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

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

There are 162480 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

#116176 May 22, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
My data is his data. As I've stated before, that's one thing we all have in common. The data is the same for everyone.

However, the data is not perceived by every the same way. A person with Paranoid Schizophrenia does not perceive the data of reality in the say way others do. Same data, different assessments of the data.

That is why (one of the reasons) we have the scientific method. So there is an objective means to evaluate that data.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#116177 May 22, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You asserted that your assertion was applicable to my assertion. It was not. Your opinion was not accompanied by data or any specific reference to such.
Right. Your assertions are not applicable to your assertions - since you assert that you provide data.
My opinions are generally backed by common knowledge that (for honest people with a modicum of education) needs no further elucidation. If you choose not to investigate 1+1=2 to confirm my opinions, you might continue to steadfastly question whether one+uno might or might not equal 3.14159265359....

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116178 May 22, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I've never stated that I know how it happened. Whereas, your side has stated that it didn't happen, knowing that if it had it would impact your faith.

This is not entirely honest. You maintain that the bible is a reliable source and have attempted (in a most futile fashion) to defend its narrative. Your beliefs are predicated on your faith in the Bible (a demonstratively unreliable source). My belief in the Bible, is in it's spiritual teachings and not historical literalism. Is it possible for someone to survive inside of the digestive track of a living being for 3 days?

And remember:
Jonah was swallowed (not inhaled or whatever)
Jonah prayed to Yahweh from the stomach of the "fish"
Jonah was "vomited" out of the "fish".

The belief that he could have been anywhere else besides the digestive track is not supported by the scripture.

According to the Hebrew Interlinear:
Yahweh .... "in bowels of the fish three days and three nights"

He prayed to Yahweh-Elohim "from bowels of the fish"

and "he is vomiting Jonah to the dry ground"
KAB

United States

#116179 May 22, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Not "actually."
He was ALLEGEDLY delivered to land just north of where he set out from. That land was the Assyrian empire, which included Nineveh. Don't mince words and pretend you have championed some momentous revelation - especially when you are DATALESS.
When I see you provide some data for your allegation I'll address it. Do you agree that Nineveh was about 500 miles inland, way out of reach of his fish transport?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116180 May 22, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
You're nuts, Black Knight.

Next to KAB the Black Knight is firmly grounded in reality.
KAB

United States

#116181 May 22, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
However, the data is not perceived by every the same way. A person with Paranoid Schizophrenia does not perceive the data of reality in the say way others do. Same data, different assessments of the data.
That is why (one of the reasons) we have the scientific method. So there is an objective means to evaluate that data.
In this case, both sides agree on the evaluation of the data.
KAB

United States

#116182 May 22, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Right. Your assertions are not applicable to your assertions - since you assert that you provide data.
My opinions are generally backed by common knowledge that (for honest people with a modicum of education) needs no further elucidation. If you choose not to investigate 1+1=2 to confirm my opinions, you might continue to steadfastly question whether one+uno might or might not equal 3.14159265359....
I accept that you are not serious about this. I'll proceed accordingly.
KAB

United States

#116183 May 22, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
This is not entirely honest. You maintain that the bible is a reliable source and have attempted (in a most futile fashion) to defend its narrative. Your beliefs are predicated on your faith in the Bible (a demonstratively unreliable source). My belief in the Bible, is in it's spiritual teachings and not historical literalism. Is it possible for someone to survive inside of the digestive track of a living being for 3 days?
And remember:
Jonah was swallowed (not inhaled or whatever)
Jonah prayed to Yahweh from the stomach of the "fish"
Jonah was "vomited" out of the "fish".
The belief that he could have been anywhere else besides the digestive track is not supported by the scripture.
According to the Hebrew Interlinear:
Yahweh .... "in bowels of the fish three days and three nights"
He prayed to Yahweh-Elohim "from bowels of the fish"
and "he is vomiting Jonah to the dry ground"
Check the definition of bowels for possibilities you seem to be overlooking.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#116184 May 22, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You have your guard up so high you can only see your own imagination. Thus, you're responding to what you expect me to state rather than what I actually do state. Try reading this carefully and objectively, then think objectively about what it atually states, then respond to what's actually there if you are so inclined. Please don't make a fool of yourself again by responding to something other than what's stated.
Here's the assertion. If someone asserts that a document states something, then a pertinent statement taken directly from the document is data (evidence) relative to what the document states. That's because it is, in fact, a statement from the document, and it contributes to assessing whether the assertion is correct or not. Note, the assertion has nothing to do with whether the content of the statement in the document is correct. It is only addressing what the document states, without regard to whether the information content is correct or not.
I hope we can finally get past this categorical "words in a document are not data" roadblock.
If you would speak English instead of misusing words that you know nothing of, then perhaps more people would understand you, idiot. Learn English.
LowellGuy

