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

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

There are 164317 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.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#113125 Mar 31, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Your side is so into its assertion-only syndrome that you don't even check the simplest of things for confirmation before spewing.
Form Webster's Online,
Fact:
5: a piece of information presented as having objective reality
Here's a piece of info for you. Earth is not cubic in shape. Get use to reality.
Notice that you had to go down to the fifth definition. Also, notice that words have multiple definitions, and the scientific definition isn't necessarily the same as the colloquial definition you used. You know what you did is dishonest. Why do you think you felt compelled to do something dishonest?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#113126 Mar 31, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Since to doubt is to think something is not so, no I do not doubt the existence of God.
You didn't say doubt was thinking something was not so before. You said it was merely uncertainty. So, now you change your definition to suit your purposes and whatever happens to be convenient. Why did you do that? I don't doubt the shape of the Earth being an oblate spheroid, but there is not certainty. You don't doubt the existence of God. Is the existence of God a certainty, then? If so, what is the "slam dunk" evidence? Or, is it merely an inference you've made due to the "reliability" of a book based on a completely subjective standard that you made up to justify your belief in the Bible while simultaneously being unable to say whether other books would be reliable? Remember my hypothetical book of millions of claims that were all proven true? If there were a claim in there that, for some reason, we were unable to prove true or false, would we be justified in simply assuming it true based on the rest of the claims being accurate? Logically, you should say "yes," based on your standards. However, we all know you won't say that, because it exposes the inherent flaw of your standard. But, go ahead. I want to watch you squirm.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113127 Mar 31, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Since to doubt is to think something is not so, no I do not doubt the existence of God.

But as God is neither of the thing about which we can be certain,...

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#113128 Mar 31, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
JWs do not claim that their understanding of God is 100% certain.
JWs realize there could be errors even in the oldest available manuscripts. I know of no comprehensive believable answer besides God.
Most people would realize that the date of a document is in no way an indicator of it's veracity. A good example is a letter describing "Darwinian disingenuousness" from March 2009. It is no more valid today than it was 4 years ago - in fact, with 4 additional years of accumulated data, it is even less accurate than the day it was penned.

As far as what you know and answers from God, those voices in your head aren't "His" - they're yours.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#113129 Mar 31, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
What does the Watchtower cult say will happen to you if you accept a blood transfusion?
They will evolve.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#113130 Mar 31, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Notice that you had to go down to the fifth definition. Also, notice that words have multiple definitions, and the scientific definition isn't necessarily the same as the colloquial definition you used. You know what you did is dishonest. Why do you think you felt compelled to do something dishonest?
If words didn't have multiple definitions there would be no need for numbering them in a dictionary, would there? I didn't know, however, that the number of a definition in a dictionary determines if the definition is legitimate and can be used or not. I notice you didn't give, from a scientific reference, the scientific definition of doubt. Usually, when I give an "official" definition of a word, it's because someone has used or accused me of using the word incorrectly or not specified what definition of the word must be used.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#113131 Mar 31, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
You didn't say doubt was thinking something was not so before. You said it was merely uncertainty. So, now you change your definition to suit your purposes and whatever happens to be convenient. Why did you do that? I don't doubt the shape of the Earth being an oblate spheroid, but there is not certainty. You don't doubt the existence of God. Is the existence of God a certainty, then? If so, what is the "slam dunk" evidence? Or, is it merely an inference you've made due to the "reliability" of a book based on a completely subjective standard that you made up to justify your belief in the Bible while simultaneously being unable to say whether other books would be reliable? Remember my hypothetical book of millions of claims that were all proven true? If there were a claim in there that, for some reason, we were unable to prove true or false, would we be justified in simply assuming it true based on the rest of the claims being accurate? Logically, you should say "yes," based on your standards. However, we all know you won't say that, because it exposes the inherent flaw of your standard. But, go ahead. I want to watch you squirm.
As you can see from your own example, the reliability of a book is directly related to the pupose for which it was produced. If the author's intent is to have one uncertain/untrue claim in a book of millions of true claims, he can certainly do that.

