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

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

There are 166311 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.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#118605 Jun 25, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, so you have wasted a whole year merely arguing that the English originated English? Wow, what an idiot. Really.
An idiot always knows their kind.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#118606 Jun 25, 2013
Chucky, you ARE wrong about "ownership".

Consider this a learning opportunity and move on.

Please.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#118607 Jun 25, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, you are, and clearly you are free to state whatever you want to prove it.
Once I explained to you that the pattern of design we see from man is caused by learning as we go, you seemed to go silent on the subject. Do you agree that the progressive incremental pattern of design is derived from learning? If not, to what do you attribute it? And, if so, why would an omniscient creator God follow a pattern based on ever-decreasing ignorance?

Remember the whole "description" versus "explanation" bit? I doubt you're stupid enough to not understand the difference between those two words. Surely someone as learned as yourself wouldn't confuse those terms. So, that being the case, it's safe to assume that you were merely being obfuscatory to avoid providing an answer that you knew would, in some way, contradict your religious beliefs.

So...do you simply not know the difference between "description and "explanation?" Are you ignorant about the definitions of those basic terms, or were you being dishonest to prevent admitting to yourself that you were wrong about something regarding your God and the interdependent facets of your "argument" for its existence?

I don't expect an honest answer. I expect plenty of shucking and jiving and avoidance, because anything more than that would result in cognitive dissonance, and you would rather avoid that than be honest and risk exposing the flaws in your arguments to yourself.

What a pitiful "faith" you have.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#118608 Jun 25, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Blah! blah! blah! that does not change the fact that, English belongs to England and again, what makes you think that you are perfect?
Yes, it actually does change that fact, because the adjective form of the word provides the definition you keep referring to, but you're using the adjective definition for the verb form of the word. You might as well say that "right" as in the direction is what is meant when someone is going to right a ship in the water. Same spelling, different parts of speech with different definitions. Why, other than the fact that you built an argument around this error, would you treat an adjective and a verb as though they're the same thing?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#118609 Jun 25, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Design too, don't forget.
Not if it's by an omniscient God. Incremental design patterns caused by increasing levels of understanding, i.e. learning, don't forget.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#118610 Jun 25, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> The earth do exist, so tell me who owns the earth? i hope you know that we are all temporary owners.
I didn't say "only things that exist can be owned by other things." I said that "only things that exist can own other things." Did you ever consider the notion that you could have misunderstood the English language as spoken by someone fluent in it, and that your half-assed comprehension, as useful as it may be for day-to-day interactions finding restaurants or the library, might not be so useful for discussions wherein the subtleties of the language are brought to bear in the fleshing out of ideas? No...of course not! You know all the English anybody would ever need to know!

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#118611 Jun 25, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> An idiot always knows their kind.
Origination does not equal ownership. Argument over. This is not an English language fan club thread, its an evolution thread.

Its obvious to everyone that having been thoroughly obliterated when you tried to attack evolution with your childish and inept arguments, you retreated to your happy place of arguing about one of the most silly and pointless possible subjects for a whole bloody year!

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#118612 Jun 25, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> An idiot always knows their kind.
Oh, leave off, Chuck.

That level of obsessive compulsion is extreme, even for Topix.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#118613 Jun 25, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> An idiot always knows their kind.
I'm sure you do.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#118614 Jun 25, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Stop mincing words, English belongs to England.
"Originated in" is synonymous with "belongs to" or "owned by"?

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#118615 Jun 25, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Origination does not equal ownership. Argument over. This is not an English language fan club thread, its an evolution thread.
Its obvious to everyone that having been thoroughly obliterated when you tried to attack evolution with your childish and inept arguments, you retreated to your happy place of arguing about one of the most silly and pointless possible subjects for a whole bloody year!
My ancestors were English, yet I don't belong to England - but let's not be too hasty about Chucky's logic. The Bible originated as the Torah, so it belongs to the Semitic tribes and NOT the Christians. Jesus was Jewish and he spoke Aramaic, so he cannot belong to gentiles.
KAB

