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

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

There are 163768 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 No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#112823 Mar 25, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>It is exactly what I said.
Another of your lies that you can just get ignored with some spell.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112824 Mar 25, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I will respond to your requests/challenges when I see you correct your mischaracterization of me. CLUE: You correctly represented me in the opening line of your post, then misrepresented me on the same point in the middle of your post.

Admitting that it is pretend play afterward is important, but can you recognize it even while playing?

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112825 Mar 25, 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.

Since this mythical source has never yet been found, why are we still talking about it?

All sources have their flaws.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112826 Mar 25, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The joke is that your solution didn't apply to the point under consideration. Such is typical of your side's blind focus on its agenda irrespective of the point of the moment.

Disbanding the JW's would serve a greater good

While it is true that sheep need guidance or they will end up the fodder of wolves. Of course the JW followers are already are under the guidance of wolves, so their plight would not actually worsen.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112827 Mar 25, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The standard for demonstrated reliable calls for no confirmed errors. Science doesn't qualify.

Nothing meets the standard for demonstrated reliable.

Science comes the closest which was my point.

Among religious texts I would have to give the nod to the Tao te Ching as it has no confirmed errors.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112828 Mar 25, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Since it's only unconfirmed assertions/accusations of lies, no valid conclusion can be drawn.

You didn't watch the link, did you.

Source of lies has been confirmed.


BTW, are you a Pioneers or Elder?

Trying to figure out if you are a liar or just another smuck who has been lied to.


Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank God I am not like you.
http://www.youtube.com/results ...
Remember who the deceiver is?
If a cult not only lies, but is actually well known for its lies then who is running that cult; God or that other guy?

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112829 Mar 25, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't tend to answer ill-defined questions, especially when they're ill-willed.

You don't attempt to answer much of anything.

[QUOTE who="KAB"]<quoted text> 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.

Translation: Dodge.

[QUOTE who="KAB"]<quoted text> Check the record, and you will find that I always answer the questions once the clarifications are in order.

The record says..... FALSE. Even when questions are rephrased or repeated you fail much more often than you reply.

The record also says "chickenfeces"!

Are you loved? I hear that JW's are required to feel loved and if they don't that is their own fault.

Is that true?

Are those questions clear enough?

No data
No Dice



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.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112830 Mar 25, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
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.

Mental stumble. Of course I meant Mandarin.

Nice catch.


How do JW's define the word "generation"? I know I have asked this before and you did not answer nor even ask for "clarification".

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112831 Mar 25, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Give me a specific example of the type of physical evidence you want to verify the Bible.
Global flood data would be nice.

We have global data for a small asteroid hit 65 million years ago, but apparently not for a global flood only 4,500 years ago. In other words we can easily verify a smaller event 14,444 times further in the past....

KAB wrote:
<quoted text> 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.
So what physical circumstances could fit all that data? Oh, wait, you don't actually HAVE any DATA, now do you. That is sort of the problem.

KAB wrote:
<quoted text> What evidence did you find in the global scale flood gauge in Northern Canada?
nothin' honey.

KAB wrote:
<quoted text> 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.

Again a lie. What are you trying to pull? Who are you attempting to lie to? We all KNOW you! I suggest you are trying to keep yourself fooled.

I stub my big toe on my left foot more often than you provide data. While I do tend to do that a lot, it is not often enough to prove you to be any more than a dearth of data.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112832 Mar 25, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Plezzzzz? REally? REally?......science can not explain an eclipse?
Um......What color is your hair?

You, as usual, are confused about what science is and does.

An eclipse is a fact.
Gravity is a fact.
Evolution is a fact.

Science explains the fact of an eclipse, gravity and evolution through theories.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#112833 Mar 25, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The joke is that your solution didn't apply to the point under consideration. Such is typical of your side's blind focus on its agenda irrespective of the point of the moment.
Quite the contrary. You state that JW are run the way that Jesus would have run it. Obviously this is untrue, as Jesus railed against temple authority and was killed for it. That kind of authority is precisely what organized religions represent - and is exemplified by the JW leadership and doctrines.
Follow Jesus. Disband.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#112834 Mar 25, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Your uniformitarianism is showing again. Please be more specific.Which "mythologies" Which Semite tribe?<quoted text>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.
Obviously, I'm referring to those parts of the Old Testament which are not historical accounts. One might accept that one generation begat another, that there existed a city, that there was a war, that so-and so was a king - AFTER non-biblical corroborating evidence is uncovered. On the other hand, there is also stuff like Noah, Jonah, the Garden of Eden, talking animals, etc., etc.... AKA MYTHOLOGIES.

