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

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

There are 154689 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

Wilson, NC

#112755 Mar 23, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Then stop acting like you know who it was or wasn't.
I just provide data, and question others lack of it, which in this case has lead us to the mutual acknowledgement that we don't have physical data confirmation of who wrote the gospels, although that's not what was asserted at the outset.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#112756 Mar 23, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
They are not in the Greek at all!
Why add words to the bible?
Proverbs 30:6
Deuteronomy 4:2
Deuteronomy 12:32
Psalms 119:160
Revelation 22:18-19
Again, this behavior is consistent with the behavior of the author (father) of lies.
More fun:
http://www.cftf.com/booklets/jwslisten/prophe...
It is common for renderings other than literal direct word-for-word, as in an interlinear work, to add or remove words to address differences between the languages with regard to achieving a translated result which makes sense in the translation language.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#112757 Mar 23, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Disband.
As I suspected, your assertion about actions was a joke, now confirmed. You see, confirming data is obtainable and can be provided real-time.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112758 Mar 23, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>That is what all of you guys say when cornered and can't provide the evidence demanded to support your own philosophies. If I'm a liar, then simply present a naturalistic path to the origin of life that is observable, testable, and replicatable, and of course, you can't.....SO I'M A LIAR!!!! Then present where a human has been observed evolving from a non-human, and where this observation has been tested, and replicated......and again you can't,....and because you can't.....I'M A LIAR!!! Prove me a liar and present these two requests, and if you can't, who's the liar?

I have done so many times. This is why you are force to avoid me.

You are more of a coward than a liar.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#112759 Mar 23, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It is readily recognized that meteorologists are not demonstrated reliable sources. In fact, their track record confirms quite the contrary. Also, what is the intended meaning of your last sentence? It is meaningless as written.
The veracity of any claim regarding natural phenomena, be it a weather forecast or a story about a year-long global flood. In the absence of corroborative empirical evidence, the claim is not accepted as true. Only when such evidence is presented is it ever accepted. That is, when using VALID logic and reasoning. Of course, you don't adhere to such rules. But, you'll deny that.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#112760 Mar 23, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Noah's flood is not admittedly unverified.
So, when you admitted you have no empirical evidence to support its occurrence, that was a lie?

You do recognize that "admittedly unverified" and "admittedly disproven" are not the same, right?

It is either confirmed or it is not confirmed. If it is not confirmed, it must be admittedly unconfirmed. Even if you don't admit it (which is merely lying at that point), it's still unconfirmed.

So, if it's not admittedly unconfirmed, that means it is confirmed, or that you refuse to admit that it has not been confirmed. Because you've admitted you have no empirical evidence to support the flood, it has not been confirmed. If you refuse to admit it's unconfirmed after admitting that it has not been confirmed, you're lying. Whether you admit it or not is irrelevant to whether it has been confirmed or not.

But, as long as you can avoid admitting that you've lied or been completely wrong, that's all that matters.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112761 Mar 23, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Noah's flood is not admittedly unverified.

Again, dropping out the double negative you are saying:

Noah's flood is admittedly verified.

That is a false statement and you know it.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112762 Mar 23, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You are correct that YEC doesn't explain the available data. Unfortunately, you didn't address demonstrated reliability from the standpoint of data but rather how you perceive such source generation might go awry. So, rather than test the results, as you scientifically should, you prematurely dismiss the notion based upon your biased imagining of the process of their production. You describe characteristics which sound very ape-like and declare them MEASURABLY intermediate between ape and human. Additionally, you didn't address variation in human and most similar non-human specimens. Finally, you draw your conclusion by comparing the absurd to the flawed, and then put your faulty analysis conclusion alongside YEC to make it really look good by comparison. I won't soon be calling on you for anything needing scientific analysis.

Sounds like you don't know what you are talking about and are just trying to doubletalk to keep yourself alive.