United States

#118616 Jun 25, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Cut the crap, a-hole. MY post was 118537 - I misread or mis-typed it by one digit. Get over your undeservedly sanctimonious self.
The post I referenced was the Zone's post, not yours. You brought your post incorrectly into the mix.
KAB

United States

#118617 Jun 25, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Chromium Man gave links supporting his statement that some species with variable numbers of chromosomes can still breed just fine. Yet you claim its dataless?
In any case, you have demonstrated that supplying you with data is futile, as you will simply cherry pick what you think supports you and ignore what does not.
If Datum A allows that a flood was possible,
And Datum B rules out a flood.
Then Datum B wins. Its called falsifiability and a single verified datum ruling out a hypothesis successfully falsifies it, no matter how many other data do not.
Just as, a single case of variable chromosomes in a single species proves that the hypothesis "must have the same number of chromosomes in a species" is false. End of story.
Where is the data in Chrome's following post?

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TFA...

You are correct about data precedence. Now all you have to do is provide Datum B ruling out the flood.

Regarding your final point, you are correct. Chrome was wrong, thinking equal numbers of chromosomes were required.
KAB

United States

#118618 Jun 25, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Between modern humans and our chimp-like ancestors.
What quantity of missing links is needed to falsify evolution?

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#118619 Jun 25, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The post I referenced was the Zone's post, not yours. You brought your post incorrectly into the mix.
I dearly wish your Lord could help you, because nobody else can. I was responding to #118584 - where you addressed ME about MY POST and linked SZ's.

What part of clueless and nuts do you NOT personify?
KAB

United States

#118620 Jun 25, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Once I explained to you that the pattern of design we see from man is caused by learning as we go, you seemed to go silent on the subject. Do you agree that the progressive incremental pattern of design is derived from learning? If not, to what do you attribute it? And, if so, why would an omniscient creator God follow a pattern based on ever-decreasing ignorance?
Remember the whole "description" versus "explanation" bit? I doubt you're stupid enough to not understand the difference between those two words. Surely someone as learned as yourself wouldn't confuse those terms. So, that being the case, it's safe to assume that you were merely being obfuscatory to avoid providing an answer that you knew would, in some way, contradict your religious beliefs.
So...do you simply not know the difference between "description and "explanation?" Are you ignorant about the definitions of those basic terms, or were you being dishonest to prevent admitting to yourself that you were wrong about something regarding your God and the interdependent facets of your "argument" for its existence?
I don't expect an honest answer. I expect plenty of shucking and jiving and avoidance, because anything more than that would result in cognitive dissonance, and you would rather avoid that than be honest and risk exposing the flaws in your arguments to yourself.
What a pitiful "faith" you have.
You have shucked and jived sufficiently avoiding the answer which doesn't support your religious beliefs. I don't think I need to contribute further unless you want further explanation of the other answer which BTW I have given previously.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#118621 Jun 25, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I will again demonstrate how data tells the true story. Post #118536 is not the Khan post, and here is your post which is wrong if the Zone is correct,
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TFA...
Isn't data wonderful?

Yes, it proves you wrong.

"not an insurmountable barrier"

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#118622 Jun 25, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Are there any sequences in chimps which are found in some humans but not others?

I told you to ask your mother about this.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#118623 Jun 25, 2013
KAB wrote:
Being away for a week or so has provideded a valuable experiment. This forum has already gone virtually completely dataless while post-for-post appearing so authoritative. This must especially delight KAB

What, another unsupported assertion by KAB? That like a million now?

Lost count.

Why are YOU, the most data adverse person on this forum accusing others of not providing data?

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#118624 Jun 25, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Stop mincing words, English belongs to England.

Previously Refuted

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) 38 min 15th Dalai Lama 87,341
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) Feb 18 knows 1,824
What's your religion? Feb 17 Endofdays 767
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) Feb 17 superwilly 5,811
Scientific Method Feb 15 stinky 20
Evolving A Maze Solving Robot Feb 6 Untangler 2
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) Feb 1 Rose_NoHo 223,360
More from around the web