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

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

There are 151417 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.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#111969 Mar 10, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>You also live in a culture of faith, but won't admit it. You believe that there was no GOD involved in the origin of life. That is a faith based belief.
Believe? I do not know whether God was involved or not.

However, my doubt tilts towards skepticism of the supernatural claim because I see good progress is being made in understanding abiogenesis and because there has never been any scientific evidence that the natural appearance of life is impossible.
What you don't seem to get is that in this forum, science is not presented as a culture of doubt.
Scientists will say "this happened" or "that happened" within their own audience and its ALREADY UNDERSTOOD by other scientists that they mean "this is what we think happened, based on our understanding of the evidence so far, but always open to new interpretation if new evidence demands it in the future".

They don't have to repeat it every time they make a claim.

It gets a bit wordy, don't you think?
Faith based beliefs that have no place within science are broadcasted as fact, and if challenged, then the broadcaster belittles those who are challenging them with insults and sarcasim.
Yes, that might happen at times. But also, scientists get impatient with those who simply dismiss their claims without first getting to understand the evidence behind the claims and why they might find the evidence compelling.

For example, I know you have dismissed climate change but I would wager a bottle of bourbon that you do so out of hand on the conviction that they are a bunch of eco-nazis and paid govt stooges looking for another tax excuse etc (or similar) and have not ever looked closely at the evidence they present.

Now I would ask that you explain the significance of the absorption spectrum of CO2 in the context of atmospheric temperature levels, without going and looking it up. I bet you cannot.

AND YET - you have a solid conviction that human influence climate change is rubbish! On the basis of WHAT? Essentially nothing more than ad hominem against those scientists.
If their philosophy was so rock solid they could stand on it's solid foundation, yet they dodge the challenges with childish ad hominums. THis is observable.
There you go with the phrase "solid foundation" when I am trying to explain that science is a culture of doubt, not faith. Its NOT how a scientist approaches the world.

Yes, the ad hominems occur on both sides, and that is observable. People get heated about this stuff.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#111970 Mar 10, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Song of Songs 7:1-4, 8-9
Leviticus 20:21
Song of Songs 8:1-3
Song of Songs 7:10-12
2 Samuel 11:2-4
Esther 2:2-4
ezekiel 23:1-10,23
Genesis 19:30-38
Thank you for the data proving there is sexual content in the Bible. This is an important step for you. I hope you'll sustain it.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#111971 Mar 10, 2013
While searching for other info, I came across 2 of Dr. D's greatest hits,

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TFA...

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TFA...

I thought inquiring minds would want to know.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#111972 Mar 10, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Science always puts itself on the line. Another bit of evidence that you are unaware of science.
As I remember my own comments on your dearth of data it is usually with a statement like "once in a blue moon" or seldom ever. Or maybe never provides any RELEVANT data that withstands scrutiny.
Or that you have never provide evidence of a global flood. By which I mean scientific evidence, not fairy tail evidence. Not JW cult programming material.
Oh McDogen, you've done it again! Risk and ye shall receive,... Humiliations galore!

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TFA...
KAB

Wilson, NC

#111973 Mar 10, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for demonstrating that you won't argue the merits, you'll just hide behind "quote me." You're such a pathetic loser, and I mean that in the most polite way. You know you've been bested, and rather than simply admit it like a man, you have to cower behind your "quote me." Your quote is no more than a page away from your response. You know exactly what you said. You said that all testable claims that can be proven true/false must be proven true for the Bible to be considered reliable. Is the claim of a global year-long flood from 4500 years ago something that can be proven true or false? Yes. Has it been proven true (one of your criteria, all of which must be met, to determine reliability)? No. Have ALL the testable claims which can be proven true/false been proven true? No. If that criterion is not met, your standard says that it cannot be deemed reliable. Notice I didn't say it's UNRELIABLE; merely that you can't deem it reliable, therefore you cannot cite it as a "demonstrated reliable source." It doesn't even meet YOUR standard for reliability.
Now, argue the merits, coward.
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.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#111974 Mar 10, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
So, if there is evidence that directly contradicts the flood story, and that evidence is found, the claim would be false. If there is evidence that directly indicates the flood story, and can ONLY be explained by the flood story (without resorting to magic, which is EXACTLY what the flood story does, but I digress), then it can be proven true.
Now, KAB...if there is NO evidence that can only be explained by the flood story, and there IS evidence that contradicts it (though you try your damnedest to dismiss all of it, while clinging like a dead parrot's talons to anything that you think supports it), HAS IT BEEN PROVEN TRUE? Need something be proven false for it not to have been proven true? If it has not been proven true or false yet, does that mean it is impossible to do so? Are we at the ultimate apex of what humanity will ever and can ever learn? Unless there is nothing more we could possibly learn, you can't declare it impossible to prove true/false. Therefore, we must rely upon your standard as written, and we must agree that the flood story has NOT been proven true, which means the Bible does not meet your own criteria for reliability.
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.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#111975 Mar 10, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
You've already demonstrated that you don't understand science, so why should we act as though you do? You approach claims of natural phenomena in an anti-scientific way, you have your own anti-scientific standards of evidence, and you then fault science for not having caught up to you. Well, your approach hasn't demonstrated itself reliable at anything except duping suckers into handing over their money and teaching them who to hate. That's not science, though. As soon as you demonstrate that you understand science, you'll have a point. Until then, you're just sucking your thumb and rubbing your ear, trying to comfort yourself because of the reality around you that consciously you know contradicts your "faith." You need to be here, and constantly obfuscate and lie, to make yourself feel like a martyr defending the faith in front of the lions, and "quote me" is your comfort, your worry stone. Sad, sad little man. Reality is far more wondrous than the magical stories in your holy book.
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.
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.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#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.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#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.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#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.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#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.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#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?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#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.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#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?

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 Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 3 min Knowledge- 15,846
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 5 min Truth is might 201,142
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 39 min thetruth 40,370
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 2 hr ChristineM 90
Scientists create vast 3-D map of universe, val... Sat One way or another 6
The conscious God or the inanimate nature Sat Fear-God 8
Proof that all of Christianity is a lie Jul 21 THE LONE WORKER 41
More from around the web