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

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

There are 152102 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.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#112351 Mar 18, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Tens of thousands of skeptics' points tested and not even one purported document error confirmed.
BS

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112352 Mar 18, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
While conveniently ignoring that which is demonstrated wrong.

He is deep in denial. He is completely bamboozled by his cult and is really not in a place where he can see reality. To us his rationalizations are nuts, but in his mind they are the very voice of reason.
KAB

United States

#112353 Mar 18, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
In terms of the hypothesis of Neanderthal interbreeding with modern humans? Definitely not, as follows.
Scenario One: Neanderthals did not survive the flood. If not, then the mixing had to be before the flood. Yet the mixture is NOT found in all humans, and excludes black Africans. Not possible that the intermixing of the tiny group of survivors and all of their offspring could preserve these separate lines. Not to mention yet another example, the mixing with Denisovan Man found only in parts of East Asia.
Scenario Two: Neanderthals and Denisovans somehow survived the Flood along with Noah and his family. How? Where? Not possible either.
Give it five minute thought before your knee jerk reaction.
Could not have happened.
The ancient Goat Herders got this one wrong.
There you go again, unexplained/unconfirmed assertion,

"Not possible that the intermixing of the tiny group of survivors and all of their offspring could preserve these separate lines."

Perhaps we'll find you got it wrong, and the goatherders were right. Where would that put you in the rankings?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112354 Mar 18, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Then stop making unconfirmed assertions about it, and I won't feel compelled to set the record straight. I have no objection to you posting what you think about something if you state it as such. When you assert that something unconfirmed is so, that's another matter.

His "assertions" have been confirmed. You are the only one in denial of them.

You assert that the bible is a "demonstrated reliable source" yet you cannot demonstrate that it is reliable. In fact you have failed to answer most of the concerns posted about it. What you have answered has been childlike (e.g. Pi is 3 when rounded to whole numbers).

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112355 Mar 18, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The minimum requirement of the original Hebrew language passage is that plants began on day 3. Note, non-flowering plants aren't specifically mentioned anywhere. That's a clue to proper understanding.

No, that is a clue to how to rationalize. You are very good at that, no doubt. But what is not there is simply not there. Assuming you know the mind of god (presuming you believe god had a had in it) is not a way to convince anyone but yourself.

Are you behind on your brainwashing quota? What is the standard for bringing in aspiring cult members?

I wonder why logical people are not flocking to you?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112356 Mar 18, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Neither does the Bible in the sense you are using it.

Odds my botkins, I think I just provided you a list of verses where it claims pretty much exactly that, just yesterday!


macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>I don't claim omniscience.
KAB

United States

#112357 Mar 18, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Quoting the Bible is not confirmation of anything you assert, unless you are merely asserting that the Bible says something.
It seems you have trouble understanding this. Yet you have no trouble with the idea that just because Mormons or Muslims assert something form their "proven word of God" books, you can easily reject it. Just add one more book to the list.
I understand perfectly. I only quote the Bible to confirm what it says. Given your side's posture up to now, I'm surprised you even acknowledge the validity of that. On the other hand, you obviously are blinded to it when you see it day after day.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112358 Mar 18, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Tens of thousands of skeptics' points tested and not even one purported document error confirmed.

This must be counted as a lie.

Name one case where you successfully (by the standards of others, not yourself) defended the bible even once?

Actually, your record is abysmal. Your best was the bit about fowl/birds, but you never responded to my attempt at disambiguation. In fewer words, you ran away.


“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112359 Mar 18, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
There you go again, unexplained/unconfirmed assertion,
"Not possible that the intermixing of the tiny group of survivors and all of their offspring could preserve these separate lines."
Perhaps we'll find you got it wrong, and the goatherders were right. Where would that put you in the rankings?

Oh, another KAB blunder. Sometimes you have the sense to ignore a post when you get busted. Other times you wade right in.

If you had anything you would spell it out. But you seldom have the guts to spell things out. Why is that? Maybe you know, deep down, that you are screwed.

To add insult to injury there is no genetic bottleneck in humans in the last 70,000 years.



Point to Chimney. There is no way to rationalize a global flood vs. the genetic facts.


Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
In terms of the hypothesis of Neanderthal interbreeding with modern humans? Definitely not, as follows.
Scenario One: Neanderthals did not survive the flood. If not, then the mixing had to be before the flood. Yet the mixture is NOT found in all humans, and excludes black Africans. Not possible that the intermixing of the tiny group of survivors and all of their offspring could preserve these separate lines. Not to mention yet another example, the mixing with Denisovan Man found only in parts of East Asia.
Scenario Two: Neanderthals and Denisovans somehow survived the Flood along with Noah and his family. How? Where? Not possible either.
Give it five minute thought before your knee jerk reaction.
Could not have happened.
The ancient Goat Herders got this one wrong.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112360 Mar 18, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand perfectly. I only quote the Bible to confirm what it says. Given your side's posture up to now, I'm surprised you even acknowledge the validity of that. On the other hand, you obviously are blinded to it when you see it day after day.

