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

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

There are 151011 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.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#113036 Mar 28, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>If you think I'm sifting through 5000 pages of posts, you're crazy, but yes, "Your team" said we are related to tobacco stalks!!! Dogan agreed with them.
RELATED, doofus! Not evolved from - which is what you said.

Do try to keep your own posts straight, Marky.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#113037 Mar 28, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Feel free to accept the challenge and disprove any single claim I made that you are replying too. Seems to me, that if you could, you already would have, including your present reply, but you didn't!!! Let me pick you one out!!......Let's see.....Tell me what evolved that mad a non-human evolve into a human? What changed? Jump through that hoop Mike!!
There is no line, dumbass. How many times to we have to tell you that?

{Mike wraps hoop around Marky's neck}
KAB

United States

#113038 Mar 28, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
So, because there are people who oppose the spherical Earth hypothesis, there is no slam-dunk evidence of a spherical Earth.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org
Where's the requisite disagreement with the data?
KAB

United States

#113039 Mar 28, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. There is a lot of evidence that demonstrates the shape of the Earth, it's not "just a sphere," well, it's not even a sphere, more of a lopsided almost egg shaped with a lot of huge dents.
In other words, non-cubic.
KAB

United States

#113040 Mar 28, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, so you think that popularity decides reality.
No, the data does.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#113041 Mar 28, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Why are you posting such stupid and ill informed links? As if the bible doesn't say thqat GOD killed everyone on the earth but Noahs family? We teach it to our kids at church when we go that route, and we explain why GOD did it, and I don't blame him. No wonder your ignorance abounds with the BS you read and post!!! Hate to be you!!!
You teach the Bible to your children - scrolls of sheepskin, mud tablets and water reeds written by men in times that knew nothing of meterorology, geology, genetics,...- and deride the modern age as abounding with ignorance.
You feel obligated to do so because "IF there is a God," you have FAITH that the Bible is inviolate, that the authors were directly "inspired" by that God.

It is unscientific to evaluate a product by its producer, but you obviously are unaware of that.-KAB
KAB

United States

#113042 Mar 28, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I've seen, examined, and acknowledge slam-dunk data confirming common descent. The independently converging data from the fossil record, pseudogenes, ubiquitous proteins, and ERV's all confirming the same nested hierarchy is evidence beyond rational denial.
The fact that the fossil record (among other things) is inconsistent with Genesis is also slam-dunk evidence that Genesis is mythical and allegorical, not factual.
Your constant clamoring for data along with your denial of any data you don't like also confirms to me that you think that the whole of science can be overturned with a rickety gimmick, and you are therefore impossible to take seriously.
What's not to like? You provide no data to be examined/scrutinized, only assertions. That doesn't meet the slam-dunk criteria. Scientifically, data is necessary if you want to be taken seriously. A single specific example which withstands scrutiny will suffice.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#113043 Mar 28, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>If you think I'm sifting through 5000 pages of posts, you're crazy, but yes, "Your team" said we are related to tobacco stalks!!! Dogan agreed with them.
You are related to your cousins. That doesn't mean that you're the child of your cousins. But, knowing the South...

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113044 Mar 28, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I see you stand with the Guy in thinking there's still a chance Earth is some shape other than round.

no data
no dice.

BTW, the earth is not "round". It is an oblate spheroid.

I think there is a better chance of the earth being a cube than the earth being flooded.

I think there is a better chance of the earth being a cube than of evolution being completely off base.

I think there is a FAR better chance of the earth being used as a die in a cosmic game of craps than of the JWs being the one true religion.


“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113045 Mar 28, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It is unscientific to evaluate a product by its producer, but you obviously are unaware of that.
But it is astute consumerism. As to the product, we have evaluated that too and there is nothing to defend it from being credited as the worst and most biased "translation" (falsely so called) in the English language.


