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

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

There are 150527 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 Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113215 Apr 1, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for the extra clarifying and further defining detail. The situation now appears to be like science, where relatively little is confirmed, and we just have to weigh the evidence we have and draw conclusions from it, all of which may be incorrect, and any of which may be correct. I can live with that, can you?

Straw-man fallacy.

Is it in your nature to misrepresent things? Isn't that a lot like lying?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113216 Apr 1, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It is logical to conclude that the archangel Michael is the same entity as Jesus Christ.

That is an interesting deduction.

Can you support that with biblical verses?

Yes, I do already have the list the JWs use to support this silly notion. I just want you to look at them again for the first time.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113217 Apr 1, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
How many unsolicited Watchtower quotes have I provided in over two years?

Quotes?

Or phrased in your own words?

The difference between the two is an astronomical sum.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113218 Apr 1, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I've considered it all, apparently more carefully than you have since you provided no data to justify your incredulity.

There was not flood, so there is no data to provide.

We only have no-flood data.

At some point absence of evidence becomes evidence of absence. See Michaelson-Morley 1887 for clarification.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113219 Apr 1, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
You didn't answer my question. Try again. HINT: your response should be spelled "Y-E-S" or "N-O." Which is it? Answer the question.

Like the gutless coward he has shown himself to be, he does not want to be pinned down to much of anything.

I often envision Richard Gere singing 'Razzle Dazzle', doing his soft shoe routine, in the movie 'Chicago', when reading KABs posts.


----------
Give 'em the old razzle dazzle
Razzle dazzle 'em
Give 'em an act with lots of flash in it
And the reaction will be passionate

Give 'em the old hocus pocus
Bead and feather 'em
How can they see with sequins in their eyes?
What if your hinges all are rusting?
What if, in fact, you're just disgusting?

Razzle dazzle 'em
And they'll never catch wise

Give 'em the old razzle dazzle
Razzle dazzle 'em
Back since the days of old Methuselah
Everyone loves the big bamboozler

Give 'em the old three ring circus
Stun and stagger 'em
When you're in trouble, go into your dance
Though you are stiffer than a girder
They let you get away with murder

Razzle dazzle 'em
And you've got a romance

Give 'em the old razzle dazzle
Razzle dazzle 'em
Give 'em an act that's unassailable
They'll wait a year 'till you're available

Give 'em the old, double whammy
Daze and dizzy 'em
Show 'em the first rate sorcerer you are
Long as you keep 'em way off balance
How can they spot, you got no talents?

Razzle dazzle 'em, razzle dazzle 'em
And they'll make you a star

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113220 Apr 1, 2013

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113221 Apr 1, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
So, they have concluded that Jesus and the archangel Michael are the same entity. Is that correct?

If you want to dispute the logic, I will take the theology.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113222 Apr 1, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't think that 10,000 ft of water could drain from the mainlands without massive erosion. That, unaccompanied by confirmation, is by definition, incredulity. Don't forget the record preserved in the global flood gauge.

That would be 27,000 feet.

Don't forget civilization continued to flourish throughout this period.
KAB

United States

#113223 Apr 1, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, well that is where you creationists fall down, throwing up mutually incompatible "alternate stories" to battle against a total picture from empirical science that is mutually consistent and independently "cross-confirming", as science demands it has to be.
E.G. we point out the gradual change in the fossil record happening right through the geologic column, and creationists claim that they were the creatures that died out in THE FLOOD, and their layering consistent with evolution is just coincidence.
THEN when challenged by the immense time required for the formation of many of the layers creationists want to call part of the flood (to explain the fossils, remember?), now you want to suggest this geology all happened BEFORE the Flood.
AND, we see obviously carnivorous creatures all the way back to the Cambrian, meaning, according to literal Genesis pundits, that the FALL had to occur before any of them. Meaning ADAM was born in the early Cambrian, and though he lived only 930 years, and we have an estimated geneology from his descendant to the FLOOD which you now claim happened AFTER all this rock formation...means the entire record from the Cambrian to the Flood (which is nowhere to be seen) all happened in a couple of thousand years at most. Simply impossible.
Your special pleading in each case is inconsistent with your special pleading in each other case. Science, on the other hand, does not allow this mutual inconsistency to stand. It tells us there is something wrong with your theory, somewhere. In fact everywhere.
But you guys just let it all pile up, hoping nobody notices that your special pleading in each instance is not compared to your special pleading in each OTHER instance!
Why don't you think science can take you seriously??? THIS is the reason.
I represent only myself, and I don't hold any of the positions you address, either for the reasons you give or similar. Please address posts to me which are related to positions I take.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113224 Apr 1, 2013
REM: Post #113180.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113225 Apr 1, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I represent only myself, and I don't hold any of the positions you address, either for the reasons you give or similar. Please address posts to me which are related to positions I take.