BTW, thinking something is not so is uncertainty.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113132 Mar 31, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
If words didn't have multiple definitions there would be no need for numbering them in a dictionary, would there? I didn't know, however, that the number of a definition in a dictionary determines if the definition is legitimate and can be used or not. I notice you didn't give, from a scientific reference, the scientific definition of doubt. Usually, when I give an "official" definition of a word, it's because someone has used or accused me of using the word incorrectly or not specified what definition of the word must be used.

Specifically, we call you out for using terms that have a scientific meaning in a scientific context, but using a common definition for them.

That is another way you are dishonest with us, and with yourself.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#113133 Mar 31, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Isn't that the stupidest thing you have ever heard in your life?
Seriously, name one thing stupider!
And it isn't biblical. It is based on a warping of scriptures (specifically Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 17:10, and Acts 15:29).
It is also a dogma that the watchtower cult has reversed positions on several times (not very god like).
Dr. Scheinin, who tries to accommodate watchtower cult members, has watched them die when their life could have been EASILY saved with a blood transfusion.
How do you, in your sick bastard mind, rationalize letting CHILDREN die when blood can save their lives? Watchtower cult parents, in my humble opinion, should get the death penalty for allowing killing their children by not allowing lifesaving methods.
Your cult disgusts me.
You apparently don't know and/or aren't telling the rest of the story. As to the other Dr., I don't know Scheinin from Shittola, so I can't comment regarding the doctor. I know of no child who is confirmed to have died from lack of a blood transfusion, and plenty of people have survived who were told they would die without a transfusion, and still refused. People, however, have been confirmed to have died from having blood transfusions. There are life saving alternatives to death dealing blood. You seem to be decidedly old school, Doc.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#113134 Mar 31, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not in real bibles.
Try reading one some time.
Why don't you cite a real Bible to prove your point?
KAB

Wilson, NC

#113135 Mar 31, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
You just lied. And you lied for your cult.
w03 8/1 pp. 14-19
Article Title: Imitating the God of Truth
Section title: Jehovah’s Servants Are Truthful
Section 10
"To many, lying may seem a convenient tool to obtain certain advantages. People lie to escape punishment, to profit in some way, or to gain the praise of others. Yet, a practice of lying is a vice. What is more, a liar cannot gain God’s approval.(Revelation 21:8, 27; 22:15) When we are known to be truthful, others believe what we say; they trust us. However, if we are caught telling even a single lie, others may doubt the truthfulness of anything we say in the future. An African proverb states:“One falsehood spoils a thousand truths.” Another proverb says:“A liar will not be believed, even when he speaks the truth.”
I like the last line. This is why you are not believed, because you are a liar.
This is why your cult is not believed, because they are liars.
This is a golden opportunity for you to make some real progress. What I provided is a Watchtower quote even tho you denied it. You either are lying intentionally or worse, your cult lied to you about saying it. You now have opportunity to turn away from the liars who provided it to you, recognizing them for what they have now clearly proven themselves to be, or more directly, to admit your own error, and change course for the better for yourself and the benefit of all around you.
Now you have the evidence of who your really follow, the father of lies.
Here is your previous post with your alleged Watchtower quote,

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TFA...

Compare it carefully with the actual quote above.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#113136 Mar 31, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
More deception. You just can't stop.
Try to focus your moral fiber and answer the question:
Are the JWs, then, committed to honesty and would proven lies bring the cult into question?
No more lies!
The truth,
the WHOLE truth
and nothing but the truth.
If you can't do it then what does that say about what the cult has done to your moral character?
Same question, same answer.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#113137 Mar 31, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Who is this JHWH?
I can only assume you meant YHWH. You made the same typo 3 times in a in one sentence! Try to focus.
YHWH's servants would be people who don't lie.
Yes, I did err, mixing the alternatives YHWH and JHVH. I will try to be more careful, knowing how sensitive you are to this labelling issue. I, admittedly, was focused on the content.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#113138 Mar 31, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
No I don't. Either I have a point or I don't.
All we know for certain is:
1. Cogito ergo sum
2. First person reports.
Period.
Your games are intended to be deceptive. that is the same as a lie.
See what your cult has done to you? You may have once been an honest person.
We also know for certain that Earth is not cubic in shape. So much for your point.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#113139 Mar 31, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Rally? What verse would that be?
I didn't know that they did transfusions in "Bible times". You do knw that you are not eating blood when you get a transfusion, don't you?
Is your position that eating can only be done thru the mouth?
KAB

