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

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

There are 164685 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.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#112983 Mar 27, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>For one thing, the 6000 years is your claim, not mine, and I'm the christian here.
That is very questionable, but I will not count that as a lie.

marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> If apes and humans didn't still currently co exist, you might have something,

Humans ARE apes. I count this as a mistake or misleading.

marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> so you have no intermediates. All you have is a bunch of fossils, and a biased interpretation.

This is false and since we have taught you better it is lie #1.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_ev...


marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> Now explain to me how you know that this certain fossil wasn't evolving into the path of a similar ape, and not man?
All fossils are similar to recent ancestors and progeny. The unbroken chain from a lineage that broke of to become modern humans, chimps and bonobo's provides many intermittent fossils on the way to fully modern humans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_ev...

As you have been shown this before I am calling lie #2.

marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> BS, you guys just a few weeks ago posted a video of a friend of Richard Dawkins who was an astronomer and he spouted his BS about GOD didn't create you, star dust did!!!
We are the product of stars in the same sense we are also products of the earth or products of our parents. Regardless of the influence or non-influence of a deity, the point is true. The speaker did put some of his own (presumably atheistic) opinion into it, but that does not mitigate the facts.

That is lie number #3.

You are out again.


Scorecard:
Marksman is a liar: 3
Marksman isn't a liar: 0

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#112984 Mar 27, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>So are you disagreeing with those on your team that insist that if you trace your evolutionary path back far enough, you won't be a tobacco stalk? IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING????? Pleazzzzzz tell me that is what you are saying..... PLEZZZZZZZ????

This post does not meet my criteria.

However we did not evolve from tobacco stalks. No one says we are evolved from tobacco stalks. This is something you made up (an implicit lie).

No points off since it did not meet my one criteria.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#112985 Mar 27, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't have to suppose because here is your reasoning (in quotes)with analysis following,
"If you didn't believe what the Watchtower said before it was corrected by them, you are saying you knew better than they regarding the Bible. Why, then, do you bother with them at all? You're clearly a greater Biblical authority than they are, so you needn't pay attention to them. If anything, they should be seeking YOUR guidance. Why aren't YOU the leader of your own sect of Christianity, rather than being a member of a group whose interpretations of the Bible are, by your own admission, incorrect while your own are not?"
Single points were under consideration, so my statement regarding such a single point asserts nothing about my knowing "better than they regarding the Bible" in general. Everyone's total fund of knowledge differs, therefore, any individual may have the best knowledge of a specific point but, in the limit, perhaps not any other point. Others may have better knowledge of all those other points (Prov. 11:14).
Your above error is corollary to your false dichotomy syndrome. Doc might understand such relationships, and be able to assist you to break the mold, but I seriously doubt it.

There was a question about a single point. Then there was a general question.

You can't talk your way out of this. You are dodging.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#112986 Mar 27, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Enoch wasn't it?

Some such nonsense. It is not biblical.

Read this if you need a good laugh.

http://cornishevangelist.wordpress.com/2009/0...

If you thought marksman was crazy before, this should remove all doubt.

Built by angels, Jesus is the capstone. I could not make up something better to make fun of marksman with.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#112987 Mar 27, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Some such nonsense. It is not biblical.
Read this if you need a good laugh.
http://cornishevangelist.wordpress.com/2009/0...
If you thought marksman was crazy before, this should remove all doubt.
Built by angels, Jesus is the capstone. I could not make up something better to make fun of marksman with.
WOW.
KAB

United States

#112988 Mar 27, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
“It means that what we have here (Noah’s Flood) is a fanciful legend that is clearly untrue. When you look at Noah's flood, as it is described by the Bible, it is obvious that it did not happen. This is not a case where we need to bring in scientists and experts to disprove it based on little tiny details. This story is clearly and provably untrue to any intelligent person because it is absurd on the broadest, most obvious levels.”
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/noah-story....
It's interesting that you only provide a summary statement instead of even a single example of slam-dunk data. When I see you provide a specific point I'll respond with analysis.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#112989 Mar 27, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It's interesting that you only provide a summary statement instead of even a single example of slam-dunk data. When I see you provide a specific point I'll respond with analysis.
If you want "slam dunk" anything, then you don't want anything scientific.
KAB

United States

#112990 Mar 27, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
Adam and Eve Didn't Exist. Get Over It!
“The cover article of this month's Christianity Today is on the subject of Adam and Eve. Could humans be descended from one single pair or not? Really, Christians should be over this one by now. They should have been over it by Christmas of 1859; a month after Charles Darwin published his "Origin of Species." As he said there, "light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history."
It sure was! Organisms evolved from simple forms by natural selection. This includes humans. We are the end result of a long, slow, natural process of development. Moreover, there never was an original pair. It may be that at some point in our past -- a hundred thousand years or so ago -- humans went through some kind of bottleneck, but we are still looking at a population of 10,000 or so. Moreover, even if all humans are descended from one woman -- "Mitochondrial Eve" -- no one thinks that we are descended only from one woman. Or that that woman and her mate were in any significant sense different from their parents or their contemporaries.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-ruse/ad...
This is an excerpt from the article from 2011 by Michael Ruse, Professor of Philosophy, Florida State University
You do love conclusions but not scrutinizing the data upon which they are based. I realize you probably don't understand much/most of that data. Your side likes to just "defer" to the experts. Experts can have agendas too, can't they?

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#112991 Mar 27, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It's interesting that you only provide a summary statement instead of even a single example of slam-dunk data. When I see you provide a specific point I'll respond with analysis.

Is a summary statement that the world is round and not flat good enough or not? Or do you need 100,0000 pages of precise satellite measurements? What would take it to make that data a slam dunk?
http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

Why accept the round earth hypothesis with no data?

