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

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

There are 141472 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

#112690 Mar 22, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
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)?
I don't consider forums sources at all, possibly indirect conduits to some sources. Most forums I've seen don't even provide enough source references to be useful, overwhelmingly just assertions, similar to your side of this forum.

I make of 1 Tim. 2:5 rather exactly what it states.
KAB

United States

#112691 Mar 22, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Aside from that, do you accept that a source could be demonstrated to be reliable?
KAB

United States

#112692 Mar 22, 2013
Dogen wrote:
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 all—[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 --
Thanks for the data.
KAB

United States

#112693 Mar 22, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
What logic accepts an admittedly unverified claim as if it was verified?

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#112694 Mar 22, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for the data.
That wasn't data, KAB. It was just another Bible quote.
KAB

United States

#112695 Mar 22, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
And then he deferred that responsibility to Moses.
That's one possible way to understand it, but it unnecessarily puts passages in contradiction. What would drive someone to do that?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#112696 Mar 22, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>No, as usual you are coming to an idiotic conclusion based on your inability to argue the point.
What point? Since the theory of evolution is science, using the exact same methods as all science, the same process, and more supporting evidence than any other science, when you say it's invalid, you are saying ALL science is invalid.
KAB

United States

#112697 Mar 22, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Does the bible say you can attend class reunions?
The Bible doesn't address class reunions specifically. The closest it gets is its provision of principles addressing one's associations.

Level 1

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#112698 Mar 22, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Marky Boy, I readily admit that the convolutions, concoctions and contortions y'all whip up to promote creationism are far more "creative" than anything I'm likely to come up with.
You just twist what historical acounts you need to twist to justify a terribly flawed, unscientific, and biased philosophy!!
So now it's my fault that you guys, nor science can account for a naturalistic origin to life? It's my fault that your philosophy is flawed because it isn't observable, testable, or replicatable? If you'll notice, I'm not here supporting and arguing about creation. It is a matter of faith. I am distroying the philosophy of human from non-human evolution by clearly pointing out that it isn't science. Never was, and never will be. With that said, and clearly correct and on display, the above statement kindda also displays your ignorance and disconnect with the truth, and reality.

Level 1

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#112699 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.
You hope they have been found. You don't know that they have been found, and what has been found is interpreted no matter how much you whine otherwise. If it was as rock solid as you like to infer, there would be no scientists opposing human from non-human evolution. There are many and highly qualified in their fields. SO you can take this to some one who believes you. I don't buy it for a second, and there is no emperical evidence that doesn't require interpretation without views on both sides that emperically supports you. When will you learn that fossils can not show heritage? All they can do is be interpreted to show such by people who are biased towards such things.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#112700 Mar 22, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>So now it's my fault that you guys, nor science can account for a naturalistic origin to life? It's my fault that your philosophy is flawed because it isn't observable, testable, or replicatable? If you'll notice, I'm not here supporting and arguing about creation. It is a matter of faith. I am distroying the philosophy of human from non-human evolution by clearly pointing out that it isn't science. Never was, and never will be. With that said, and clearly correct and on display, the above statement kindda also displays your ignorance and disconnect with the truth, and reality.
You have judged whether they can find evidence supporting something before they have even tried. That's not scientific at all.

Level 1

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#112701 Mar 22, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
What point? Since the theory of evolution is science, using the exact same methods as all science, the same process, and more supporting evidence than any other science, when you say it's invalid, you are saying ALL science is invalid.
Your premise is flawed in the first sentence. The theory of human from non-human evolution is not science. It is psuedoscience and a fantasy. It is not observable, testable, or replicatable. SO your conclusion that all science must be flawed is wrong. Only wrong is your claim that human from non-human evolution is science, when clearly, by definition, it is not.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#112702 Mar 22, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Your premise is flawed in the first sentence. The theory of human from non-human evolution is not science. It is psuedoscience and a fantasy. It is not observable, testable, or replicatable. SO your conclusion that all science must be flawed is wrong. Only wrong is your claim that human from non-human evolution is science, when clearly, by definition, it is not.
Just making your claims, does not make you honest. You have had this explained to you so many times, that you are just lying.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#112703 Mar 22, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Not even close. You are not even in the ball Park!!!
What are you disagreeing with?