By definition JW members represent the cult and are under their governance.

You are not allowed to run for office.
You were only granted the right to vote in 1999.
You are not allowed to join clubs.
You are not allowed to accept blood transfusions.
You are not allowed to read Christian literature except what the cult officially allows.


If you break any of these rules and are caught you will have to appear before a Judicial committee and can be disfellowshiped.
[The above does not seem to apply to JWs who are well liked or are in positions of power]

BTW, you are an exceptionally prideful person. Isn't that grounds for disfellowship (assuming the offense is repeated as often as we have observed it in this forum)?

Inquiring minds would like to know.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#113226 Apr 1, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I represent only myself, and I don't hold any of the positions you address, either for the reasons you give or similar. Please address posts to me which are related to positions I take.
OK, so you are the "flood after the geologic column" part of the creo-tag-team.

You don't have to worry about how your little alternative reality tale fits all the other alt-reality tales that your friend use for the different problems of the Biblical narrative vs reality...

I tried to show you why your bit does not fit the other bits. BLANK.

Science on the other hand actually demands a consistent, interconnecting explanation for all the elements of reality we observe, or at least tries to.

So, perhaps you can provide a summary of how you think it all fits together. Earth - old or young? Genesis - literal or allegorical? The geneologies provided - did Adam live n the Cambrian (500 million years ago) or 6000 years ago?

Come on, make some sense. You expect us to (and we do).

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113227 Apr 1, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, so you are the "flood after the geologic column" part of the creo-tag-team.
You don't have to worry about how your little alternative reality tale fits all the other alt-reality tales that your friend use for the different problems of the Biblical narrative vs reality...
I tried to show you why your bit does not fit the other bits. BLANK.
Science on the other hand actually demands a consistent, interconnecting explanation for all the elements of reality we observe, or at least tries to.
So, perhaps you can provide a summary of how you think it all fits together. Earth - old or young? Genesis - literal or allegorical? The geneologies provided - did Adam live n the Cambrian (500 million years ago) or 6000 years ago?
Come on, make some sense. You expect us to (and we do).

There is no way on God's green earth that KAB will respond to this in any sensible fashion.

He does not often give opinions.
He does not often answer questions.

I don't know if he is afraid of us or afraid of getting in trouble with his cult.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#113228 Apr 1, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, so you are the "flood after the geologic column" part of the creo-tag-team.
You don't have to worry about how your little alternative reality tale fits all the other alt-reality tales that your friend use for the different problems of the Biblical narrative vs reality...
I tried to show you why your bit does not fit the other bits. BLANK.
Science on the other hand actually demands a consistent, interconnecting explanation for all the elements of reality we observe, or at least tries to.
So, perhaps you can provide a summary of how you think it all fits together. Earth - old or young? Genesis - literal or allegorical? The geneologies provided - did Adam live n the Cambrian (500 million years ago) or 6000 years ago?
Come on, make some sense. You expect us to (and we do).
Those you refer to as my friends are no more so than you are.

Summary: Old Earth, Genesis literal except where the record itself indicates or it is otherwise confirmed not to be, and Adam lived 6,000 years ago.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113229 Apr 1, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Those you refer to as my friends are no more so than you are.
Summary: Old Earth, Genesis literal except where the record itself indicates or it is otherwise confirmed not to be, and Adam lived 6,000 years ago.

Why would the early chapters of genesis be considered to be literal when they never were considered literal prior to the protestant reformation.

Writings about the garden and the flood were written about extensively throughout history. Always the points and teachings intertwined within these stories were in the forefront and no one was concerned with literalism.

But you are not PERMITTED to look this stuff up because your cult commands you not to. That is why you pump us for information. YOU are not allowed to look, but there is no prohibition about others looking it up for you!

You JW WHORE!

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#113230 Apr 1, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't think that 10,000 ft of water could drain from the mainlands without massive erosion. That, unaccompanied by confirmation, is by definition, incredulity. Don't forget the record preserved in the global flood gauge.
No, I do't think that untold thousands of cubic miles of fresh water could drain off without leaving any trace of its passage. There are too many examples of what happened when the Straights of Gibraltar opened, when post glacial lakes drained, when a natural earth dam broke above the Grand Canyon... and before you jump to an "AHA!" conclusion, dating shows those things are all completely unrelated to your fairy tale.

There is no record of a global flood in your massively speculative "global flood gauge." There is only evidence of a slough from the crater wall.

