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

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

There are 150926 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.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#116390 May 27, 2013
OOOOObama wrote:
Atheists should try to debate with, or refute the responses of REAL Christians, such as Biblical scholars and Apologetics websites. They have the answers for EVERYTHING. One of my favorites is www.gotquestions.org . Atheists like to take cheap shots at the arrogant and not very educated Christians, but can they challenge actual THEOLOGIANS and SCHOLARS, and generally knowledgeable Christians?
If you review the history of science and the debates with religion, you will find that many of the people questioning biblical inerrancy and literalism were themselves theologians and biblical scholars. It turns out when you actually study the Bible and the real world the real world doesn't mesh well with a literal interpretation of the Bible. I find that fundamentalists are the least knowledgeable of all Christians.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#116391 May 27, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The legend has not been confirmed impossible, and you're entitled to your opinion, which in your case stands on a virtually completely data-free foundation of no credibility.
Without breaking the laws of nature, it is impossible. As I said, until you prove it possible, since it has to break the laws of nature, it is impossible by definition.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#116392 May 27, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I do understand that and have stated such from the beginning. It's your side that has long attached certainty to the Noachian flood not having happened. I only point to data which makes ToE not a believable story.
Without breaking the laws of nature, it is impossible. As I said, until you prove it possible, since it has to break the laws of nature, it is impossible by definition.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116393 May 27, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The legend has not been confirmed impossible, and you're entitled to your opinion, which in your case stands on a virtually completely data-free foundation of no credibility.

Can you confirm this legend has not been confirmed impossible because my score card says it has been. Your data-free opinion, which hangs on nothing, has all the credibility of proponent (i.e. yourself) which is to say,... none.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#116394 May 27, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Without breaking the laws of nature, it is impossible. As I said, until you prove it possible, since it has to break the laws of nature, it is impossible by definition.
A miracle of someone being diagnosed with a fatal disease condemned to die in 3-5 months that makes a complete recovery breaks the laws of nature. But is blown off because it can not be explained. So what's your point?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116395 May 27, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for a very weighty post, the scientific recognition that the Noachian flood could have happened. It's most unfortunate that it has taken this long for your side to acknowledge that, and in what position does it put those on your side who have so often proclaimed confirmation that it didn't happen?

Zebras are purple and pink! Science says so!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116396 May 27, 2013
OOOOObama wrote:
Atheists should try to debate with, or refute the responses of REAL Christians, such as Biblical scholars and Apologetics websites. They have the answers for EVERYTHING. One of my favorites is www.gotquestions.org . Atheists like to take cheap shots at the arrogant and not very educated Christians, but can they challenge actual THEOLOGIANS and SCHOLARS, and generally knowledgeable Christians?

Apologitics is Satanic tripe. No Christian with faith needs illogical doubletalk offered by these comedic sources.

Actual theologians, with few exceptions, do not engage in such claptrap.

That is stuff for ministers, not scholars.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116397 May 27, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
If you don't demonstrate, with data, that you can reason, this exchange isn't going very far. Let's start with why you have included reference to John 1:14 in two responses about John 1:1, where the focus has been the relationship between the Word and God.

You have not demonstrated, with data, that you can reason, so this exchange has gone nowhere.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116398 May 27, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Are reliability and certainty the same thing? Clue: Must something be certain to be reliable?

If something is certainly reliable then it is reliably certain.

What do you expect to catch with doubletalk?

Some synonyms of reliable are:
accurate, confirmed, definitive, dependable, factual, proven, supported, trustworthy, truthful, validated, verified, veritable.

Does the Biblical literalism meet any of these?

Then how much less so does the pseudobible, faked translation, NWT meet them?





KAB

Wilson, NC

#116399 May 27, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you DON'T strategically avoid any and all definitions of words that would contradict your understanding of the Bible? REALLY? Mister "I choose #8?" Mister "look, these guys colloquially referred to the moon as hanging, therefore that's the most pertinent definition of hang?" REALLY?
Do you simply refuse to believe that you could be a liar, or do you know you lie but justify it by saying to yourself that it's in defense of the Bible?
I don't avoid any data. A particular use of a word usually intends one meaning. I made a selection from the meanings provided since the usage under consideration did not intend all the meanings, and some probably wouldn't even qualify based on context. What definition of hang do you prefer?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116400 May 27, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Job 26:7

Ah, the random Bible verse generator.

When I ran it I got: Matthew 18:4.

Step right up and try your luck!

http://www.sandersweb.net/bible/verse.php
KAB

Wilson, NC

#116401 May 27, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Without breaking the laws of nature, it is impossible. As I said, until you prove it possible, since it has to break the laws of nature, it is impossible by definition.
As I stated, you're entitled to your opinion. Without data that's all you have.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116402 May 27, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know what species of fish are capable of swallowing a man whole.


Most of the large carnivorous fish (sharks) do not swallow whole but rather chew them up. Another inconvenient fact for you to ignore.
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Were plants created before 99.8% of all other matter in the solar system?

Only if you have a literal belief in the Bible.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#116403 May 27, 2013
KAB wrote:
Yes, I do understand that and have stated such from the beginning. It's your side that has long attached certainty to the Noachian flood not having happened. I only point to data which makes ToE not a believable story.
Until someone proves otherwise, Evolution is a demonstrated reliable theory.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#116404 May 27, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Most of the large carnivorous fish (sharks) do not swallow whole but rather chew them up. Another inconvenient fact for you to ignore.
<quoted text>
Only if you have a literal belief in the Bible.
Are Dr. D's shark facts meant to explain why sharks have been found with whole animals in their stomachs?
KAB

Wilson, NC

#116405 May 27, 2013
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
Until someone proves otherwise, Evolution is a demonstrated reliable theory.
Go back and review the mutation rate vs available time data dilemma.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#116406 May 27, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
A miracle of someone being diagnosed with a fatal disease condemned to die in 3-5 months that makes a complete recovery breaks the laws of nature. But is blown off because it can not be explained. So what's your point?
It doesn't break the laws of nature, because man's understanding of disease is widely acknowledged to be incomplete. Therefore, the most you can say is "we don't fully understand why this disease stopped afflicting its victim, but we're grateful that it did." You can't say it breaks the laws of nature, because you don't fully understand disease. You don't even understand the basic tenets of logical thought.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#116407 May 27, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Most of the large carnivorous fish (sharks) do not swallow whole but rather chew them up. Another inconvenient fact for you to ignore.
<quoted text>
Only if you have a literal belief in the Bible.
Megalodon could have easily done it.
imagine2011

Southaven, MS

#116408 May 27, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Without breaking the laws of nature, it is impossible. As I said, until you prove it possible, since it has to break the laws of nature, it is impossible by definition.
Where do you say the "Laws of Nature" come from?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#116409 May 27, 2013
imagine2011 wrote:
<quoted text>
Where do you say the "Laws of Nature" come from?
They don't "come from" anywhere. They just are.

Who tells a rock to fall?

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) 6 min renee 31,152
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 12 min scientia potentia... 13,220
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 2 hr syamsu 197,248
News RANT: Is "global warming" today's version of th... 18 hr bearings 2
Another "gap" gets closed Tue MIDutch 1
Christianity and why its wrong + evolution debates May 21 Zog Has-fallen 15
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) May 17 Bkd 1,746
More from around the web