the primary is unacceptable? Should I only break my arm a little or shoot my dog some? I don't pick and choose HOW and HOW MUCH to ignore of scripture - what do you take me for, a CHRISTIAN?
I'll give you the short list. 1)I think the NWT is a demonstrably proven bad translation of an ancient tome that is both half fictitious and entirely irrelevant to the topic. 2)I don't hold blind faith as being something to aspire to. 3) I have no inclination to self-inflict a psychotic break from reality or the psychological equivalent of a frontal lobotomy. Need I go on?

Let's put the shoe back on the right foot here.
Why are you unwilling to consider secular answers to a secular questions in a secular topic? Are you afraid the Elders are watching?
KAB

United States

#111740 Mar 6, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
CLEARLY, "evidence" says what I think it says.
KAB

United States

#111741 Mar 6, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Your sources didn't mention the unique sediment layer of material washed down from the sides of the crater and estimated to be about 4200 years old.

I coined the phrase "global scale flood gauge" in recognition of the inherent functionality of its structure and surroundings.
KAB

United States

#111742 Mar 6, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, I got to give Luther credit. In this one instance he is spot on.
<quoted text>
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.
You know me and labels. I meant to refer to all genetic changes. If I used the wrong label, I appologize.
KAB

United States

#111743 Mar 6, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
In what way is that implied in the verse? It reads just the opposite. That we should have (blind) faith in things unseen.
Did you miss the references to assurance and evidence in the verse? I wonder why that would be?
KAB

United States

#111744 Mar 6, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, leprechaun myths are from demonstrably reliable sources, so you believe in them since the god you believe in is mentioned in a demonstrably unreliable source.
Provide one.
KAB

United States

#111745 Mar 6, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Why shouldn't I ignore the qualifiers when the primary is unacceptable? Should I only break my arm a little or shoot my dog some? I don't pick and choose HOW and HOW MUCH to ignore of scripture - what do you take me for, a CHRISTIAN?
I'll give you the short list. 1)I think the NWT is a demonstrably proven bad translation of an ancient tome that is both half fictitious and entirely irrelevant to the topic. 2)I don't hold blind faith as being something to aspire to. 3) I have no inclination to self-inflict a psychotic break from reality or the psychological equivalent of a frontal lobotomy. Need I go on?
Let's put the shoe back on the right foot here.
Why are you unwilling to consider secular answers to a secular questions in a secular topic? Are you afraid the Elders are watching?
I'm not unwilling to consider any answers. Provide one along with its purportedly confirming data, and let's see where it leads.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111746 Mar 6, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's the confirming data,
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TFA...

Are you confused as to what 'confirmation' is or as to what 'data' is?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111747 Mar 6, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You know me and labels. I meant to refer to all genetic changes. If I used the wrong label, I appologize.

Then you statement is not true. Total genetic change over time is more than enough to support evolution. In fact it makes some wonder as to why evolution does not progress at an even faster rate.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111748 Mar 6, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you miss the references to assurance and evidence in the verse? I wonder why that would be?

Because you are misunderstanding the verse and are using a garbage translation. I provided Young Literal translation among my reference verses and the NASB (which is kind enough to provide alternative translations).


“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111749 Mar 6, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Provide one.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/336...

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111750 Mar 6, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not unwilling to consider any answers. Provide one along with its purportedly confirming data, and let's see where it leads.

Based on the evidence (your past history of posts) this is an outrageous lie.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#111751 Mar 6, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Your sources didn't mention the unique sediment layer of material washed down from the sides of the crater and estimated to be about 4200 years old.
I coined the phrase "global scale flood gauge" in recognition of the inherent functionality of its structure and surroundings.
Then provide the source that says there is unique material that is 4200 years old.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#111752 Mar 6, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Provide one.
The encyclopedia Britannica.

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 Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 16 min Dogen 1,418
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 25 min u196533dm 32,462
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 5 hr Aura Mytha 222,270
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) Mon Dogen 78,757
Mathematicians PROVED evolution IMPOSSIBLE! Aug 19 Science 814
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... (Jan '17) Aug 5 yehoshooah adam 4,381
News Intelligent Design Education Day - Dallas Aug 2 John B 4
More from around the web