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

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

There are 162356 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.

KAB

Kirkland, WA

#114933 May 8, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Like Noah's flood?
Gullibility. It's you.
Yes, logical and sane according to your characterization.
KAB

Kirkland, WA

#114934 May 8, 2013
Sorry, that was Kitten's characterization.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#114935 May 8, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You always overlook the value of a demonstrated reliable source. You can call the acceptance of Sargon prior to physical evidence gullibility if you want, but it was the course of wisdom and correct to boot. You clearly would have been in the no-Sargon camp to your detriment just as you are now in the Neb-didn't-conquer-Egypt camp.
I guess he is also in the snakes don't talk, insects have six legs, bats are not birds, no WW flood without evidence, the earth is a sphere, pi > 3, earth came after the stars, the sky is not a solid dome camps too.

KAB

Kirkland, WA

#114936 May 8, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Then you know what causes AIDS.
Did you suffer severe traumatic brain injury at some point in your life?
No. I just wasn't thinking about and chose to continue not thinking about AIDS and wasn't sure just what you wanted since it was completely off topic.
KAB

Kirkland, WA

#114937 May 8, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
KAB, for all your nonsense and twisting of facts just to make your unreliable "source" appear more reliable than it is, you still fail to see the most important thing. An assertion (like your bible) is not evidence of anything, especially any supernatural claims. Thus, you must present evidence of the supernatural claims that is more than hearsay, hearsay is inadmissible as evidence for many reasons. Again, your bible is nothing but claims, that's all, thus there is no evidence of any supernatural events within it, and that includes the existence of your god. So, provide evidence first.
Is it your understanding that there is no evidence confirming anything in the Bible as correct, or are you just considering anything unproven as supernatural, or what? Please clarify what you do and don't accept in the Bible.
KAB

Kirkland, WA

#114938 May 8, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You accepted a god without evidence already.
Yes, logical and sane according to your characterization
KAB

Kirkland, WA

#114939 May 8, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I was out for 2 weeks. KAB never tires of Tyre it seems.
It was your side which inflated and continues to roll the Tyre. I just answer questions and challenges. If you want it to stop, direect your request to your comrades.
KAB

Kirkland, WA

#114940 May 8, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess he is also in the snakes don't talk, insects have six legs, bats are not birds, no WW flood without evidence, the earth is a sphere, pi > 3, earth came after the stars, the sky is not a solid dome camps too.
Yes, I think he is.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#114941 May 8, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Is it your understanding that there is no evidence confirming anything in the Bible as correct, or are you just considering anything unproven as supernatural, or what? Please clarify what you do and don't accept in the Bible.
Whoa there Mr.

Who ever said that there should be NO evidence confirming ANYTHING in the Bible is correct.

But, if I make claims A, B, C, D, and E, and it turns out that my claims A and D are correct, does that prove that B,C, and E are correct too? Of course not.

No to mention, we already know some of its claims are incorrect.(e.g the Flood)
KAB

Kirkland, WA

#114942 May 8, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Whoa there Mr.
Who ever said that there should be NO evidence confirming ANYTHING in the Bible is correct.
But, if I make claims A, B, C, D, and E, and it turns out that my claims A and D are correct, does that prove that B,C, and E are correct too? Of course not.
No to mention, we already know some of its claims are incorrect.(e.g the Flood)
You have yet to provide data confirming the flood didn't happen.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#114943 May 8, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You have yet to provide data confirming the flood didn't happen.
Actually we have. Since a Biblical flood would leave massive evidence behind the lack of evidence in this case is data that it did not happen.

And as usual you do have it backwards. We don't even need to show "data it did not happen". This is the sort of claim that the positive side has to give evidence for. If I claim I can fly by flapping my arms really fast you don't have to find data that I can't do it. It is up to me to demonstrate that I can.

Your flood claim is on the same order. You have to give some sort of evidence that the flood happened.

Remember KAB without any evidence YOU lose.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#114944 May 8, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You have yet to provide data confirming the flood didn't happen.
In every post, you reveal the systematic destruction of the rational faculty evident in your kind of believer. Faith is the Enemy of Reason said Martin Luther. He was right. You cannot even see it, can you...

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#114945 May 8, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You have yet to provide data confirming the flood didn't happen.
Just about everyone here has done exactly that.