You seem to have been rattled. Maybe you want to redo the above post if, that is, there was actually meant to be a point in there.
KAB

United States

#112361 Mar 18, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Narrowing the timeframe for the big bang is a result of our ability to far more accurately measure tiny variations in the background radiation field (CMBR) than before. These variations match with calculations of the BB and inflation timed at this point, together with mathematical calculations of the initial field intensity and the time it had to take for that intensity to dim to present levels.
The CMBR was created when the expanding universe cooled to an average temp that allowed hydrogen atoms to form from previously separated protons and electrons. When that happened, the universe went from opaque to transparent, and high energy photons could travel through space...and it occurs at a precise known temperature. Putting together the current temp of the CMBR with the amount of expansion occurring in the post-inflationary period, we can extrapolate the starting time with higher accuracy now.
Trying to fit all this into the 10,000 year timeframe is just one more YEC absurdity, along with...
- the observable universe with light travelling for billions of years to reach us
- sedimentation on Earth that could not have occurred within the timeframe
- magnetic reversals showing hundreds of millions of years of activity
- geological formations such as the Deccan Traps showing periods of massive volcanic activity that had to take hundreds of thousands of years each
- progressive change in the fossil record that could not conceivably occur in 10,000 years nor be explained by any rising flood water scenario
And really that is just the tip of the icebrg...speaking of which...ice cores in the Antarctic with annual deposits extending back at least 700,000 years...overlying the usual strata we find in other parts of the world.
Yes, we see laughable attempts at special pleading by "YECs" for all of these, and note that not only do they rely on quote mining and distortion of science, but there one-off explanations for each phenomenon are NOT mutually consistent with each other!
On the other hand, the above facts all converge to form a coherent view of the universe that makes sense wherever we look.
While I still prefer that you provide confirming data/references and one point at a time, I am familiar with enough of the topics you mention to agree with you.
KAB

United States

#112362 Mar 18, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
You are obviously lying again. How could animal live for a day (which in your mind is at least millions of years) without plants?
The Hebrew is your problem, not your friend. You must think that a large garbage track is actually a bible!
You are odd so there is at least you at odds here.
Hello.
Flowering plants, not ALL plants, are the current topic under consideration.

Are you OK Doc? You've been posting lately like you're losing your mind. Bob's thinks maybe you should see a shrink.
KAB

United States

#112363 Mar 18, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
While conveniently ignoring that which is demonstrated wrong.
Please provide an example, data not assertion.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#112364 Mar 18, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
He is deep in denial. He is completely bamboozled by his cult and is really not in a place where he can see reality. To us his rationalizations are nuts, but in his mind they are the very voice of reason.
Which is exactly why I wrote him off as a loony a long time ago.

No errors in the bible? Hell, the bible doesn't even agree with itself let alone reality.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#112365 Mar 18, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Please provide an example, data not assertion.
It's been done. Repeatedly. I'm not going to waste my time posting it again. You'll just hand wave, make some ridiculous justification or outright lie. As you just did above.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#112366 Mar 18, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
There you go again, unexplained/unconfirmed assertion,
"Not possible that the intermixing of the tiny group of survivors and all of their offspring could preserve these separate lines."
Perhaps we'll find you got it wrong, and the goatherders were right. Where would that put you in the rankings?
See what I mean? It's not an "unexplained/unconfirmed assertion". We have the DNA analysis. And you *know* that.
LowellGuy

United States

#112367 Mar 18, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
As virtually always, your words, not mine.
Your God knows when you lie.
LowellGuy

United States

#112368 Mar 18, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
If God exists, the answer is 100%. If God doesn't exist the answer is a zero-brainer.
Now, what is the likelihood of ANY supernatural beings existing?

Then, what is the likelihood of your God existing?
KAB

United States

#112369 Mar 18, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
No, that is a clue to how to rationalize. You are very good at that, no doubt. But what is not there is simply not there. Assuming you know the mind of god (presuming you believe god had a had in it) is not a way to convince anyone but yourself.
Are you behind on your brainwashing quota? What is the standard for bringing in aspiring cult members?
I wonder why logical people are not flocking to you?
What is not there in the text is there in reality. Apparently, the Genesis references are more representative than exhaustive.

Regarding distribution of logical people, you needn't wonder. All your side's people are on the outside, and it's been rather significantly revealed how logical they are.
KAB

United States

#112370 Mar 18, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Odds my botkins, I think I just provided you a list of verses where it claims pretty much exactly that, just yesterday!
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>I don't claim omniscience.
It wasn't a comprehensive list. It didn't include statements identifying what God didn't know. I don't think the word omniscience is even in the Bible, is it?

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 replaytime 45,423
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 4 min Dogen 209,452
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 35 min ATHEOI 20,222
America evolving into lockdown on purpose 9 hr Dogen 68
New law to further hatred towards police Sat One way or another 4
Hillary, a taco stand on every corner Sat One way or another 4
News A better theory of intelligent design Fri Chazofsaints 21
More from around the web