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

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

There are 169952 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

Wilson, NC

#111976 Mar 10, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Precisely. I said if there was an over-topping event we should expect to see evidence of it in the sediments. The sediments indicate that there was no such event in the last 6,500 years, and the ones prior to that were from melt waters and not from precipitation. Hence, again and still - no evidence for the Noahic flood.
What sediment data confirms there was no over-topping event 4500 years ago?
KAB

Wilson, NC

#111977 Mar 10, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Because sediments are deposited by glaciation.
Are ...... you......... really........this..........s l o w ?
Not the ones dated to 4200 years ago.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#111978 Mar 10, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh McDogen, you've done it again! Risk and ye shall receive,... Humiliations galore!
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TFA...

You are humiliated just because I made a factual statement?

Which part of the post do you contend with? "nothing in memorable history" is precisely the disclaimer I put in to guard against your hyperliteralism.

So it comes down to a reading issue for you.... again.

Better luck next time.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#111979 Mar 10, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for getting my standard correct this time, even tho you still didn't quote me. You neglected to ask, tho, has the flood been proven false? No. Therefore, the flood is outside the standard since it has neither been proven true nor false via physical data.

This is fine for brainwashed cult thinking, but science has better standards.

I, for one, shall stick with science.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#111980 Mar 10, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You're reasoning is getting closer, but you can't keep it on the track since you keep forcing yourself to come to the same conclusion, no matter the data. Here's a few corrections. When talking "proven", contradicts is not sufficiently definitive. For the flood claim to be proven false requires evidence which confirms that it did/could not happen. Finally, you failed to acknowledge that the flood story has neither been proven true NOR FALSE, so the flood story doesn't meet the criterion for the reliability analysis. When following the data, it's critical to stay on track all the way to the end.

As to science the flood cannot even be considered true without data.

Logically it is impossible for a flood to have occurred during flourishing civilizations.

So the logic you use to maintain your cults delusions are not at issue. In terms of reality the flood never happened nor could ever happen. Your logic, derailed as it is, demonstrates to everyone else just how fuked up you are. Not that such was at issue.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#111981 Mar 10, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for that soul-baring reality. Perhaps you should see Dr. D, altho generally, I wouldn't wish that on ahyone, but I know that, unfortunately, you trust him. It seems that whenever I think of a session with the Doc, just shoot me comes to mind.

I think that would be best.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#111982 Mar 10, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Not the ones dated to 4200 years ago.

The ones dated 4,200 years ago are between the ones dated 4,199 and 4,201 years ago, respectively.

Besides, 4,200 years ago is way to recent for a global flood, using the chronology of the bible, that is. You are talking 4,500 years plus if you want to use the bible as literal.

You did want to do that, yes?

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#111983 Mar 10, 2013
And still nothing to call my refutation of JWism into question.


Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry dude, but you did not even look at the list. If you did you kept your comments to yourself and just asked me to pick one. It is the body of evidence that refutes or makes a point. Not one datum.
<quoted text>
I did not pick the scholars. The Watchtowerites picked them (or I should say "quotemined" them. But when there comments are put back into larger context (what the site did) it exposes the fraud.
JW's are good at lying. They are all under the influence of satan who is the author of lies.
<quoted text>
This is a lie. You are a good JW. You lie well as your master commands you to do.
<quoted text>
Lets do the math.
Other translations vs. JW cult translation.
Other translation: Professional translators.
JW Cult version: Guys without H.S. diplomas, no Greek and no Hebrew knowledge.
Other translations: Aware of the issues of culture, history, concurrent events, etc.
JW Cult version: Apparently oblivious to these issues.
Other translations: Professionals
JW Cult version: amateurs.
Other translations: each with their own agenda, but in substantial agreement with each other.
JW cult version: Professionals say they aren't even close and that they lied about what source material they used.
Other translations: serious scholarship.
JW cult version: serious joke.
<quoted text>
I have provided you with a list of just some of the more glaring ones. You ignored that too.
You are very deceitful. But that is characteristic of those whom satan works through.
Fortunately the grip of satan is limited. Nearly 70% of children raised as JW's eventually leave the cult. There are literally thousands of web sites by and for former JW cult members. Some preach against the cult. Others simply help people recover a normal life.
To be a true cult follower you have to submit reports on your attempted brainwashing of others, monthly, I believe.
They have the highest conversion rate and highest rate of membership loss of any major cult in the US.
JWism is a totalitarian regime where genuine dissent is not tolerated.
BTW, prophecy is an indication that word is from God and FALSE prophecy is an indication that the word is from that other guy.
What is the JW track record on prophecy? 100% right?
75%?
50......
Oh......

10%?

You inability to answer again demonstrates you to be the week kneed pseudochristian that you are.

Do you put all your failures in your report?

Do you mention you drive people further away from JWism on a daily basis. Those are things I think your handlers would like to know.


----------
Please put your failure in your report so you can be appropriately disfellowshiped.

