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

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

There are 162511 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

#112803 Mar 24, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
No data
No dice.
This is another dodge. Answering questions with question is usually a dodge and it is one of your favorites.
Grow a pair an answer questions!
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.
I don't tend to answer ill-defined questions, especially when they're ill-willed. I seek clarification first to reduce the chances of the answers being mis-understood/misapplied such that the opposition derives a false sense of comfort from them. Check the record, and you will find that I always answer the questions once the clarifications are in order.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#112804 Mar 24, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Unsupported assertions and assumptions.
The reality is that it suited your cult to use the (false) name Jehovah whenever it suited them. 1st Century Jews would not have used the name YHWH (except by the high priest in the Holy of Holies).
If the scriptures were originally written in Latin (certainly true for most if not all the NT books) then the Latin rendering it the ORIGINAL and correct one.
Another lie the JWs tell. How many is that now?
I've suspected all along that you had little accurate knowledge of the Bible. Well, the genie's all the way out of that bottle now! The scriptures originally written in Latin?! I wouldn't normally suggest Wikipedia, but I'm sure even it has this one correctly understood. I still recommend you find appropriate data, not just conclusions or summary statements.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#112805 Mar 24, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Claiming a miracle occurred 2000 years ago, you have only ONE source, a book, and its not verifiable by any current physical evidence at all. So in assessing the claim, what else are we supposed to go on?
<quoted text>
IN the case of biblical myths, there is no possible test for the "results". There are only tales that you accept on faith and I do not. How do you test whether "God stopped the sun in the sky" for a day 3000 years ago?
Where we HAVE tested the results - looking for evidence of a world wide flood, for example, we come up with evidence AGAINST the truth of your so called "reliable source".
Fine, go with it, but stop being so dishonest as to pretend you have "data" from a "known reliable source" on your side. You don't, and we have already proven that. Keep the faith brother, its all you have.
<quoted text>
Yes, because if you take instruments and MEASURE them, they are IN BETWEEN ape parameters and modern human parameters.
<quoted text>
I have many times, but cannot repeat every damned point in every post. There are now significant numbers of some hominid species showing a consistent set of measurable characteristics outside the range of modern humans. That's how we know they are the same species (as each other). And they occur in strata containing NO modern humans.
Even better, earlier than these we have other intermediates more apelike, and later we have other intermediates more human like.
One could be a human freak or a fraud. But not all of them. Sorry, but that IS how we know data is reliable.
Give me a specific example of the type of physical evidence you want to verify the Bible.

You test a Bible account by first accurately determining the full details of the account. Then you consider what the range of possible meanings are of the elements of the account. Then you look for what physical circumstances could fit all that data.

What evidence did you find in the global scale flood gauge in Northern Canada?

You made assertions about measurements but provided no data. I appreciate your frustration with having to provide too much info in one post. That's why I generally stick to one point per post since I want to provide data, not just assertions. I suggest/request you do the same.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#112806 Mar 24, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You might note for your own sake, that once you slip into this kind of double negative phrasing, its quite likely that you are trying to kid yourself.
Not likely.
LowellGuy

Salem, MA

#112807 Mar 24, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I have provided corroborative evidence for stories in the Bible.
I examine my beliefs (understanding) constantly. That's why they have changed thru my life. I have not been so naive as to think that what I was handed from others just happened to be correct.
I well know and accept that there is truth outside the Bible.
The Quran has at least one confirmed error, a staight-forward mathematical formula, and it only takes one. The Bible has none to date. I accept demonstrated (not asserted only) reality, and unlike you, no matter what the form of confirmation is. I don't tell anyone, including myself, that something confirmed is other than that. I am, at the same time, quite aware that appearances can be deceiving. You don't seem to exercise such caution. The Bible doesn't declare anything which contradicts reality. The Bible does make numerous declarations which one can choose to understand in a way which contradicts reality. This you delight to do. Perhaps someday you will reveal why that is.
With so much off the mark, your post was rather wasted.
I already showed you the apologetics that explain away whatever mathematical discrepancies you think you found in the Koran. Why should we accept your apologetics but not a Muslim's apologetics?
LowellGuy

