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

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

There are 150642 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

#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?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112710 Mar 22, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
That's one possible way to understand it, but it unnecessarily puts passages in contradiction. What would drive someone to do that?

The contradiction is there. What would drive someone to the crazy rationalizations you have to go through to maintain your world view?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112711 Mar 22, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The Bible doesn't address class reunions specifically. The closest it gets is its provision of principles addressing one's associations.

.... and the JW cult? What do they say about attending a class reunion?

I believe they are rather specific on this point.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112712 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.

Done been refuted.

Your repeating something that has been clearly been refuted is dishonest. Is clearer words, you are lying.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112713 Mar 22, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>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.

Again, a lie.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112714 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.

A triumvirate of lies. You are on fire. Or maybe you just will be.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#112715 Mar 22, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I've given mine. You back away from it pretty quick.
BTW, Can you show me in the bible where it says to give false prophets a second or third (50th) chance to get it right?
Is it true that your overlords now have a rule AGAINST prophecy?
You seem to be avoiding these questions. That's cool, you're still in the Darwin Crowd Club.
Remember, you've established yourself as persona-non-trusta. We can only believe you when you present tense provide the confirming data. Don't forget what they say about making your bed.

You likely are making the common mistake of confusing prophecy with attempting to understand prophecy.

I don't know of any prophecy in the Biblical sense that Jehovah's Witnesses have initiated.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#112716 Mar 22, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you confirm why does the New World Translation insert the word “other” four times into Colossians chapter 1 when it isn’t in the Greek manuscripts at all?
Doesn’t this change the meaning of the text?
Isn't this fraud?
Isn't the response that you want to send but won't actually more double talk?
It's bracketed in open acknowledgement that it's not literally in the Greek manuscript(s).
KAB

Wilson, NC

#112717 Mar 22, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
That wasn't data, KAB. It was just another Bible quote.
It was data for comparing a passage from at least 3 different versions of the Bible.
LowellGuy

Salem, MA

#112718 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.
Why did you back out of the scientific method exercise with chimney a while back? I mean, we all know, but it would be nice, even if you can't admit it to us, if you could admit it to yourself.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#112719 Mar 22, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
No I don't pray to Jesus, nor does 1 Tim. 2:5 direct that such be done.
LowellGuy

Salem, MA

#112720 Mar 22, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Aside from that, do you accept that a source could be demonstrated to be reliable?
It could, but that doesn't mean anything out of that source is accepted based solely upon that. Valid logic does not accept that as a form of evidence. Meteorologists can predict the weather within 2 degrees, but that doesn't make the tv weatherman's forecast true. Evidence, empirical evidence, does that. Natural phenomena are only demonstrated with empirical evidence.
LowellGuy

Salem, MA

#112721 Mar 22, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
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).
How do you know you're not as knowledgeable? Other than your own assumptions and faulty logic, that is.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#112722 Mar 22, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
The contradiction is there. What would drive someone to the crazy rationalizations you have to go through to maintain your world view?
It's done in a spirit of objectivity and fairness.
LowellGuy

Salem, MA

#112723 Mar 22, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
What logic accepts an admittedly unverified claim as if it was verified?
Such as Noah's flood?

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#112724 Mar 22, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Such as Noah's flood?
Can you believe that KAB is still holding onto the flood story??

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#112725 Mar 23, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps we could use your notion of a demonstrated reliable source. What is it?
Demonstrated and reliability are both continua, being achieved by degrees.

An assertion by a single individual with no physical evidence is just about zero "I was abducted by aliens!!!"

An assertion reported by a few eye witnesses also with no physical evidence in support rates low, esp given what we know about the unreliability of eye witnesses AND the known tendency for groups to reach a group hysteria and reinforce their claims and their actual memories of events with a narrative that they wish to believe.

An assertion reported and documented with open access to the underlying measurements and skeptical / critical review by knowledgeable peers, is more reliable (e.g. this jaw bone contains teeth similar in shape to humans but the molars are 50% larger than the largest found in humans" "Does it? Show me you measurements! Show me the molar in the specimen!")

A fact not only reported and documented with open access to the underlying measurements and critical review by knowledgeable peers, but corroborated by independent lines of evidence, is well demonstrated and highly reliable e.g.:

"1. We have now found 15 fossils with outsized molars that also share other anomalies - massive brow ridge, no forehead, receding chin, small cranial capacity.
2. We have found them in strata deeper and older than ANY strata in which we have found modern human remains. The demonstrated and reliable conclusion is that this configuration was the hominid norm at the time and the specimens belong to a species of human NOT H. sapiens. Where other skeletal remains have been found, they also show some significant differences with modern humans"

0.1% confidence in the first alien claim

99% confidence in the claims based on measurements of the 15 fossils. Still no "evolution" yet, by the way. Just documentation of observations.

Now, the next step: explaining the claims.

We explain the solo alien claim by reference to psychological delusion as by far the most likely.

And we explain the presence of a strange hominid species with features MEASURABLY intermediate between ape and human by reference to the theory that explains it and predicted it: evolution.

We ask if an alternative theory such as YEC creationism either predicted these finds or can explain them credibly. The answer is NO, and NO.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#112726 Mar 23, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Intermediate - in between.

Measurably. Observably. Repeatably.

If the average human cranial capacity is 1350cc and the average ape capacity is 400cc, then any skull with a capacity of say 700cc is by definition INTERMEDIATE in this respect.

That does not prove that one is transitional to the other. But the 700cc skull is definitely intermediate.

Same goes with forehead size, tooth shapes, chin shape, etc. They are intermediate if they lie between human and ape.

A succession of skulls in the right strata showing intermediate differences between ape and human have been found. The earliest are closer to ape, but not quite ape. The later are closer to human, but not quite human. The succession is now so complete that one differs from the next by very small degrees.

This by itself is pure fact. You can check it with a tape measure.

Now we get to the "interpretation" part.

What theory both predicted and explains how those skulls got to be where they are? Evolution.

What theory has no explanation and certainly did not predict or expect they would be found? Biblical Creationism.

That is science, whether you like it or not, as understood by the National Academy of Sciences, by philosophers of science, by scientists, and by anyone who understands science.

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) 13 min Uncle Sam 11,692
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr jollyroger 195,613
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr Thinking 29,551
Humans Performing Dentistry 8000 Years Before F... 17 hr MIDutch 1
Science News (Sep '13) Tue scientia potentia... 3,621
News Exposing the impotence of the Neo-Darwinian theory (Jan '15) Tue asar 12
Posting for Points in the Evolution Forum (Oct '11) Tue ChristineM 14,570
More from around the web