Le Roy, NY

#116186 May 22, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You asserted that your assertion was applicable to my assertion. It was not. Your opinion was not accompanied by data or any specific reference to such.
Say "what?" one more time! I dare you!
LowellGuy

United States

#116187 May 22, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
That which is demonstrably wrong should not be invoked. All else is eligible for consideration.
So, you're saying that intervention by undetectable little green men from outer space is always able to be invoked to rationalize away the logical and scientific incongruities, because they are not demonstrably wrong.

That's quite the standard you've got. A wonder that the rest of humanity doesn't employ it.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#116188 May 22, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
When I see you provide some data for your allegation I'll address it. Do you agree that Nineveh was about 500 miles inland, way out of reach of his fish transport?
No you won't. You never do. You have no concept of honor.

No kidding, Sherlock. I'M the one who provided that data TO YOU - along with the point that both the shore and Nineveh were in the Assyrian Empire... the land that Jonah was supposed to be going to instead of Tarshish.
Need some mouthwash? You've got crow feathers stuck in your teeth.
KAB

United States

#116189 May 22, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
If you would speak English instead of misusing words that you know nothing of, then perhaps more people would understand you, idiot. Learn English.
I would appreciate it if you would identify one misused word in my post, so I could improve. I will, of course, first seek to confirm the misuse. Can you risk that?
KAB

United States

#116190 May 22, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Say "what?" one more time! I dare you!
That's not an unreasonable dare. Here you go,

You asserted that your assertion was applicable to my assertion. It was not. Your opinion was not accompanied by data or any specific reference to such.
KAB

United States

#116191 May 22, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you're saying that intervention by undetectable little green men from outer space is always able to be invoked to rationalize away the logical and scientific incongruities, because they are not demonstrably wrong.
That's quite the standard you've got. A wonder that the rest of humanity doesn't employ it.
Undetectable entities of any size and color are of no concern. Since they are undetectable, they have no unique effect upon anything which impacts us, so they're not needed to explain anything which does.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116192 May 22, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
In this case, both sides agree on the evaluation of the data.

No, in this case one side prefers the scientific method and the other side prefers to make things up as they go and assert they are being scientific.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116193 May 22, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I accept that you are not serious about this. I'll proceed accordingly.

Translation: I will avoid the issue and make up excuses.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116194 May 22, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Check the definition of bowels for possibilities you seem to be overlooking.

We have been down that road. It means digestive system in every instance in the bible except where it refers to a pregnant womans stomach.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116195 May 22, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
If you would speak English instead of misusing words that you know nothing of, then perhaps more people would understand you, idiot. Learn English.

He has to word things in a way where he can back away from them if necessary.

It is not his fault. This seems to be ingrained into him by his cult. Dishonesty is an inherent part of the Watchtower cult.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116196 May 22, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not an unreasonable dare. Here you go,
You asserted that your assertion was applicable to my assertion. It was not. Your opinion was not accompanied by data or any specific reference to such.

Perfect example of what I was just saying Kitten. Intentional double-talk that says nothing so he can deny anything.

This is brought to you by the same cult that pays off potential litigants to keep things out of court but then encourages their members to lie in court when it gets to that point.

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 ... 4 min John 767
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 9 min Aura Mytha 221,918
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 29 min Al Caplan 76,946
Mathematicians PROVED evolution IMPOSSIBLE! 1 hr Al Caplan 437
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 5 hr John 32,170
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... (Jan '17) 18 hr Dogen 4,309
News Intelligent Design Action Network Meeting Sat The FACTory 1
More from around the web