Nice job Mr. Cellophane.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#112765 Mar 23, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know how to create life, let alone the universe.
And you merely ASSUME 1: that your God exists, and 2: what your God knows. You don't know the mind of God. You have no way to demonstrate that you don't know anything your God doesn't know, much less that you don't know more about more things than your God does. So, other than your own assumptions and faulty reasoning, how do you know you're less knowledgeable than your God?

Or, put another way, if I don't know how to rebuild a transmission, does that mean my mechanic is more knowledgeable than I am? For that matter, if I can make the same claim you make about absolutely anything I choose to make up, and it has just as much evidence to support it, your claim is demonstrated meaningless.

Unicorns are more knowledgeable than I am, because I don't know how to distinguish virgins from non-virgins on sight. There. Your God and unicorns are now equals.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112766 Mar 23, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I just provide data, and question others lack of it, which in this case has lead us to the mutual acknowledgement that we don't have physical data confirmation of who wrote the gospels, although that's not what was asserted at the outset.

You provided data?

You provide less data than most of the rocks in my garden.

Thank you for your confession, however. It must have been hard for you to be honest considering your cult does not approve of honesty.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112767 Mar 23, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It is common for renderings other than literal direct word-for-word, as in an interlinear work, to add or remove words to address differences between the languages with regard to achieving a translated result which makes sense in the translation language.

Is that why you HONESTLY think that the highly educated, jw translation team added the words for that reason, when not one single other translation on the planet, renders the text that way?

And is this why 'Jehovah' was added to the N.T.?


Consider this to be your second honesty hurdle. I don't think you can get over it.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#112768 Mar 23, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I can. You cannot logic someone back from crazy ideas.
To expect human beings to be rational is not rational.
If we were able to be rational, with out it being imposed from outside, we would have no need for the scientific method.
JW's are some of the nicest people I have ever meet. And they are completely rational and logical on everyday matters. However when matters turn to religion they can only follow the company line with little deviations. The governing body rules all thought, and they have VERY limited ability to vary.

If they were to accept: no Jesus no flood, no exodus, no Adam and Eve, etc., or any one of the real problems with their Bible and how they practice their religion they would be dis-fellow-shipped, and that's not a good thing for them....unless they have no other family or relatives in 'the truth' and they really want out.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#112769 Mar 23, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
The veracity of any claim regarding natural phenomena, be it a weather forecast or a story about a year-long global flood. In the absence of corroborative empirical evidence, the claim is not accepted as true. Only when such evidence is presented is it ever accepted. That is, when using VALID logic and reasoning. Of course, you don't adhere to such rules. But, you'll deny that.
I accept info from demonstrated reliable sources as reliable unless proven otherwise. You do not.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#112770 Mar 23, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
So, when you admitted you have no empirical evidence to support its occurrence, that was a lie?
You do recognize that "admittedly unverified" and "admittedly disproven" are not the same, right?
It is either confirmed or it is not confirmed. If it is not confirmed, it must be admittedly unconfirmed. Even if you don't admit it (which is merely lying at that point), it's still unconfirmed.
So, if it's not admittedly unconfirmed, that means it is confirmed, or that you refuse to admit that it has not been confirmed. Because you've admitted you have no empirical evidence to support the flood, it has not been confirmed. If you refuse to admit it's unconfirmed after admitting that it has not been confirmed, you're lying. Whether you admit it or not is irrelevant to whether it has been confirmed or not.
But, as long as you can avoid admitting that you've lied or been completely wrong, that's all that matters.
I have not stated that there is no empirical evidence to support the flood, and I do know the difference between the "admittedlies". That's why I used the one and not the other.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#112771 Mar 23, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, dropping out the double negative you are saying:
Noah's flood is admittedly verified.
That is a false statement and you know it.
I don't know it to be a false statement, or I wouldn't make it. I'm not like you.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#112772 Mar 23, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>What am I judging that they've not even tried? Also....you can call it judging if you want, but it is clear when something is scientific and something is fantasy. Eclipses are scientific, time travel into the future is a fantasy. Sorry, but human from non-human evolution, and a naturalistic path to the origin of life are no less fantasies.
Um ... eclipses are not scientific, they are events.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#112773 Mar 23, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
And you merely ASSUME 1: that your God exists, and 2: what your God knows. You don't know the mind of God. You have no way to demonstrate that you don't know anything your God doesn't know, much less that you don't know more about more things than your God does. So, other than your own assumptions and faulty reasoning, how do you know you're less knowledgeable than your God?
Or, put another way, if I don't know how to rebuild a transmission, does that mean my mechanic is more knowledgeable than I am? For that matter, if I can make the same claim you make about absolutely anything I choose to make up, and it has just as much evidence to support it, your claim is demonstrated meaningless.
Unicorns are more knowledgeable than I am, because I don't know how to distinguish virgins from non-virgins on sight. There. Your God and unicorns are now equals.
What does your mechanic do, and how do you define unicorns relative to virgins?
KAB

