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

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

There are 151313 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

#118718 Jun 26, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
We have a wealth of confirming experience with design, and can demonstrate at will that it is a very real process.
Then where is it?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#118719 Jun 26, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
An all-knowing being could not learn, which means there's something it wouldn't have the power to do. Omniscience nullifies omnipotence.

There are a number of logical impossibilities when it comes to this the Omnipotent/omniscient god. Creating a rock he cannot move, thinking a thought he cannot think,... etc.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#118720 Jun 26, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Genesis says dust. No predecessors. Just dirt. Or do you doubt the bible?
Read some more of Genesis. You'll find there were other living things before humans. Even items representing mature designs are produced from raw materials.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#118721 Jun 26, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
There are a number of logical impossibilities when it comes to this the Omnipotent/omniscient god. Creating a rock he cannot move, thinking a thought he cannot think,... etc.
Right, but learning is at the core of the design patterns that KAB is trying to use as evidence of God designing everything, so God's omniscience means he can't learn, which means the design pattern we see, which KAB refuses to explain (but he will repeatedly describe), cannot arise from the very process that leads to it if God did it.

Naughty logic, getting in KAB's way again.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#118722 Jun 26, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Read some more of Genesis. You'll find there were other living things before humans. Even items representing mature designs are produced from raw materials.
The fossil record disagrees with the Bible's story. When the evidence and the story don't agree, which is wrong? Oh, right...the evidence.

This is why presuppositional apologetics is inherently dishonest.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#118723 Jun 26, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Incorrect on a number of levels. They do not have the same kind of bacteria as at the start.
Design, as it can explain anything, therefore explains nothing.
I don't suppose you'll be providing data confirming the different bacteria type(s). Also, design cannot believably explain any conceivable thing.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#118724 Jun 26, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Natural creatures made them.
Birds make nests. Just as natural as humans making cars.
Thanks for reinforcing my point that naturally an intelligent being "made" living things.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#118725 Jun 26, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you telling us that God is natural?
Remember, I don't get unnecessarily entangled in labels. It's content that matters. So what is the content of interest to you in your use of the term "natural"?
KAB

Wilson, NC

#118726 Jun 26, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Then where is it?
You could start with the design of this forum.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#118727 Jun 26, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Remember, I don't get unnecessarily entangled in labels. It's content that matters. So what is the content of interest to you in your use of the term "natural"?
If God is natural, God is detectable. If God is detectable, God can be measured and quantified. So, is God natural?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#118728 Jun 26, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for reinforcing my point that naturally an intelligent being "made" living things.
Your point doesn't have evidence to support it, nor is there evidence of any such designer's existence. You have an explanation that doesn't explain anything attributed to a thing for which there is no evidence. How is that of any use?
KAB

Wilson, NC

#118729 Jun 26, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
The fossil record disagrees with the Bible's story. When the evidence and the story don't agree, which is wrong? Oh, right...the evidence.
This is why presuppositional apologetics is inherently dishonest.
Still stuck on the "not-so-merry-go-round " I see. I'm not riding unless a confirming data horse is provided.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#118730 Jun 26, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't suppose you'll be providing data confirming the different bacteria type(s). Also, design cannot believably explain any conceivable thing.
GREAT! A falsification. Just tell us what could NOT be explained by design, when it's design based on the whim of an allegedly omniscient omnipotent being for which there is no evidence of any kind beyond baseless assertions.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#118731 Jun 26, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Still stuck on the "not-so-merry-go-round " I see. I'm not riding unless a confirming data horse is provided.
And you never demonstrated how the Bible's story is correct. You merely asserted it is, and asserted that the evidence and/or interpretation are wrong. Isn't it just the oddest coincidence that ONLY people who are Christians and ONLY people who are members of JW are able to competently do science? Why is it that only you and your fellow JWs are able to do science to the exclusion of absolutely everybody else in the world? I mean, bully for you, but how do you explain the global incompetence in science save for the JWs?
KAB

Wilson, NC

#118732 Jun 26, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
If God is natural, God is detectable. If God is detectable, God can be measured and quantified. So, is God natural?
Detectability does not assure measurability/quantifiability.
It's a good thing I inquired about content since you don't even understand what you think you're pursuing.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#118733 Jun 26, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Your point doesn't have evidence to support it, nor is there evidence of any such designer's existence. You have an explanation that doesn't explain anything attributed to a thing for which there is no evidence. How is that of any use?
I wasn't making a point, just acknowledging the one Dr. D made. Address it with him.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#118734 Jun 26, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
GREAT! A falsification. Just tell us what could NOT be explained by design, when it's design based on the whim of an allegedly omniscient omnipotent being for which there is no evidence of any kind beyond baseless assertions.
Design would have a difficult time explaining a pre-cambrian rabbit.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#118735 Jun 26, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
And you never demonstrated how the Bible's story is correct. You merely asserted it is, and asserted that the evidence and/or interpretation are wrong. Isn't it just the oddest coincidence that ONLY people who are Christians and ONLY people who are members of JW are able to competently do science? Why is it that only you and your fellow JWs are able to do science to the exclusion of absolutely everybody else in the world? I mean, bully for you, but how do you explain the global incompetence in science save for the JWs?
I have demonstrated the Bible's correctness on the matters you indicate, and if you want I will do it again. What specific point do you want addressed first?
Regarding your other points, it's your words, not mine. I so hoped you had stopped that practice.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#118736 Jun 26, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Detectability does not assure measurability/quantifiability.
It's a good thing I inquired about content since you don't even understand what you think you're pursuing.
As a matter of fact, detectability necessarily means measurability/quantifiability. Nothing detectable is immeasurable. There's always a way to do it. We may not have discovered the means of doing so yet, but that doesn't mean it is impossible. But, if you're going to assert God's status as something natural, it is detectable. If you can demonstrate God, we can work on measuring/quantifying it. Of course, you'd be the first person in the history of ever to demonstrate God, so I'd recommend preparing yourself for the media onslaught.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#118737 Jun 26, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I have demonstrated the Bible's correctness on the matters you indicate, and if you want I will do it again. What specific point do you want addressed first?
Regarding your other points, it's your words, not mine. I so hoped you had stopped that practice.
You never demonstrated that the order of creation in Genesis matches the fossil record. We demonstrated discrepancies between the stories and the evidence. You simply said that we're either misinterpreting the evidence or we have yet to find the evidence that confirms the Bible stories and resolves the contradiction of the evidence and the stories.

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) 7 min Ronnie 34,946
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 16 min Orbit 199,314
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr thetruth 14,933
News ID Isn't Science, But That's the Least Of Its P... 9 hr FREE SERVANT 35
Ribose can be produced in space 13 hr JanusBifrons 6
A Simple Simulation 15 hr JanusBifrons 1
My Story Part 2 15 hr JanusBifrons 1
More from around the web