Also, you have yet to provide data confirming the flood *DID* happen.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#114946 May 8, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You always overlook the value of a demonstrated reliable source.
According to a completely subjective standard that nobody can agree upon and apply to consistently achieve the same results. When you make up your own rules, and they only apply to you, and they only apply the way you want, and nobody else can reliably duplicate your results, you fail.
KAB wrote:
You can call the acceptance of Sargon prior to physical evidence gullibility if you want, but it was the course of wisdom and correct to boot.
It is NEVER the course of wisdom to accept claims before there is evidence. Just because you might end up being right doesn't mean you're justified. If I throw a dart at a dartboard with a map on it, and I declare that a terrorist attack will occur in that city sometime in the future, should you accept that claim or not?
KAB wrote:
You clearly would have been in the no-Sargon camp to your detriment just as you are now in the Neb-didn't-conquer-Egypt camp.
There's a difference between "X did not occur" and "I don't accept your claim that X occurred." You have already demonstrated that you don't understand the concept of rejection not being an assertion of the contrapositive.

You have yet to demonstrate that Canada never conquered America. Why do you assert that it never occurred, when you can't prove it never occurred?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#114947 May 8, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You have yet to provide data confirming the flood didn't happen.
Absence of universal genetic bottlenecks dating to 4500 years ago and emanating from the Middle East.

If we DID discover universal genetic bottlenecks, would that confirm the flood?

Remember, you've already said that the methodology for detecting and dating genetic bottlenecks is of dubious merit. But, if the scientific community was unanimous (we'll disregard the creationist outfits, as they are inherently anti-science) about a universal genetic bottleneck dating back to 4500 years ago, and leading all life back to the Middle East, would you accept that as evidence that supports the flood, or would you dismiss it because of the faulty methodology for finding such bottlenecks?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#114948 May 8, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You have yet to provide data confirming the flood didn't happen.
And you haven't provided data confirming that people haven't been abducted by spacemen. Are you calling all those abduction stories by all those unrelated and unfamiliar people lies? Are you saying they're crazy? Liar, Lunatic, or Lord, right? Are they liars, lunatics, or are they actual victims of alien abductions? If you can't prove their stories are false, shouldn't we accept them as true?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#114949 May 8, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Is it your understanding that there is no evidence confirming anything in the Bible as correct, or are you just considering anything unproven as supernatural, or what? Please clarify what you do and don't accept in the Bible.
Anything? No. EVERYTHING? Yes. The time to accept that everything in the Bible is true is when everything in the Bible has been confirmed true with ACTUAL EVIDENCE. EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. Until that occurs, the correct and justified position is to reject all claims that have not been demonstrated true with evidence.

Has the flood been demonstrated true with evidence? You have already admitted it has not. Therefore, the only JUSTIFIED position is to reject it. That doesn't require assertion of the contrapositive; it just means the claim has not been demonstrated to be true. The burden of proof has not been met.

Do try to be honest with yourself for once. I promise, it won't hurt forever.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#114950 May 8, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
No. I just wasn't thinking about and chose to continue not thinking about AIDS and wasn't sure just what you wanted since it was completely off topic.
So, you lied. Gotcha.
KAB

Kirkland, WA

#114951 May 8, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually we have. Since a Biblical flood would leave massive evidence behind the lack of evidence in this case is data that it did not happen.
And as usual you do have it backwards. We don't even need to show "data it did not happen". This is the sort of claim that the positive side has to give evidence for. If I claim I can fly by flapping my arms really fast you don't have to find data that I can't do it. It is up to me to demonstrate that I can.
Your flood claim is on the same order. You have to give some sort of evidence that the flood happened.
Remember KAB without any evidence YOU lose.
That sword cuts both ways. Provide data confirming what massive evidence of a global flood 4500 years ago must be available, and have been discovered and recognized today.
KAB

Kirkland, WA

#114952 May 8, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
In every post, you reveal the systematic destruction of the rational faculty evident in your kind of believer. Faith is the Enemy of Reason said Martin Luther. He was right. You cannot even see it, can you...
I certainly can't see your confirming data, but that's because you haven't provided any. You just assert it exists. The Guy (that's your guy) has stated I shouldn't accept dataless assertions.

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 ... 1 hr Dogen 577
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 10 hr 15th Dalai Lama 76,822
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... (Jan '17) 12 hr Dogen 4,275
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 16 hr Simon 13,743
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) Tue John 32,164
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) Jul 16 The FACTory 221,745
Reject your belief system now Jul 14 Science 5
More from around the web