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

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

There are 161443 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 Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112512 Mar 20, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
What oral version? The presumed one yet to be confirmed?

So you are saying that the Gospels were written the day after the events they narrate by 1st person, eye witnesses?
KAB

United States

#112513 Mar 20, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
The question wasn't directed to me but to you. However...
Having engineered many things over more years than I care to think about, with all other parameters being equal, a 15 foot connection over a 3 inch connection would never be considered a good engineering practice as it allows for more points of failure without any offsetting benefit.
Does "all other parameters being equal" mean ignoring everything except what is about to be provided, in which case anything provided is pre-defined as correct unless it is unrealizable?
KAB

United States

#112514 Mar 20, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
As you agreed that no originals exist and have acknowledged that errors could have occurred prior to the oldest existent copies it would seem that you are already on board. You trying to jump off a moving train?
Not unless "could" means "did".

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112515 Mar 20, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I saw the double negative and properly responded to it. You responded with a logical fallacy. Something which is not confirmed may still be so. Isn't that so? Specifically, not confirmed to be inerrant could still be inerrant, couldn't it?

"not confirmed to be inerrant could still be inerrant"

--=/=-

Dropping out the double negative on one side of the equation leaves us with

'confirmed to be errant could still be inerrant'

You really seem rattled today.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#112516 Mar 20, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Does "all other parameters being equal" mean ignoring everything except what is about to be provided, in which case anything provided is pre-defined as correct unless it is unrealizable?
It means what it says. If you can't counter me then STFU. I don't need your idiotic word salad.
KAB

United States

#112517 Mar 20, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Blankly declaring something to be a dataless assertion is, in itself, a dataless assertion.
How often have I razzed you about doing this?
My dataless assertion assertions are not dataless since the data (i.e., post being answered) is right there in my post showing that it is dataless. Thanks for reminding everyone that you have made and regularly repeated this mistake. Bob says he thinks you'll continue to do it. He says his shrink told him you would continue. Do you know what the connection is there?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112518 Mar 20, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
To the extent possible, the NWT draws on info which predates the Catholic councils. That includes the canon itself.

This is a common JW lie, but it has been show to be untrue in many of the references I have given you. Much of the text is not even taken from the oldest sources readily available.

You could investigate this yourself if you had an honest cell in your body. You claim to want to know the truth, but do you really? Then what not look at the references I have given you on the JW bible?

I will provide them again upon request. When you are given data and don't use it then I cannot take your demands for data very seriously.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112519 Mar 20, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, get real with some confirming data for your assertions. "Confirmation" and "real" are rather closely realated, don't you think?

Not to you. You are a typical cultist in every way.

When you believe something, all the evidence points that way. But the evidence never points that way if you don't have the belief or a desire to believe.

There is not a cultist on the planet who does not think their religion is perfect, or nearly so, and can show you the evidence to "prove it".

The cult tactic it to show the potential brainwashee only snip-its of evidence that can (in absentia of larger reality) be added up only one way.

Once there is buy-in it is difficult to ever get them to see reality.


“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112520 Mar 20, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
YHWH??? Give me a break. He can't even keep his translations straight. What makes you think he could do any better with the oral version?

Even the two versions of the 10 commandments in the bible do not agree.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments...

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#112521 Mar 20, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Insufficient info for a valid engineering assessment, but then you are so not technically saavy.
Wait, did you just say LowellGuy knows nothing about biology? Are you really saying that?

Oh, and are you equating biological organisms to technology? Please say you are.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#112522 Mar 20, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Does "all other parameters being equal" mean ignoring everything except what is about to be provided, in which case anything provided is pre-defined as correct unless it is unrealizable?
Do you speak English?
KAB

United States

#112523 Mar 20, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Show them to me. Or is this a dataless assertion.
Does you cult obey the all the commandments?
Or do they sort of skip over one of them?(actually they skip over a few of them but that is a story for another day).
Right now we are looking for just one commandment that the JWs do not observe.
Hint:
http://www.reasoningwithjehovahswitnesses.com...
No. The Ten Commandments per se, as part of the law given thru Moses, are not binding upon Christians. However, most of them are separately enjoined upon Christians thru other Bible passages.
KAB

United States

#112524 Mar 20, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Hiding again behind a moot point to avoid the real point?
Cannot you respond to the words of ChromiuMan?
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet - the same books, chapters and verses. If I say look up Matt. 7:3 you will read essentially the same thing regardless of the version or edition (not that you actually abide by Matt. 7:3, of course). For all of your protestations of veracity and earliest confirmed sources, all the NWT actually accomplishes is to reword the texts of the Catholic Bible to suit your denomination. So again, are you going to brush up on your Spanish to better understand your new Pope?
I answered the "heart" of his post in a previous post before he went chapter-and-verse on me. So this time I just addressed the new content.
KAB

United States

#112525 Mar 20, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Seems if the verse is wrong then it is wrong. It hangs below the southern or equatorial sky just as much as the northern. So the verse is wrong and you just demonstrated another Error in the bible. Thanks for the help, but we don't need any.
Taken at face value it appears that Job was written long after the nature of the earth being round was known.
How does just what's written in the Bible (i.e., face value) lead to the conclusion that Job was written long after round Earth was known?
KAB

United States

#112526 Mar 20, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Clearly not.
You don't accept reason and logic as valid info?
KAB

United States

#112527 Mar 20, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
That has not been demonstrated.
It's been in process constantly for a long time without a hitch.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#112528 Mar 20, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you speak English?
He sorta does.

What he doesn't do is rational.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#112529 Mar 20, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand. You expect your assertions to be accepted as correct but won't provide confirming data, but don't accept the assertion that God exists. One could hardly be more objective than that!
Oh, so you DO have evidence that your God exists? Other than circular reasoning, of course.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#112530 Mar 20, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Insufficient info for a valid engineering assessment, but then you are so not technically saavy.
There's a time when it's more intelligent/efficient to use 60x the length of nerve to connect the brain to something 3 inches away? Fascinating. Please, tell us of such a time. Also, if you resort to embryology, why couldn't your God simply make animals in such a way that they don't need such a long nerve? An omnipotent and omniscient God surely would have plenty of time and would not be incapable of just doing so. Of course, you can always fall back on "God works in mysterious ways." After all, that covers up pretty much every ridiculous failure of the Bible, doesn't it? Yeah, it does.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#112531 Mar 20, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey, he wrote the original ten commandments himself.
Sure, if you simply accept everything the Bible says as true.

I'd love to watch you and a Muslim apologist discuss the mutually exclusive perfection of your holy books until the two of you implode upon each other.

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 John 30,272
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 8 min John 70,303
Do alleged ERVs confirm common descent? 1 hr pshun2404 41
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 2 hr Paul Scott 3,808
G-d versus Evolution? 6 hr Subduction Zone 29
Known human ancestors (Nov '16) Fri Paul Scott 49
Mathematicians PROVED evolution IMPOSSIBLE! Fri Paul Scott 146
More from around the web