KAB wrote:
<quoted text> I have answered the Jehovah-in-the-NT question.
That was an answer? I assumed it was your senseless humor rearing its ugly head again. Your answer was a virtual admission that the Watchtower licensing board was putting out intentionally distorted product.

Who else changes biblical words to conform to their a priori theology?


Where are the answers to the rest of my questions? Cat got your tongue?

Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, more assertions and no evidence.
How about the credentials of the NWT translators? All Ph.D's in appropriate fields, I assume.
Well, masters degrees, at very least?
All at least B.A.?
Hummm.......
Yes, I see that you do have a hill to climb.
If you wanted to start answering my questions you might start with why the translators lied and put the term "Jehovah" in the N.T.?
I understand why you are avoiding the question. And you know they aren't going to get any easier.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113048 Mar 28, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
In other words, non-cubic.

That is one theory, yes.
KAB

United States

#113049 Mar 28, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
no data
no dice.
BTW, the earth is not "round". It is an oblate spheroid.
I think there is a better chance of the earth being a cube than the earth being flooded.
I think there is a better chance of the earth being a cube than of evolution being completely off base.
I think there is a FAR better chance of the earth being used as a die in a cosmic game of craps than of the JWs being the one true religion.
So it's an absolute certainty that Earth is not cubic in shape.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113050 Mar 28, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
So it's an absolute certainty that Earth is not cubic in shape.

Theoretically.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#113051 Mar 28, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You have to simplify it ... a lot, I mean really dumb it down, or they don't understand it at all.
The smart ones rely on the fact that the dumb ones will not understand it. Dead on KK.

So what is the agenda of the smart ones, like Sanford? They think evolution is bad for the happiness and good running of society, and therefore the "common people" need to believe in the Bible. Sanford virtually spells it out in the preface to his own book. So there you have it. The dishonest leading the blind. The way it always worked.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#113052 Mar 28, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
What's not to like? You provide no data to be examined/scrutinized, only assertions. That doesn't meet the slam-dunk criteria. Scientifically, data is necessary if you want to be taken seriously. A single specific example which withstands scrutiny will suffice.
OMG.
There is more data about the fossil record, the nested hierarchy of ERVs, pseudogenes, and ubiquitous proteins, than you could read in 10 years. You have been pointed to so much of it already that you will forgive me if I just post the conclusions in a single topix post.
Go look it up for yourself, doofus. You have no idea.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#113053 Mar 28, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
So it's an absolute certainty that Earth is not cubic in shape.
Nope.

Nothing in science is 100% certain.

Not even that.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#113054 Mar 29, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
No, the data does.
But you are measuring the data's validity only on it's popularity. So, to you, reality is decided by popular opinion.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#113055 Mar 29, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
But you are measuring the data's validity only on it's popularity. So, to you, reality is decided by popular opinion.
Only after the current Governing Body tells him what the approved popular opinion is at the moment.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#113056 Mar 29, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope.
Nothing in science is 100% certain.
Not even that.
You may enjoy this article, as I did.

http://michigantoday.umich.edu/2007/Sep/sci_m...

Here are two quotes from it,

"Scientists talk a lot about facts, about things that we know are true. And it's true that most of what we know is so well established as to be beyond doubt. Dinosaurs once walked the Earth. Lightning is an electrical discharge. Continents drift. These things are true, part of reality."

"No scientific conclusion is ever completely final; everything is open to revision."

It appears that at least some scientists speak with forked mind. I know you don't have that problem with regard to this matter.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#113057 Mar 29, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
But you are measuring the data's validity only on it's popularity. So, to you, reality is decided by popular opinion.
No, I'm not.

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) 4 min renee 31,372
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 6 min Blitzking 197,530
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 13 min Eagle 12 13,321
Rome Viharo debunks evolution 1 hr Paul Porter1 2
Evolution in action May 27 MIDutch 1
News RANT: Is "global warming" today's version of th... May 25 bearings 2
Another "gap" gets closed May 24 MIDutch 1
More from around the web