Salem, MA

#112808 Mar 24, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It is difficult to assess relative knowledgeability unless bounds are put on the knowledge under consideration. I thought we were doing that.
You would be much further ahead if you would just provide an example demonstrating one of my faulty strings of pseudo-logic, something similar to your Marksman11 references, except providing the actual example, not just an assertion.
I have. You think we should accept any and all claims from a source if someone has decided, using a subjective standard, that said source is "reliable," and that this reputation serves as evidence for the veracity of the source's claims. Valid logic and rational skepticism do not recognize this as a legitimate justification for accepting a claim as true. How many times do I need to say it? Has it not gotten through your thick cult-addled pate yet?
LowellGuy

Salem, MA

#112809 Mar 24, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The key factor in my standard can rather readily and uniformly be applied to virtually any source; no confirmed incorrect points of info provided by the source.
Wrong. I've already refuted this. That you refuse to recognize valid logic in favor of your delusional apologetics is not my shortcoming.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#112810 Mar 25, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Give me a specific example of the type of physical evidence you want to verify the Bible.
You test a Bible account by first accurately determining the full details of the account. Then you consider what the range of possible meanings are of the elements of the account. Then you look for what physical circumstances could fit all that data.
What evidence did you find in the global scale flood gauge in Northern Canada?
You made assertions about measurements but provided no data. I appreciate your frustration with having to provide too much info in one post. That's why I generally stick to one point per post since I want to provide data, not just assertions. I suggest/request you do the same.
You are writing as if a collection of myths and chronicles extending over a millennium or more with scores of separate stories, characters, miracles and prophecies can be "verified" as a whole piece.

It does not work that way.

It is logically possible that one story in the Bible might be correct while another is a myth or a mixture of fact and myth.

So for example, if Swami Shakir Guru Wugmug was supposed to have levitated on a Street Corner in Delhi in 1953, then proving to me that the street corner exists would not convince me that the Swami really levitated there. Even hearing a circle of old women recalling that they definitely saw him do it would not convince me either.

Likewise you could even faithfully report that a huge Tsunami struck in the Indian Ocean a few years ago killing 250,000 people, in Sri Lanka, Indonesia, and Thailand, but that does not mean I am going to buy any "explanation" for this event based on God being angry at Indonesians.

Your "global flood gauge" in Canada was a single site where alternative explanations NOT requiring a world wide flood are perfectly valid. Not only that, but as repeated many times, there is so much evidence that is NOT around that WOULD BE around if a WW flood HAD occurred, that any rational person would have to conclude no WW Flood could have occurred within the last 10,000 years.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#112811 Mar 25, 2013
KAB wrote:
The Quran has at least one confirmed error, a staight-forward mathematical formula, and it only takes one.
One error in the Quran "confirmed" to YOUR satisfaction. Not to any Muslim's obviously. A mullah could straighten you out on your mistake in five minutes, to his complete satisfaction, while all his followers gave you that "gotcha!" grin of absolute satisfaction that the Quran's unique place as the only True and Perfect, Final Message of God to Humankind, was preserved. God is Great!

Likewise there are multiple errors confirmed in the Bible. Not confirmed to your satisfaction, obviously. But to anyone rational and objective, confirmed.

Level 1

Since: Jan 10

Asheville, NC

#112812 Mar 25, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
And what is your evidence that the mythologies of the Semite tribes are somehow a concrete reality?
Your uniformitarianism is showing again. Please be more specific.Which "mythologies" Which Semite tribe?
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
BTW, "time travel into the future" is constant and inevitable. Time travel into the past is not prohibited by physics, but for all practical concerns may as well be be considered fantasy.
There is a difference between time travel into the future and experiencing it as it unfolds into the present. Of course that wouldn't have supported your philosophy, but then again, neither does the statement you made. Pretty irrelevant post. I don't know why I replied.

