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

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

There are 163763 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

United States

#112657 Mar 22, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
That which can repeatedly be corroborated by independent sources.
That works for me.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112659 Mar 22, 2013
You know what, we are sort of like a club here.
Lets call ourselves the the 'Darwin Crowd' Club.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112660 Mar 22, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
If confirmed points from a source are compelling enough, I'm always interested in further info from that source. I don't tend to just launch into a source without good reason (Ecclesiastes 12:12). There's more than enough confirmed good info, and we all have limited time. Is there a specific point from that source you want to share?

Least anyone miss it, KAB is backing away (see above).

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112661 Mar 22, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I knew you couldn't prove it. That's why I issued the challenge.

Can you prove it is satanic to play chess?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#112662 Mar 22, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Least anyone miss it, KAB is backing away (see above).
Second time today.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112663 Mar 22, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you give one example purportedly confirming that? If it withstands scrutiny you'll have something worth much more than just an assertion.

I have done so.

Where is YHWH used in original documents of the NT?

Where is Yahwah used in the NT of ANY LEGITIMATE translation of the bible?

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112664 Mar 22, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no argument with that, as long as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are remain on the list of possibles.

Would you consider it possible that this forum is a worldly source?

What do you make of 1 Tim 2:5 (from a real translation)?
LowellGuy

United States

#112665 Mar 22, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
What's your notion of a demonstrated reliable source. I think comparing notes is valuable in the interest of collective improvement.
Valid reasoning doesn't care about sources and reliability. It cares about the claim or argument at hand and the evidence that supports or refutes it. Valid reasoning does not consider the source of a claim as evidence of that claim's veracity.
LowellGuy

United States

#112666 Mar 22, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The theory makes a prediction: we may be lucky enough to find ape/hominid intermediate fossils.
These have been found.
They are intermediate not by any "interpretation", but by the fact that their measurable features - cranium size, dentition, location of the spine attachment, features of the skeleton, are measurably INTERMEDIATE (in between) apes and humans. Even better, the older ones are closer to ape and the newer ones closer to human, in a continuum now so gradual that there is often argument about which category new finds should be included with.
You can observe and replicate every single measurement of those fossils, every orbital lobe, every molar, every rib and pelvic girdle, to your heart's content. You will get the same results replicated.
Evolution predicted them, and explains them. Creationism neither expected them nor can explain them.
Thus by your own standards, the facts support evolution.
This is about when you go to PLAN B, and start prattling about Nebraska Man and a conspiracy of ongoing fraud across multiple countries and institutions of learning over many decades.
Give it up Marksman.
He's dug his heels on about the scientific method ever since Chimney ran him through an exercise that he suddenly realized would have resulted in admitting that the theory of evolution is scientifically valid. A pathetic little man. You're wasting your time discussing methodology with him.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112667 Mar 22, 2013
JW "bible VS Christian Bible

1 Tim 2:4-6

JW Bible
4whose will is that all sorts of men should be saved and come to an accurate knowledge of truth.
5For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus,
6who gave himself a corresponding ransom for alló[this is] what is to be witnessed to at its own particular times

[Oh, the contortions!]

NASB
who desires all men to be saved and to come to the [a]knowledge of the truth.
5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
6 who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony [b]given at [c]the proper time.

YLT
who doth will all men to be saved, and to come to the full knowledge of the truth;
5 for one [is] God, one also [is] mediator of God and of men, the man Christ Jesus,
6 who did give himself a ransom for all -- the testimony in its own times --
LowellGuy

United States

#112668 Mar 22, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I suspected you knew you couldn't confirm who wrote the gospels.
The evidence is against your claims of authorship. I don't need to show who did it to have a valid reason for rejecting your claim. Remember how I said you were using your own separate and useless rules of logic? That's it right there.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112669 Mar 22, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> Then please provide where this has been observed, tested, and replicated, which is demanded by the scientific method for a valid theory. I bet you can't!

How many articles and references do I need to provide you? You just ignore them and repeat your mantra because you cannot answer to the facts. What you make up are not facts.

Human evolution is observed.
Human evolution is tested.
Human evolution research has been replicated (I am glad you finally figured out how to spell replicated!)
All as demanded by the scientific method.

marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> Every doctor and scientist I know are creationists and reject Darwinism. Kindda blows your biases, huh?

Sounds like all the doctors and scientists you know (if any) know when it is a better idea to agree with a lunatic than to get into it with a crazy person.

Doctors are about 70% "evolutionists" among GP's. Among specialists about 80%.

Scientists with a Ph.D. are about 95% "evolutionists". With degrees in life science that goes up considerably.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112670 Mar 22, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>It doesn't matter what you "think". If you are such an authority on the design of life. Please relicate the origin of life. I bet you don't even understand the point I'm making, due to your inability to grant my request.

It doesn't matter what you "think". If you are such an authority on the design of life then please replicate (magic poof) the origin of life. I bet you don't even understand the point I'm making, due to your inability to grant my request.

I knew you didn't really know.
KAB

United States

#112671 Mar 22, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't be an idiot. How is that a restriction? It's simply one variable of the problem.
You seem to think that routing the wiring for your headlights through the rear bumper is a good idea. Sure, it can be done but it offers no benefit and DOES allow for more points of potential failure. Only a loony would think it s good idea.
Oh, wait! I forgot who I was talking to for a moment.
It's not a variable. It's a condition. Where's the variability in "without ANY benefit"?

I haven't yet thought of a good reason to route the headlight wiring thru the rear bumper, but then I'm not YHWH (i.e., not as knowledgeable).
KAB

United States

#112672 Mar 22, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you mean to call attention to your typical diversionary tactics of 'answering questions' with double talk and tangential questions or are you calling attention to the facts that there are an additional 44 books AFTER Ecclesiastes and that JW's aren't allowed to read apostate writings?
How do the books after Ecclesiastes relate to the issue? Also, the Bible allows me to do whatever I want, but it strongly recommends not doing certain things like wasting time with that which does not adhere to what is confirmed.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112673 Mar 22, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The start of the chapter states that JHWH was going to write it.

And then he deferred that responsibility to Moses.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#112674 Mar 22, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not a variable. It's a condition. Where's the variability in "without ANY benefit"?
It is consistent with the routing of nerve under discussion. IF you know of a benefit, spit it out.
KAB wrote:
I haven't yet thought of a good reason to route the headlight wiring thru the rear bumper, but then I'm not YHWH (i.e., not as knowledgeable).
Agreed.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112675 Mar 22, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I answered a restrictive question as posed. The restrictions are not applicable to the real situation, therefore the answer doesn't apply to the real situation. Logic is not even in your toolbox, but I see you have a blindfold!

Calling others out on your game? Really?

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112676 Mar 22, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you think the notion of a demonstrated reliable source is nonsense?

Can you give one example purportedly confirming that? If it withstands scrutiny you'll have something worth much more than just an assertion.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112677 Mar 22, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
the Bible allows me to do whatever I want, but it strongly recommends not doing certain things like wasting time with that which does not adhere to what is confirmed.

Does the bible say you can attend class reunions?

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 Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr Truth is might 222,761
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 4 hr River Tam 32,582
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 hr replaytime 79,965
What's your religion? 9 hr Zog Has-fallen 4
Life started in Tennessee proof. Sep 15 Science4life 1
Science News (Sep '13) Sep 8 Ricky F 4,001
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... Sep 7 Science 1,932
More from around the web