KAB

Wilson, NC

#111984 Mar 10, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Because of post #111928
You assert there is something special about the lake but admitted that you have no physical evidence for the flood.
I actually admitted I know of no physical evidence confirming the flood, didn't I Doc? Even when you quote me you attribute something different to me in the same post. That's rather bold (stupid?), lying and providing your own proof of lie in the same post.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#111985 Mar 10, 2013
Dogen wrote:
Funny, I have not seed KAB respond to the below.
I wonder why that is????
Is he chicken or has he an unevolved red junglefowl?
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry dude, but you did not even look at the list. If you did you kept your comments to yourself and just asked me to pick one. It is the body of evidence that refutes or makes a point. Not one datum.
<quoted text>
I did not pick the scholars. The Watchtowerites picked them (or I should say "quotemined" them. But when there comments are put back into larger context (what the site did) it exposes the fraud.
JW's are good at lying. They are all under the influence of satan who is the author of lies.
<quoted text>
This is a lie. You are a good JW. You lie well as your master commands you to do.
<quoted text>
Lets do the math.
Other translations vs. JW cult translation.
Other translation: Professional translators.
JW Cult version: Guys without H.S. diplomas, no Greek and no Hebrew knowledge.
Other translations: Aware of the issues of culture, history, concurrent events, etc.
JW Cult version: Apparently oblivious to these issues.
Other translations: Professionals
JW Cult version: amateurs.
Other translations: each with their own agenda, but in substantial agreement with each other.
JW cult version: Professionals say they aren't even close and that they lied about what source material they used.
Other translations: serious scholarship.
JW cult version: serious joke.
<quoted text>
I have provided you with a list of just some of the more glaring ones. You ignored that too.
You are very deceitful. But that is characteristic of those whom satan works through.
Fortunately the grip of satan is limited. Nearly 70% of children raised as JW's eventually leave the cult. There are literally thousands of web sites by and for former JW cult members. Some preach against the cult. Others simply help people recover a normal life.
To be a true cult follower you have to submit reports on your attempted brainwashing of others, monthly, I believe.
They have the highest conversion rate and highest rate of membership loss of any major cult in the US.
JWism is a totalitarian regime where genuine dissent is not tolerated.
BTW, prophecy is an indication that word is from God and FALSE prophecy is an indication that the word is from that other guy.
What is the JW track record on prophecy? 100% right?
75%?
50......
Oh......
10%?
You inability to answer again demonstrates you to be the week kneed pseudochristian that you are.
Do you put all your failures in your report?
Do you mention you drive people further away from JWism on a daily basis. Those are things I think your handlers would like to know.
----------
And I am also still waiting for your responses to Posts:
111885
111886
My position remains that when I see you provide a single specific point out of any of those posts, I guarantee a response specific to that point.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#111986 Mar 10, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
You are humiliated just because I made a factual statement?
Which part of the post do you contend with? "nothing in memorable history" is precisely the disclaimer I put in to guard against your hyperliteralism.
So it comes down to a reading issue for you.... again.
Better luck next time.
You may have a point. I didn't allow for your Alzheimer's when I assessed the memorable history timeframe.
LowellGuy

Salem, MA

#111987 Mar 10, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for getting my standard correct this time, even tho you still didn't quote me. You neglected to ask, tho, has the flood been proven false? No. Therefore, the flood is outside the standard since it has neither been proven true nor false via physical data.
Listen, dumbass, I'm not asking you if you've determined the Bible to be UNRELIABLE according to your shitty standard, I'm asking if you can really say it is RELIABLE according to your shitty standard when a testable claim, one that has the potential to be proven scientifically true or false, has not been proven true. I'm only asking about a positive determination of reliability, not the contrapositive. Not guilty versus innocent. You still clearly don't understand the difference.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#111988 Mar 10, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I actually admitted I know of no physical evidence confirming the flood, didn't I Doc? Even when you quote me you attribute something different to me in the same post. That's rather bold (stupid?), lying and providing your own proof of lie in the same post.

Why are you so frightened of me?

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#111989 Mar 10, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
My position remains that when I see you provide a single specific point out of any of those posts, I guarantee a response specific to that point.