Level 1

Since: Jan 10

Asheville, NC

#112813 Mar 25, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Silly person.
Those count as "minor doctrinal differences".
Sort 'em out among yourselves, why can't you?
The rest of us don't much care.
You don't care because of your obvious ignorance. Minor Doctrinal differences??? Jesus being the only way to heaven is the whole foundation of Christianity and the Jews and Muslims disagree. I try to be somewhat respectful in here, but your "Minor Doctrinal differences" statement was just outright stupid. No less stupid than your claim that the 3 could possibly morph into one. No wonder you are an atheist, as most of them, you have no clue.

Level 1

Since: Jan 10

Asheville, NC

#112814 Mar 25, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Um ... eclipses are not scientific, they are events.
Plezzzzz? REally? REally?......science can not explain an eclipse?
Um......What color is your hair?

Level 1

Since: Jan 10

Asheville, NC

#112815 Mar 25, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution IS pretty much proven my friend. It just hasn't sunk in yet.
In your dreams. IT can't even pass the scientific method.
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Big deal, a human mated with another human, so what? What you need to show is where humans evolved from non-humans. It's going on 4 years of asking this same question, and no one has even gotten close. What evolved that made a non-human.....human? What organ?....What physical attribute?.....what mental capacity? What evolved that made a non-human.....human? Still waiting?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#112816 Mar 25, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Plezzzzz? REally? REally?......science can not explain an eclipse?
Um......What color is your hair?
That's not what you said and you know it.

Level 1

Since: Jan 10

Asheville, NC

#112817 Mar 25, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you are just being silly.
We'll see...
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course young humans can have a skull capacity of 700cc. But you know damned well, in the context, that I am not talking about young humans, whose skulls can be identified in a myriad of ways. Nor a completely different animal. I am talking about mature skulls of a creature with features that are measurably intermediate between ape and human.
Ok, you find a small skull measuring 700. Is it a young human, or a mature but small ape? Please.....understand your own self added confusion when you demand both are apes. That silliness aside.....without observing the specimen when it lived, how do you determine which it is? Don't you dare say interpretation!!!!!!!
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I actually thought of "young humans" when I originally wrote my post but left it out because I did not think you would be so deliberately obtuse a to try it.
So why am I silly for thinking the same thing as you did. You thought it for a reason. Because you feared you'd have to explain it, so you didn't bring it up. I can't wait to hear your explaination between these skulls without using interpretation.
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text> Even YOU know that small children's skulls will have SMALLER jaw, teeth, brow ridge etc, and in the context it was clear that 700cc skulls were also measureably intermediate between human and ape in these respects, having larger and heavier complements of all of these than an average MODERN ADULT.
Do you really not see how preconceived your biases are? You actually call them intermediate, as being inbetween "A" and "B" without actually considering "C" through "Z".
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You lose double by playing childish games in the discussion, as it becomes clear that you are defending the indefensible rather than pursuing truth.
I'm the one pursuing truth here. I have no preconceived conclusion as far as insisting that "A" and "B" have an intermediate. The only way you can come to your conclusions is to base them on interpretation, and that is a very dangerous thing to do, and is completely unscientific within the context of the scientific method.
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
So here we are, left with a whole lot of fossils with characteristics that are measurably intermediate between human and ape, AS predicted by evolution and AS explained by evolution, in strata containing NO modern human remains.
Interpretation and you are assuming they are intermediate. You KNOW nothing of the sort. Science is not about assumptions. It is about observation, testing, and replication. Fossil are a terrible excuse to attempt to use to support human from non-human evolution. They can not give heritage.
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Creationism neither expected it nor can explain it.
It most certainly does, but that is another debate.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112818 Mar 25, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I have provided corroborative evidence for stories in the Bible.

Not really. What evidence? Lakes with sediment in them. WOW! Awesome!

KAB wrote:
<quoted text> I examine my beliefs (understanding) constantly. That's why they have changed thru my life. I have not been so naive as to think that what I was handed from others just happened to be correct.

The problem is if you approach problems with a warped a priori mindset you will get warped solutions.

GIGO as the old computer adage goes.

KAB wrote:
<quoted text> I well know and accept that there is truth outside the Bible. The Quran has at least one confirmed error, a staight-forward mathematical formula, and it only takes one.

Experts on the Koran have debunked this in much the same way you handled Pi. This is why I brought Pi up oh so long ago. It shows the same type of error in the bible.

