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

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

There are 141877 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 No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#115045 May 9, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>It is laughable that you would reference "scientific standards" in view of the fact that evolutionary biologists have completely trashed all standards of scientific objectivity in their attempts to promote a worldview of atheism. For starters, you need to squarely address the fallacy of radiometric dating... the fact that it is a non-reproducible methodology that relies on layers upon layers of unprovable assumptions.
You are purposefully ignoring all facts in this matter simply to sell your snake oil. You are a con artist, a scammer.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#115046 May 9, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>It is laughable that you would reference "scientific standards" in view of the fact that evolutionary biologists have completely trashed all standards of scientific objectivity in their attempts to promote a worldview of atheism. For starters, you need to squarely address the fallacy of radiometric dating... the fact that it is a non-reproducible methodology that relies on layers upon layers of unprovable assumptions.
Apologetics' pseudoscience is laughable.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115047 May 9, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Without evidence confirming that there was no flood, you don't win.

You have it basackward again.

Without evidence confirming that there WAS a flood, YOU lose.

Remember what you refuse to acknowledge, that the burden of proof is, and always has been, on you.


“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115048 May 9, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I have provided the historical record of the succession of Presidents. That is not "nobody says Canada conquered America".
Your concluding paragraph rests my case.

You seem to have misunderstood. That is typical of you.

It was hoped, foolishly in hindsight, that you would see that Canada conquering American is a prefect analogy to your "argument" that Nebby conquered Egypt.

We lead the ass to water, but could not make him drink.
KAB

Des Moines, IA

#115049 May 9, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
For those of you who have just joined us, this is KAB's standard runaround when he knows he's gotten his ass handed to him in the past. So by demanding we do it all over again, he hopes we will give up and he can declare victory.
Also note that I am willing to provide data, even again, snd the opposition is not. This means something.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#115050 May 9, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Also note that I am willing to provide data, even again, snd the opposition is not. This means something.
Data? You haven't even provided evidence. Data without evidence is nothing, like your bible.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115051 May 9, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Didn't I just state that ANY evidence provided should be scrutinized?

But NON-evidence gets a free pass with you.

Why is that, do you think?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115052 May 9, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
How would YOU prove a supernatural claim using natural physical data, or is that, by definition, impossible?

By providing evidence (data).

Is that too hard for you?

Regardless of cause there is only non-evidence for things that didn't happen.

Regardless of cause there is evidence for things that do happen.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115053 May 9, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Science provides data, a pattern you, so far, don't follow.

I call projection.
KAB

Des Moines, IA

#115054 May 9, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you haven't.
How quickly you want to forget the flood gauge!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115055 May 9, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You're entitled to your opinion.

I am afraid we are not talking opinion in this case, but evidence (data). That is on KK's side and not yours.
KAB

Des Moines, IA

#115056 May 9, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
We're not in a court of law....we're among friends
Right, and friends (especially opposing ones) don't have to provide data to confirm an assertion is correct.
KAB

Des Moines, IA

#115057 May 9, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Great. Just tell us about a flood from the past 1,000 years that left behind no evidence. Then, tell us why you think the laws of physics would have differed between 4500 and 1000 years ago such that the greatest meteorological and geological event in the history of the planet wouldn't leave behind evidence.
Resume reality denial.
Would we know about any flood which left no recognizable evidence remaining to be recognized? As to the global flood, it would have left behind flood evidence. Isn't there 4500 year old flood evidence throughout the earth?

“Just because it is possible”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Doesn't mean it will happen.

#115058 May 9, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>It is laughable that you would reference "scientific standards" in view of the fact that evolutionary biologists have completely trashed all standards of scientific objectivity in their attempts to promote a worldview of atheism. For starters, you need to squarely address the fallacy of radiometric dating... the fact that it is a non-reproducible methodology that relies on layers upon layers of unprovable assumptions.
You have just hit the mark for completely insane.

Modern dating techniques are established, stable, repeatable and accurate.

Go find anonther point to assualt fire plug, this one is old news and well refuted.

You are established, unsatable, repeat nonsense and are inaccurate.

“Just because it is possible”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Doesn't mean it will happen.

#115059 May 9, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Also note that I am willing to provide data, even again, snd the opposition is not. This means something.
If I had a dime for everytime you claimed you would provide data, I would be rich man by now. If I got a dime for everytime you made the claim and then provided nothing, I would be twice as rich.

You have become established as a recurring character in your own online comedy farce. As evidence, I submit this thread in its entirety.
KAB

Des Moines, IA

#115060 May 9, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Not according to scientific standards of evidence, which is the only standard that matters regarding natural phenomena.
You already admitted there is no empirical evidence for such a flood.
I've admitted I don't know of any physical data confirming the global flood. As to supporting data, what's unscientific about the flood gauge data?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#115061 May 9, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Would we know about any flood which left no recognizable evidence remaining to be recognized? As to the global flood, it would have left behind flood evidence. Isn't there 4500 year old flood evidence throughout the earth?
There is evidence of lots of flood over the last 4500 years, but alas, still none for one "world wide" flood at any time.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#115062 May 9, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I've admitted I don't know of any physical data confirming the global flood. As to supporting data, what's unscientific about the flood gauge data?
So then why do you believe in an obvious myth?
KAB

Des Moines, IA

#115063 May 9, 2013
Elohim wrote:
<quoted text>No you haven't. All you've done is quote a work of fiction.
Do you think the global scale 1.4 million year old flood gauge in Northern Canada is a work of fiction?
KAB

Des Moines, IA

#115064 May 9, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
You have not. It is unnecessary. One sample at a time will take up another 2 months - again.
If you want to succeed, it would be wise to present different data since everything already presented has been exposed as non-confirming.

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) 11 min dirtclod 169,169
has science finally debunked the 'god' myth? 1 hr GTID62 29
Create your own Forum 13 hr MikeF 6
How can we prove God exists, or does not? 13 hr GTID62 201
News Aliens and evolution (Jun '12) 18 hr USaWarringIDIOTSo... 6,224
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) Mon MikeF 19,806
How would creationists explain... (Nov '14) Jul 2 Paul Porter1 561
More from around the web