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

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

There are 166375 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 No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#111753 Mar 6, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
CLEARLY, "evidence" says what I think it says.
Yes, you clearly just make things up as you go. Not surprising.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#111754 Mar 6, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The main difficulty is understanding the meaning of the first phrase. Please explain it in your own words.
Okay, I'll go slower for you.

"Faith is the substance of things hoped for".

"Things hoped for" have no substance, any more than wishes or dreams.

In other words, "faith" is the substance of things that have no substance.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#111755 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?
Poetry.

It's not supposed to be taken literally.

Folklore likewise.

Folklore that's been deliberately mangled out of all recognition to support a particular power base, infinitely more so.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#111756 Mar 6, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
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).
Naturally, you choose the translation(s) you like rather than check the data to determine the range of valid renderings.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#111757 Mar 6, 2013
Dogen wrote:
Britannica doesn't present leprechauns as real.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#111758 Mar 6, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Then provide the source that says there is unique material that is 4200 years old.
I was hoping you would ask. Please remember this when I ask for data. I will.

http://www.geotop.ca/upload/files/publication...
KAB

Wilson, NC

#111759 Mar 6, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
The encyclopedia Britannica.
Britannica doesn't present leprechauns as real.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#111760 Mar 6, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, I'll go slower for you.
"Faith is the substance of things hoped for".
"Things hoped for" have no substance, any more than wishes or dreams.
In other words, "faith" is the substance of things that have no substance.
I can't make sense of it either. Fortunately, there are renderings which are readily understood.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#111761 Mar 6, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Poetry.
It's not supposed to be taken literally.
Folklore likewise.
Folklore that's been deliberately mangled out of all recognition to support a particular power base, infinitely more so.
Please provide some data to confirm your assertion. Otherwise, it's worthless.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#111762 Mar 6, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
It's you who just indicated you would only allow God to do evolution, even tho design fits the available data better?

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#111763 Mar 6, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Please provide some data to confirm your assertion. Otherwise, it's worthless.
Sorry, I made a couple of points there - to which do you refer?
KAB

Wilson, NC

#111764 Mar 6, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, it does mention Greenland Ice cores, which absolutely fail to support the flood as well.
It is also nearly perfectly salt free. Not at all what the flood geologist would be looking for. Even if only 10% of the flood was sea water the salt content of this lake should be a hundred times higher.
I seem to recall that it is understood there are one or more submerged outlets from the lake.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#111765 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.
If anything contradicts the flood, the flood is false. Does ANYTHING contradict the flood?
KAB

Wilson, NC

#111766 Mar 6, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry, I made a couple of points there - to which do you refer?
I refer to "It's not supposed to be taken literally".

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#111767 Mar 6, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Britannica doesn't present leprechauns as real.
So, you're saying if we wrote a book that had unfalsifiable claims in it, but also had demonstrably true statements in it, and all the falsifiable statements were demonstrably true, you'd accept EVERY unfalsifiable claim within that book?

I asked this before, and you went off on a tangent about how it would be written with a certain motive, etc., and you never actually answered the question. Assuming you didn't know who wrote the book, or when it was written, or why it was written, you would accept all the unfalsifiable claims according to your "reliability" methodology, yes?
KAB

Wilson, NC

#111768 Mar 6, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
If anything contradicts the flood, the flood is false. Does ANYTHING contradict the flood?
I'm not aware of anything which contradicts the flood. That's why I keep asking you for data which does just that. Please don't refer to your laundry list of assertions again. Assertions are not the data.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#111769 Mar 6, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you're saying if we wrote a book that had unfalsifiable claims in it, but also had demonstrably true statements in it, and all the falsifiable statements were demonstrably true, you'd accept EVERY unfalsifiable claim within that book?
I asked this before, and you went off on a tangent about how it would be written with a certain motive, etc., and you never actually answered the question. Assuming you didn't know who wrote the book, or when it was written, or why it was written, you would accept all the unfalsifiable claims according to your "reliability" methodology, yes?
In ballpark terms, how many demonstrated true statements does it have in it, and what is the proportion of demonstrated true to total content? Finally, there's the other parametrics of the book, how many contributors over what period of time, and what is the nature of the overall content? Does it in any way indicate or acknowledge that some portion of it is not known to be true? Again, in ballpark terms do you propose that all these elements would be comparable to the Bible?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#111770 Mar 6, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Britannica doesn't present leprechauns as real.
So, that wasn't your requirement, you stated you needed a demonstrably accurate source that they are written in, but a lot of people do assert that they are real, even today. Even more people swear they had seen a leprechaun than those who have seen your god.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#111771 Mar 6, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
In ballpark terms, how many demonstrated true statements does it have in it, and what is the proportion of demonstrated true to total content? Finally, there's the other parametrics of the book, how many contributors over what period of time, and what is the nature of the overall content? Does it in any way indicate or acknowledge that some portion of it is not known to be true? Again, in ballpark terms do you propose that all these elements would be comparable to the Bible?
Grimm's Fairytales has the same percentage of demonstrable facts in it as your bible, almost exact percentage. Most of the places mentioned are real places in Europe. Many of the people are demonstrably real as well. The stories told are from multiple sources. It is the perfect mirror of your bible .... do you believe in the Headless Horseman now?

Level 1

Since: Jan 10

Asheville, NC

#111772 Mar 7, 2013
Here is why atheists and human from non-human evolutionists are illogical. You want to think and claim that your philosophy is supported by science. If you are an atheist, your philosophy can not be supported by science until you have obsevable evidence of the violation of the Law of Biogenesis and can prove that naturalistic means brought about the origin of life.. Atheists can not get around this, and currently they have no observable evidence for the origin of life. Evolutionists are inconsistent because they say "Even if GOD did cause the origin of life, it is meaningless because the origin of life and human from non-human evolution are not related subjects". But they are related subjects because like atheists, human from non-human evolutionists have no idea how life originated, and if it was the product of an intelligent designer, then they also have no scientific evidence. In Order for the human from non-human evolutionists to have a valid logical philosophy, they are going to have to trash naturalism and give way to the possibility of the supernatural being the cause for the origin of life, and if naturalism is trashed, as it should be, then there is no need for a naturalistic explanation on human evolution. THen science is not barring itself from the possibility of the supernatural, and the creation of life by an intelligent designer. Atheists and human from non-human evolutionists have the right to believe anyhing they want to. THey don't have the right to claim that their philosophis are rooted in science. Not an retain any kind of intellectual honesty.

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) 5 min Samuel Patre 87,538
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 26 min Eagle 12 - 5,841
What's your religion? Thu 15th Dalai Lama 772
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) Wed Tom Honda 1,825
Scientific Method Feb 15 stinky 20
Evolving A Maze Solving Robot Feb 6 Untangler 2
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) Feb 1 Rose_NoHo 223,358
More from around the web