Wilson, NC

#112774 Mar 23, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Is that why you HONESTLY think that the highly educated, jw translation team added the words for that reason, when not one single other translation on the planet, renders the text that way?
And is this why 'Jehovah' was added to the N.T.?
Consider this to be your second honesty hurdle. I don't think you can get over it.
I knew from the first time I read it that the bracketed words are not in the original language. That's the way it's done. Jehovah was added to the NT since Jesus and his first century followers would not have quoted Hebrew scriptures and substituted a title for Jesus' heavenly father's name. The non-copying would have been done by (non)copyists.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#112775 Mar 23, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>What am I judging that they've not even tried? Also....you can call it judging if you want, but it is clear when something is scientific and something is fantasy. Eclipses are scientific, time travel into the future is a fantasy. Sorry, but human from non-human evolution, and a naturalistic path to the origin of life are no less fantasies.
Evolution IS pretty much proven my friend. It just hasn't sunk in yet.

The fact that we could (and did) mate and produce viable and fertile offspring with the Neanderthals means that we came from the same line of Homo species. Deny all you want, but it is fact.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#112777 Mar 24, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I accept info from demonstrated reliable sources as reliable unless proven otherwise. You do not.
Right. I follow the rules of valid logic and reason, which demand that every claim be taken individually and on its own merits. You don't care about valid logic and reason. You have your own, generally useless, version of logic and reason, because the widely-held established understanding of how logic and reason work will not allow you to rationalize away the lack of corroborative evidence for the stories in the Bible. You need some reason that sounds good, and might fool the naïve and uneducated, that you can repeat so you don't have to examine your beliefs and how they defy rational skepticism. In other words, as long as you can say you have a reason, no matter how bullshit that reason may be, that's good enough to justify believing absolutely anything as long as it comes from the Bible (and nowhere else). That a Muslim can (and they do) just as easily make claims about the Koran as you do about the Bible, and have just as much evidence to back it up, demonstrates the fallacy of your "logic." That you ignore this fact, this violation of valid logic, and maintain that your logic is sound and your conclusions reasonable, demonstrates that you don't care about whether your reasoning is sound at all. You just need something that will reassure you that demonstrable reality is wrong and the Bible is right.

Notice you didn't bother actually addressing my post. You merely stated a fact (which, in itself, demonstrates your inability to admit error or even understand how logic works). But, go on...keep lying to yourself, if that's all you've got to make yourself feel good about life. It's sad that you have to lie to yourself, but some people need it. Tell yourself that what we see is something other than what it is. Tell yourself that reality isn't real unless the Bible specifically declares it so, and that if the Bible declares something that contradicts reality, the Bible's claim takes precedence. Yes, keep lying to yourself, if that's all that gets you through the day. Don't ever question why you have to lie to yourself, though. That would free you from the cult.

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) 17 min Richardfs 48,556
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 3 hr Snap 216,714
Richard Dawkins tells the truth 8 hr Timmee 9
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 9 hr Into The Night 23,503
Science News (Sep '13) 14 hr _Susan_ 3,985
Might life have spontaneously have started mill... Sun The Northener 642
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) Dec 3 Aura Mytha 179,707
More from around the web