Wilson, NC

#113140 Mar 31, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Specifically, we call you out for using terms that have a scientific meaning in a scientific context, but using a common definition for them.
That is another way you are dishonest with us, and with yourself.
You'd have to provide an "official" scientific definition and confirm that my comment was scientific to prove your assertion correct.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113141 Mar 31, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You apparently don't know and/or aren't telling the rest of the story. As to the other Dr., I don't know Scheinin from Shittola, so I can't comment regarding the doctor. I know of no child who is confirmed to have died from lack of a blood transfusion, and plenty of people have survived who were told they would die without a transfusion, and still refused. People, however, have been confirmed to have died from having blood transfusions. There are life saving alternatives to death dealing blood. You seem to be decidedly old school, Doc.

So, you are saying you cannot defend JW dogma about blood transfusions.

Maybe if you wait a few days they will change it again, like they do everything else.

It is pitiful, really. Cult members will believe anything to defend their belief in their cult.

Nice attempted dodge, but completely transparent,... agaain.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113142 Mar 31, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is your previous post with your alleged Watchtower quote,
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TFA...
Compare it carefully with the actual quote above.



Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
You just lied. And you lied for your cult.
w03 8/1 pp. 14-19
Article Title: Imitating the God of Truth
Section title: Jehovah’s Servants Are Truthful
Section 10
"To many, lying may seem a convenient tool to obtain certain advantages. People lie to escape punishment, to profit in some way, or to gain the praise of others. Yet, a practice of lying is a vice. What is more, a liar cannot gain God’s approval.(Revelation 21:8, 27; 22:15) When we are known to be truthful, others believe what we say; they trust us. However, if we are caught telling even a single lie, others may doubt the truthfulness of anything we say in the future. An African proverb states:“One falsehood spoils a thousand truths.” Another proverb says:“A liar will not be believed, even when he speaks the truth.”
I like the last line. This is why you are not believed, because you are a liar.
This is why your cult is not believed, because they are liars.
This is a golden opportunity for you to make some real progress. What I provided is a Watchtower quote even tho you denied it. You either are lying intentionally or worse, your cult lied to you about saying it. You now have opportunity to turn away from the liars who provided it to you, recognizing them for what they have now clearly proven themselves to be, or more directly, to admit your own error, and change course for the better for yourself and the benefit of all around you.
Now you have the evidence of who your really follow, the father of lies.

----------

Can you deal with the truth or not?

If you do not repent you will burn in a hell (Gehenna) you do not believe even exists. Won't that be a shocker for you?

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113143 Mar 31, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Same question, same answer.

Compulsive lying. You can't even answer questions directly.

Don't you see that attempt at deception is inspired in you by the father of lies?

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113144 Mar 31, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I did err, mixing the alternatives YHWH and JHVH. I will try to be more careful, knowing how sensitive you are to this labelling issue. I, admittedly, was focused on the content.

No, you weren't. Another lie. They must help you sleep better.

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) 2 min Science 81,885
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 2 hr Science 2,201
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 22 hr Science 33,086
Did humans come from Sturgeons? Oct 16 Science 1
Proof humans come from Tennessee Oct 16 Science 1
Science News (Sep '13) Oct 14 Science 4,005
Mathematicians PROVED evolution IMPOSSIBLE! (Apr '17) Oct 14 Science 876
More from around the web