Ditto. I don't know why you reply, either.
Within our capabilities, the arrow of time points in only one direction. That is not a philosophy. Nitpicking the details of where, "how fast" and "when" is the "waste of time" that makes your GPS work.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112835 Mar 25, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> In your dreams. IT can't even pass the scientific method.
You assert this on a frequent basis, but never offer any proof.

Which aspect of the scientific method does it fail?

Evolution is an observable aspect of nature.
We can an have posed scientific questions, collected data and gotten confirmation (support) for the theory.
Those tests have been confirmed by replication.
The research is peer reviewed at the highest level.
The theory if falsifiable, parsimonious, and has multiple lines of evidence from multiple fields of science with multiple researchers.....

What could it possibly be missing? This is an apex scientific theory.
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> Big deal, a human mated with another human, so what? What you need to show is where humans evolved from non-humans.

Different species of the hominid line, to be sure. But for your implication to have merit you have to show where there is a distinction of an evolutionary gap between species of hominids leading up to fully modern humans. We have been asking for this for,... well it's going on 4 years of asking this same question, and you have not even gotten close. What was created that made a non-human.....human? What organ?....What physical attribute?.....what mental capacity? What was created that made a human different from pre and proto-humans? Still waiting?

If you cannot prevent prehumans from evolving into humans then you have nothing.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112836 Mar 25, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> Ok, you find a small skull measuring 700. Is it a young human, or a mature but small ape?
It is not hard to determine the age of a specimen when it died. Forensic anthropology is a well researched field. As apes (including humans) grow older our teeth fall out and are replaced by adult teeth. More teeth continue to grow in at a known rate. Skull plates tend to become harder and fuse together also as a result of the aging process. Teeth wear and loss are found with ever increasing age.


marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> 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!!!!!!!
There is silliness involved here, but it seems to implicate yourself. Humans are apes. Are morphology is that of an ape, our physiology is that of an ape, our genetics is that of an ape,.....


marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> 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.<quoted text>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".<quoted text>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.<quoted text>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.<quoted text>It most certainly does, but that is another debate.

The rest is just the same. Is is an indictment of your lack of scientific knowledge. So, you are really making an argument from ignorance. Yes, there are a couple dozen other fallacies and cognitive biases in your post, but the overriding fallacy is Argument from Ignorance.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112837 Mar 25, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> 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.
Not sure how to approach this: the logical fallacies, the scientific misunderstanding, the ignorance, the cognitive bias....., just to many ways to go.

A (singular) fossil does not determine lineage. I think even you know that. Enough fossils over time does demonstrate evolution of that population (with a number of provisos, of course).


marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> No they do not! You interpret them that way.

No more so than we interpret letters as making up a word and interpret words that make up a sentence. It is interpretation, but so is everything else.


marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> 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 silly. It is not correct per the scientific method. Again, you want your theories to be observable. Theories are NOT observable. We call things that are directly observable FACTS. We call the EXPLANATION of those facts (and predictions based on them) to be THEORIES.

Essentially you are saying that scientific theories are not science.

See, when you break it down it becomes pretty funny.


marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> 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.<quoted text>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!!!!<quoted text>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.
The rest is just a nonsensical rant. You don't understand something so you rant about it. No further comment is needed.
KAB

United States

#112838 Mar 25, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Objectively and carefully examine each of them using reason and logic and supplementary data if available, then draw your conclusion. That's the best anyone can do. As to your ability to make a meaningful assessment in keeping with these criteria, I'm reminded that you still think there's a chance that Earth is cubic in shape.
KAB

United States

#112839 Mar 25, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Since just saying it is worthless you'll need to keep doing so until you provide confirming data.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#112840 Mar 25, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Objectively and carefully examine each of them using reason and logic and supplementary data if available, then draw your conclusion. That's the best anyone can do. As to your ability to make a meaningful assessment in keeping with these criteria, I'm reminded that you still think there's a chance that Earth is cubic in shape.
Funny, you claim to have done something that was likely not actually done. If you looked at them both "Objectively and carefully examine each of them using reason and logic and supplementary data if available" ,... you'd know they were both just a bunch of myths and legends.
KAB

United States

#112841 Mar 25, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. I've already refuted this. That you refuse to recognize valid logic in favor of your delusional apologetics is not my shortcoming.
That is correct. Your shortcoming is not accepting info from demonstrated reliable sources as correct unless confirmed incorrect.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#112842 Mar 25, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
That is correct. Your shortcoming is not accepting info from demonstrated reliable sources as correct unless confirmed incorrect.
No one has demonstrated the bible as a reliable source in any way, yet you claim it's the authority.

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) 22 min ChromiuMan 222,777
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 36 min Eagle 12 - 79,975
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 8 hr River Tam 32,582
What's your religion? 14 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