What slam dunk data do you have that the JW "bible" is not a piece of crap? When I see you reply with a specific point I'll responds with bs,.... er.... I mean "analysis".

Why do you avoid my questions?

What are you afraid of?



“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#112992 Mar 27, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You do love conclusions but not scrutinizing the data upon which they are based. I realize you probably don't understand much/most of that data. Your side likes to just "defer" to the experts. Experts can have agendas too, can't they?

You do love conclusions but not scrutinizing the data upon which Wathctowerism ise based. I realize you probably don't understand much/most of that data. Your side likes to just "defer" to the experts. Experts can have agendas too, can't they?

How come I can find so much anti-JW information an you can never refute it? Why do you run away? What are you afraid of?
KAB

United States

#112993 Mar 27, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you aren't necessarily more knowledgeable than the Watchtower folks just because you know some things they don't, but you say your God is more knowledgeable than you are because he, supposing he exists in the first place, knows more about something than you do.
Remember when I said logic is not your friend? There it is.
I never stated that my God only knows more about something than I do. By definition, he knows more about virtually everything than I do. Why is it that you only succeed in giving a fault-finding analysis of "my" logic when you pretend to be me? Why don't you EVER go head-to-head with the real me (quotes) like I ALWAYS do with you?

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#112994 Mar 27, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You do love conclusions but not scrutinizing the data upon which they are based. I realize you probably don't understand much/most of that data. Your side likes to just "defer" to the experts. Experts can have agendas too, can't they?
Sorry, the people who have done the science and published are too busy doing further science and the articles are behind pay-walls, so we'll never be able to furnish you relevant data.

So I suppose you are right it happened because we can't disprove it to your satisfaction

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#112995 Mar 27, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I never stated that my God only knows more about something than I do. By definition, he knows more about virtually everything than I do. Why is it that you only succeed in giving a fault-finding analysis of "my" logic when you pretend to be me? Why don't you EVER go head-to-head with the real me (quotes) like I ALWAYS do with you?
By definition, because you've chosen a particular definition that suits your liking. However, there is no evidence that such God exists, nor the extent of such a God's knowledge if such a God does indeed exist. You assume a lot, and then you build arguments on those assumptions and call your assumptions "data." And, you say that your logic isn't faulty. Riiiiiiiiiight.

By the way, "virtually everything?" Wow. You still leave room for yourself to be in some way intellectually superior to your omniscient God. You're such an arrogant bastard.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#112996 Mar 27, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>You KNOW nothing of the sort!!!
Sorry my friend, but we DO KNOW.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#112997 Mar 27, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>So are you disagreeing with those on your team that insist that if you trace your evolutionary path back far enough, you won't be a tobacco stalk? IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING????? Pleazzzzzz tell me that is what you are saying..... PLEZZZZZZZ????
No, we evolved from a amoeba.

Why are you acting so stupid?

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#112998 Mar 27, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>You claim the impossibility of a talking animal? Noah's flood?....etc...but due to your ignorance you don't understand that if there is a GOD in heaven, and even evolutionists can't disclaim that fact because they have no naturalistic evidence for Abiogenesis, and due to the extreme complexity of even the most simple life forms, an intelligent supernatural designer, in which science is unqualified to disprove, appears no less than a certainity.....that if this supernatural deity exists, then a talking animal or a world wide flood is nothing to the creator of the universe. So you ask, "Disprove what?".....disprove the creator, his ability to work outside science and your understanding.....I bet you can't disprove it, and if you can't disprove this, then your claims concerning biblical claims are made in complete ignorance. Your move!!!
Science has falsified the Bible chapters Genesis and Exodus.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#112999 Mar 27, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Prove it. Bet you can't. And forgive me for rejecting such scientific authorities as the stupid huffington post.
I haven't talked with you about this subject before?

The article was not written by the HuffPo it was written by a contributor who happens to be knowledgeable and holds a doctorate.

What are your qualifications?

We know Adam and Eve as written in the Bible did not exist because:
The first appearance of Homo-sapiens in the bone record is about 200,000 years ago. Both the bones and the DNA confirm this.

The DNA also says there was NEVER a time when our genome was down to just one reproducing couple (or 4 couples if you believe the flood).

Also we humans carry a small percentage of Neanderthal genes/blood which testifies to the very early mating with them at a very early time, perhaps 100,000 years ago.

This neanderthal connection connects us to earlier yet Homo species such as; Homo-erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo-habilis, etc., etc.

You have to read the science if you want to be really informed. The religious sites will mislead you....they are trying to hold onto their constituents.

They lie for Jesus.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#113000 Mar 27, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It's interesting that you only provide a summary statement instead of even a single example of slam-dunk data. When I see you provide a specific point I'll respond with analysis.
Funny! Do you really think at this point that anyone gives a crap about your analysis? Or your scrutiny.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#113001 Mar 27, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
No, we evolved from a amoeba.
Why are you acting so stupid?
Pssst! He's not acting. Ask him about birds manipulating gravity.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#113002 Mar 27, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I never stated that my God only knows more about something than I do. By definition, he knows more about virtually everything than I do. Why is it that you only succeed in giving a fault-finding analysis of "my" logic when you pretend to be me? Why don't you EVER go head-to-head with the real me (quotes) like I ALWAYS do with you?

More assertions.

No data
no dice.

Why don't you answer questions?

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 ... 2 hr Eagle 12 - 2,570
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 3 hr Aura Mytha 222,998
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 hr Dogen 83,142
Post your Bible Science Verses that show Evolut... 5 hr Dogen 142
Bible 'Science' Verses opposing the Evolution R... 5 hr 15th Dalai Lama 129
Golden Section in our DNA again proves DESIGN 9 hr Reb Bacchus 40
Evolution is boring as Hell 10 hr Science 8
More from around the web