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

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

There are 151281 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

#118818 Jun 27, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
then you are Jewish.
No, a christian that believes in both the old and new testaments unlike the Jews.
LowellGuy

United States

#118819 Jun 27, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You have only demonstrated discrepancies between the evidence and an unnecessarily restricted allowance for the meaning of the Bible passages. If you need a refresher just choose a specific passage and what you think is the conflicting evidence, and I'll explain the error in reasoning, again.
Of course. When "I can make the Bible mean anything K need it to mean" is your methodology...well, it still fails. The evidence shows that birds did not appear until millions of years after land tetrapods. Even if you try the "started creating" bit, all you're really doing is saying that God started doing something and couldn't churn out a single specimen until millions of years later. And, the same applies for fruit-bearing plants before animals existed. And, of course, the age old question still remains: when did this creative process end, do you think? And, why do things like ERVs follow the exact same nested hierarchy predicted by evolution and reflected in the fossil record? Why would an omniscient being restrict his creativity to progressive variations over time when there is no reason not to just dump everything in all at once? And, you still have no evidence of your God. So many problems that your magical stories have when applied to reality.
KAB

United States

#118820 Jun 27, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
How can you discern that for which there is no useful objective definition? More to the point, how can you tell what isn't that if you can't say what it is?
That which occurs but cannot be believably attributed to natural causes is a good start. An example of this kind of phenomenon would be the coincidence of the timeframe of a reported one year global flood and the once in a 1.4 million year history of a meteor crater sloughing of its sidewall debris from sidewalls rising hundreds of feet above the surrounding terrain.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#118821 Jun 27, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> No, a christian that believes in both the old and new testaments unlike the Jews.
Are you Christian?
Jesus was Jewish, therefore by your own reasoning you belong to the Jews. But then, Jesus never saw the New Testament. He was centuries gone by the time it was assembled at the order of the Roman Emperor Flavius Valerius Aurelius Constantinus Augustus, so perhaps you belong to the Romans.
Shall we call you Carolus Idemius from here on?

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#118822 Jun 27, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
That which occurs but cannot be believably attributed to natural causes is a good start. An example of this kind of phenomenon would be the coincidence of the timeframe of a reported one year global flood and the once in a 1.4 million year history of a meteor crater sloughing of its sidewall debris from sidewalls rising hundreds of feet above the surrounding terrain.
See, there you go. Excellent example. There is no pre-cambrian rabbit, there is no "global flood gauge." Your hypothesis is not reasonable, it is not believable, it is not evidenced and it is deceptively presented. In the real world, this is known as lying for Jesus.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#118823 Jun 27, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
That which occurs but cannot be believably attributed to natural causes is a good start. An example of this kind of phenomenon would be the coincidence of the timeframe of a reported one year global flood and the once in a 1.4 million year history of a meteor crater sloughing of its sidewall debris from sidewalls rising hundreds of feet above the surrounding terrain.
Previously refuted.(more than once)
KAB

United States

#118824 Jun 27, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Irrelevant.
<quoted text>
Genesis 1:7
"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."
Dust. Not precursors.
It's the design which embodies the precursor content. The specific object, including all its parts, was produced directly from raw materials.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#118825 Jun 27, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It's the design which embodies the precursor content. The specific object, including all its parts, was produced directly from raw materials.
dataless assertion
KAB

United States

#118826 Jun 27, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Cars and bird nests are not living things. Duh.
The salient point was that intelligent beings made each, a key difference being that the birds don't create new designs.
KAB

United States

#118827 Jun 27, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Now that is a flat out lie. You completely ignore the context of use of the word "day" in Genesis.
No, I don't, but you are entitled to your opinion.
KAB

United States

#118828 Jun 27, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow. You really diving head first into a huge pool of stupid. Design would have no trouble explaining a pre-cambrian rabbit. The designer designed it. End of story.
And exactly why ID is useless. It explains nothing.
A designer would not design it out of context.
KAB

United States

#118829 Jun 27, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey, you are the one who claims the Bible is a "demonstrated reliable source." Now you demand a necessary allowance? Is that your new catch-all phrase for your usual dodges, straw man arguments, deflections, omissions, diversions, misinterpretations, mis-translations, mis-truths, fallacies, and completely ignoring relevant questions and evidence?
I don't ignore relevant questions and evidence. Provide a sample and see.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#118830 Jun 27, 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.