Dogen wrote:
Funny, I have not seed KAB respond to the below.
I wonder why that is????
Is he chicken or has he an unevolved red junglefowl?
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry dude, but you did not even look at the list. If you did you kept your comments to yourself and just asked me to pick one. It is the body of evidence that refutes or makes a point. Not one datum.
<quoted text>
I did not pick the scholars. The Watchtowerites picked them (or I should say "quotemined" them. But when there comments are put back into larger context (what the site did) it exposes the fraud.
JW's are good at lying. They are all under the influence of satan who is the author of lies.
<quoted text>
This is a lie. You are a good JW. You lie well as your master commands you to do.
<quoted text>
Lets do the math.
Other translations vs. JW cult translation.
Other translation: Professional translators.
JW Cult version: Guys without H.S. diplomas, no Greek and no Hebrew knowledge.
Other translations: Aware of the issues of culture, history, concurrent events, etc.
JW Cult version: Apparently oblivious to these issues.
Other translations: Professionals
JW Cult version: amateurs.
Other translations: each with their own agenda, but in substantial agreement with each other.
JW cult version: Professionals say they aren't even close and that they lied about what source material they used.
Other translations: serious scholarship.
JW cult version: serious joke.
<quoted text>
I have provided you with a list of just some of the more glaring ones. You ignored that too.
You are very deceitful. But that is characteristic of those whom satan works through.
Fortunately the grip of satan is limited. Nearly 70% of children raised as JW's eventually leave the cult. There are literally thousands of web sites by and for former JW cult members. Some preach against the cult. Others simply help people recover a normal life.
To be a true cult follower you have to submit reports on your attempted brainwashing of others, monthly, I believe.
They have the highest conversion rate and highest rate of membership loss of any major cult in the US.
JWism is a totalitarian regime where genuine dissent is not tolerated.
BTW, prophecy is an indication that word is from God and FALSE prophecy is an indication that the word is from that other guy.
What is the JW track record on prophecy? 100% right?
75%?
50......
Oh......
10%?
You inability to answer again demonstrates you to be the week kneed pseudochristian that you are.
Do you put all your failures in your report?
Do you mention you drive people further away from JWism on a daily basis. Those are things I think your handlers would like to know.
----------

You see no points you are able to address?

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#111990 Mar 10, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You may have a point. I didn't allow for your Alzheimer's when I assessed the memorable history timeframe.

But I remember you are an idiot. Don't I get some credit for remembering important things like that?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#111991 Mar 11, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I actually admitted I know of no physical evidence confirming the flood, didn't I Doc? Even when you quote me you attribute something different to me in the same post. That's rather bold (stupid?), lying and providing your own proof of lie in the same post.
So if there is no evidence confirming it, and lots of evidence that makes it exceedingly unlikely (continuity of cultures, no population bottlenecks in human or animal genomes, a continual ice core record going back far longer, etc)- who but a hopelessly biased person would give it any credibility?

We have compelling evidence for other big events far further back in time. Asteroid hits, massive vulcanism, ice ages, continental drift, even localised floods such as the Badlands in the US and the Black Sea...many of these reckoned at millions of years ago...

...so if there was a world wide total inundation within the last 10,000 years, anyone reasonable would expect some pretty strong evidence for it, or dismiss it for what it is, a cultural creation myth claim no more credible than any other.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#111992 Mar 11, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
What sediment data confirms there was no over-topping event 4500 years ago?
The current crater resides at an elevation of 1790 feet, but because of crustal rebound this was lower 4200 BP. Even so, the crater was far higher than sea level. Sea level at the Hudson Straight lies 50 miles to the ENE. According to the Noahic myth, the mountains (and presumably the peninsula) were covered by a minimum of 22.5 feet of water that lasted for 5 months. Such conditions would certainly have introduced marine minerals and materials into the crater, but according to sediment analysis, there is none. The analysis of the sedimentary deposition from 4200 BP indicates that the material is simply from a crater wall collapse.
KAB

United States

#111993 Mar 11, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
The ones dated 4,200 years ago are between the ones dated 4,199 and 4,201 years ago, respectively.
Besides, 4,200 years ago is way to recent for a global flood, using the chronology of the bible, that is. You are talking 4,500 years plus if you want to use the bible as literal.
You did want to do that, yes?
I wouldn't say way too recent, a couple hundred out of over 4,000, but Bible time references do place the flood closer to 4400 years ago.
KAB

United States

#111994 Mar 11, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Listen, dumbass, I'm not asking you if you've determined the Bible to be UNRELIABLE according to your shitty standard, I'm asking if you can really say it is RELIABLE according to your shitty standard when a testable claim, one that has the potential to be proven scientifically true or false, has not been proven true. I'm only asking about a positive determination of reliability, not the contrapositive. Not guilty versus innocent. You still clearly don't understand the difference.
I understand I'm trying to help someone reason properly who thinks there's still a chance Earth is cubic in shape. Not surprisingly, it doesn't look like I'm going to succeed.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#111995 Mar 11, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I wouldn't say way too recent, a couple hundred out of over 4,000, but Bible time references do place the flood closer to 4400 years ago.
But, if you think we should believe the Bible's timeline, then 4200 years ago is completely irrelevant. Why bring it up at all if it directly contradicts the Bible?

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
Beauty is the Lord's Golden Section 3 hr Darsey 13
SEX did not EVOLVE (Nov '17) 11 hr Rose_NoHo 257
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 11 hr candlesmell 95,390
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) 11 hr Davidjayjordan 1,847
List what words of Jesus (the Creator) you evol... 15 hr Rose_NoHo 106
Hawaiian Volcanic Eruptions and Prophetic Catac... 15 hr Rose_NoHo 26
Genetic Study proves 90 percent of animals appe... Tue 15th Dalai Lama 71