KAB wrote:
<quoted text> The Bible has none to date. I accept demonstrated (not asserted only) reality, and unlike you, no matter what the form of confirmation is.

Again, you do not. It has been demonstrated that the writer of Kings did not know the formula for Pi.

KAB wrote:
<quoted text> I don't tell anyone, including myself, that something confirmed is other than that.
False.

KAB wrote:
<quoted text> I am, at the same time, quite aware that appearances can be deceiving. You don't seem to exercise such caution. The Bible doesn't declare anything which contradicts reality.

Except that it does. It takes some heavy lifting to get rationalize the errors in the bible.

KAB wrote:
<quoted text> The Bible does make numerous declarations which one can choose to understand in a way which contradicts reality.

In other words just what I indicated above. You will always find ways to rationalize what you choose to believe.

This you delight to do. Perhaps someday you will reveal why that is.
With so much off the mark, your post was rather wasted.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112819 Mar 25, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The rendering "Jehovah" wasn't originated by the Watchtower group, and it was a good faith first anglicized rendering of the tetragrammaton. It remains the standard anglo rendering of the name. Perhaps someday that will change. It isn't the form used by Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide.

Actually, I don't hear anyone except JWs referring to YHWH as "Jehovah" anymore. That seems to have died out since the correct pronunciation is now well known. I here Yahwah used much more. Maybe use of "Jehovah" is just an uneducated thing.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112820 Mar 25, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It is difficult to assess relative knowledgeability unless bounds are put on the knowledge under consideration. I thought we were doing that.
You would be much further ahead if you would just provide an example demonstrating one of my faulty strings of pseudo-logic, something similar to your Marksman11 references, except providing the actual example, not just an assertion.

I pointed a few out in your last post.

One is called 'confirmation bias'. You might want to look it up.


While you are at it you might want to investigate how the Scientific Method deals with confirmation bias, very skillfully.

Level 1

Since: Jan 10

Asheville, NC

#112821 Mar 25, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Fossils exists and are observable too.
Yes they are and you have the right to make that obvious claim. You don't have the right to intepret them as being anything other than what they are. Evidnce that something once existed, died, and left an image of itself. Anything above tha is interpretation because fossils can not show heritage.
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
They show the existence of creatures measurably INTERMEDIATE in form between any modern apes and humans, at a time when we have found NO modern human remains.
No they do not! You interpret them that way. The only way to make your claim is to observe them while living and their evolution. You can't do that, and you have no right to scientifically make these claims because of it. THis is nothing more than your biased interpretation and your self imposed claim of being and intermediate. I don't blame you for this flaw. You have just consumed the cool aid.
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
See, nobody has to provide the evidence YOU demand Marksman.
They have to provide the evidence evolution PREDICTED and EXPLAINS, and have done so.
YOU CAN"T PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE I DEMAND BECAUSE IT DOESN"T EXIST.......and the evidence I demand is the demands of the scientific method for a valid theory!!!!You think evolution is strong becuse of what it predicts???? Have you not rea the hisry of Evolutionary theory? It predicts that biological systems evolve into someting completely different over eons of time......until....OPPS, the Cambrian fossils have them appearing suddenly.....so just as SUDDENLY....Evolution predicts punctuated equalibria!!!! Evolution can always bend and twist to meet what ever predictions, or new evidence demands. You can do that when the stupid theory is not observable. Isn't that fact handy!!!!
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You can scramble around for the rest of your life trying to explain it away, but you have failed.
I have had extreme success in here! You guys are ignorant, so I know you'll never admit it, but I get e-mails from lurkers, and not been around much ately due to speaking engagements. You guys have no idea what trouble your philosophy is in.

Level 1

Since: Jan 10

Asheville, NC

#112822 Mar 25, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not what you said and you know it.
It is exactly what I said.

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 Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 36 min Frindly 861
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 48 min Ben Avraham 77,048
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Frindly 32,268
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 2 hr The FACTory 222,017
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... (Jan '17) 21 hr Dogen 4,321
Can the universe be God's brain? (Jun '07) Mon The FACTory 101
A musical evolution lesson. Mon Willy 8
More from around the web