Desperation is so unbecoming, KAB. For Pete's sake, can you please show a little dignity?!
KAB

Oxford, NC

#113231 Apr 1, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I do't think that untold thousands of cubic miles of fresh water could drain off without leaving any trace of its passage. There are too many examples of what happened when the Straights of Gibraltar opened, when post glacial lakes drained, when a natural earth dam broke above the Grand Canyon... and before you jump to an "AHA!" conclusion, dating shows those things are all completely unrelated to your fairy tale.
There is no record of a global flood in your massively speculative "global flood gauge." There is only evidence of a slough from the crater wall.
Desperation is so unbecoming, KAB. For Pete's sake, can you please show a little dignity?!
None of the examples you cite give us any info about massive floodwaters receding gradually over the course of a major portion of a year, do they? Under the circumstances, those were rather desperate undignified references, don't you think?

Oh, the flood gauge. Perhaps you know that the crater is estimated to be about 1.4 million years old, yet only one "slough" has been discerned, estimated at about 4200 years ago. What'd be the chances of all that material just sitting there waiting on the inner sidewalls of the crater all that time and just happening to fall (wash?) in when the flood is reported to have occurred?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113232 Apr 1, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
None of the examples you cite give us any info about massive floodwaters receding gradually over the course of a major portion of a year, do they? Under the circumstances, those were rather desperate undignified references, don't you think?
Oh, the flood gauge. Perhaps you know that the crater is estimated to be about 1.4 million years old, yet only one "slough" has been discerned, estimated at about 4200 years ago. What'd be the chances of all that material just sitting there waiting on the inner sidewalls of the crater all that time and just happening to fall (wash?) in when the flood is reported to have occurred?

that this would happen somewhere on the earth in near 100%
The fact that 4,200 years is not long enough in the past for the flood.
The fact that civilization was, and continued to be, in full swing 4,200 years ago
The fact that water levels decreasing at 200 ft per day would be a pretty powerful event (not to mention going up at an even greater rate).

This is a good story to tell an uneducated 19 y/o crack whore or a cult member, but I don't think any of us here are gonna buy it.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#113233 Apr 1, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
None of the examples you cite give us any info about massive floodwaters receding gradually over the course of a major portion of a year, do they? Under the circumstances, those were rather desperate undignified references, don't you think?
Oh, the flood gauge. Perhaps you know that the crater is estimated to be about 1.4 million years old, yet only one "slough" has been discerned, estimated at about 4200 years ago. What'd be the chances of all that material just sitting there waiting on the inner sidewalls of the crater all that time and just happening to fall (wash?) in when the flood is reported to have occurred?
Another dataless speculation, KAB? I'm surprised at you.

There is nothing gradual about the flood story. A MINIMUM 10 FEET of rain per hour for a thousand hours would result in flash floods that would make the Amazon River and Victoria Falls look like dollar store squirt guns. The runoff afterward could not be a casual dribble. Your book states that it took MONTHS to drain away as an indication of how catastrophic it was, not how gentle.

The walls of the crater are shocked granite. Do you understand that granite gradually (repeat, GRADUALLY) breaks down under acids to become clay? There aren't any volcanic gasses creating strong acids, just biomass in an arctic environment decomposing into relatively weak tannic acid.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#113234 Apr 1, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Another dataless speculation, KAB? I'm surprised at you.
There is nothing gradual about the flood story. A MINIMUM 10 FEET of rain per hour for a thousand hours would result in flash floods that would make the Amazon River and Victoria Falls look like dollar store squirt guns. The runoff afterward could not be a casual dribble. Your book states that it took MONTHS to drain away as an indication of how catastrophic it was, not how gentle.
The walls of the crater are shocked granite. Do you understand that granite gradually (repeat, GRADUALLY) breaks down under acids to become clay? There aren't any volcanic gasses creating strong acids, just biomass in an arctic environment decomposing into relatively weak tannic acid.
What is the speculation? Please enlighten the class.
You are so not technically savvy. Read the account carefully (Hint: Think upwelling). See if you can get a flood geologist to endorse the principle that the longer it takes for flood waters to recede, the more catastrophic will be the run-off effects. Meanwhile, what happened to the slough? Now it's biomass breaking down granite. How does that relate? Try working some scientific probability analysis into your next response to assess the likelihood of it all sloughing down 4500 years ago without something "energetically" significant occurring.

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) 4 min macumazahn 195,138
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 12 min macumazahn 11,181
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 hr Chimney1 29,450
Science News (Sep '13) 14 hr Ricky F 3,573
kitchen Fitters In Manchester Area Wed lihatsaja1 1
Ribose can be produced in space Apr 26 MIDutch 2
Posting for Points in the Evolution Forum (Oct '11) Apr 26 ChristineM 14,551
More from around the web