Design can explain ANY conceivable thing.

And the literature demonstrating the evolution of bacteria has been linked to many times on these pages. I bet you did not read my exact wording very well. What I said is precisely correct.

Hint: look up e.coli on wikipedia an read the section on diversity.

I was just getting you to bit down on the hook.


“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#118831 Jun 27, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for reinforcing my point that naturally an intelligent being "made" living things.

I did not know that birds counted as intelligent beings.

Nor spider
nor slime mold
nor coral.......

Dipstick. You stepped in it again.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#118832 Jun 27, 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"?

Please try to be more skillful in your dodges. I mean any intelligent creature could see this one.

And by intelligent I mean a dandelion.

Get it?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#118833 Jun 27, 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.

Oh, if data were provided you would run like you usually do.

You are not hard to predict.

In fact, there is no one on this forum who's responses I find easier to predict.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#118834 Jun 27, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Design would have a difficult time explaining a pre-cambrian rabbit.

No it would not.

I guess you don't understand design.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#118835 Jun 27, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>1...it isn't observable. 2...it isn't testable...3...it isn't replicatable....4...it has no way around the origin of life...5...nature displays no ability to originate anything more complex than a snowflake....6...its many icons have been proven to be hoaxes....7...the Cambrian explosion....8....the unscientific and unobserved "excuse" of punctuated equalibria to explain the Cambrian Explosion.....9...inability to explain the origin of the 2 genders....10....inability to explain how a language like the information carried in DNA originates from a non-intelligent source....11...inability to define what evolved that makes a non-human, now human....12....inability to find a violation to the Law of Biogenesis.....13...inability to explain consciousness.....and you ask, "So what is a mess about evolution?"

1. a lie
2. a lie
3. a lie
.
.
.
12. a lie
13. true but not relevant

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#118836 Jun 27, 2013
replaytime wrote:
Evolution is a crock of crap. It all started with a big bang where nothing exsisted. From there earth became along with the moon. And somehow the sun just fell into place. Then from a muddy lifeless soup it came to life. It somehow just started to replicate itself and reproduce. Then that one form not only replicated itself, it also changed into different and new species as it replicated (how does just one thing make new species). The sun just happened out of nothing to be what we need to survive. The weather just happened out of nothing to be what we need to survive. The air mixture we breathe just happened out of nothing to be what we need to survive. This one living thing that came from nonliving just happened to not only replicate itself but to also change itself into many different forms of life including marine animlas, land animals, air animals, and plants along with many many species of bacteria and fungi (roughly 100 million different species all came from one) and all that just happened to be what we need to survive, it also went from nonliving microscopic to massive living species (dinosaur, mammoth ect ect). Many times in history most if not all went extinct from ice ages or meteor strikes that brought massive fire and ash that blocked out the sun for months but somehow it just kept right on going as if nothing happened. Not to mention the cockroach is one of the earliest species to become of all that and is still just that, a cockroach. Uhm yep that is way more believable than a higher power of God that did it. LMFAO

I just skimmed this, but I did not see anything but nonsense.

Anyone else do any better with it?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#118837 Jun 27, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Funny how you silly evolutionists just think you can snap your fingers and hand wave away your whole flawed philosophy with ever having to explain or have any scientific evidence for anything. That is probably the most childish, and silly reply I have ever seen. Sure would have been more convincing if you had addressed at least one of these with some thought, but alas, I guess that is way to much to expect. I'm not surprised though because I never have expected to much out of you evolutionists to begin with. I mean, after all, you are evolutionists!!

I am sorry that you cannot do better than repeat often refuted lies.

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) 3 min The Northener 33,984
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 14 min Igor Trip 199,190
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 20 min Bob of Quantum-Faith 14,834
News ID Isn't Science, But That's the Least Of Its P... 3 hr DanFromSmithville 31
My Story Part 1 Fri JanusBifrons 1
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) Fri Don Barros Serrano 179,706
Evolution in action Jun 20 Darth Robo 9
More from around the web