Your Jehovah was the Jewish deity, yes?

Jesus, his son and your saviour, was Jewish, yes?

Moslems believe in that same deity, yes?

They also believe in that Jesus, yes?

You believe in all that stuff, too, yes?

I fail to detect the problem.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#112704 Mar 22, 2013
Dogen wrote:
KAB
Who runs the Watchtower?
Does the Watchtower actually teach Jehovah's Witnesses to cover-up or lie about certain facts, even in court?
If another JW lies are you required to repeat the lie?
Now, if the bible teaches (John 8:44) "you belong to your father, the devil,.... not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
Does that not mean the true leader of the Watchtower is Satan? Where am I going wrong in my logic?
Are you practicing "Theocratic War" in our club?
You could discern the answers to all your questions by carefully studying the Bible.

As in the first century, a body of "older men" "runs" the "Watchtower".

The Bible's position on lying is the direction given.

No to repeating another JWs lie.

Where you went wrong in your logic is in not applying any. You just asked questions. Any logic would have to be applied to the answers.

You'd have to clarify what you mean by Theocratic War for me to properly answer that one (Ephesians 6:11-17).
KAB

Oxford, NC

#112705 Mar 22, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
(Jehovah's Witnesses)
<quoted text>
"What, however, is the effect when spiritual “guidance” becomes
mental domination, even spiritual tyranny? What happens when the
desirable qualities of unity and order are substituted for by demands for institutionalized conformity and by legalistic regimentation? What results when proper respect for authority is converted into servility, unquestioning submission, an abandonment of personal responsibility before God to make decisions based on individual conscience?"
"The organizational character and spirit manifest in
the 1980s, continued essentially unchanged in the 1990s, and remains the same in this year 2004.
Perhaps the greatest value in seeing this is, I feel, that it can
help us discern more clearly what the fundamental issues were in
the days of Jesus Christ and his apostles, and understand why and
how a tragic deviation from their teachings and example came, so
subtly, with such relative ease, in so brief a span of time." - Raymond Franz, JW GB member 1971 - 1980 Disfellowshipped, 1980.
On 18 March 1981 Franz's employer in Alabama submitted a letter of disassociation from Jehovah's Witnesses. A Watchtower article on 15 September 1981 announced a change of policy on disassociation, directing that those who formally withdrew from the religion were to be treated by Witnesses as a disfellowshipped wrongdoer.- Wikipedia
I see no logical correlation between the actions of the Governing Board of your sect and any remotest notion that it is run "the way Jesus would have run it."
What specific actions do you have in mind?
KAB

Oxford, NC

#112706 Mar 22, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
It confirms that the author is unknown.
[I hope I used small enough words]
Then stop acting like you know who it was or wasn't.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112707 Mar 22, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't consider forums sources at all, possibly indirect conduits to some sources. Most forums I've seen don't even provide enough source references to be useful, overwhelmingly just assertions, similar to your side of this forum.
I make of 1 Tim. 2:5 rather exactly what it states.

Are you prepared to be disfellowshiped for what you make of 1 tim?

So you pray to Jesus to mediated between yourself and God. That is interesting.

Can I get you full name and the name of your JW handler to send a copy of this email to?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112708 Mar 22, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for the data.

Since you are about to be disfellowshiped from the watchtower cult, how do you now feel about the lying sacks of chit they are. Just providing another example of their lying.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112709 Mar 22, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
What logic accepts an admittedly unverified claim as if it was verified?

What logic accepts a claim the bible does not even make?

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) 53 min lozzza 19,142
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr Subduction Zone 164,702
proof of gods existence .....or lack there of 2 hr dirtclod 103
How would creationists explain... (Nov '14) 17 hr MikeF 490
When is Quote Mining Justified? Sun Zog Has-fallen 28
Christian Theology and the Natural Sciences are... Sat Zog Has-fallen 1
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) May 30 UncommonSense2015 178,619
More from around the web