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

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

There are 160849 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

#119283 Jul 8, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You are demonstrably incorrect yet again!

And again you cannot prove it.
nor provide evidence.
nor provide supporting logic.


Be not afraid of stupidity: some are born stupid, some achieve stupidity and some have stupidity thrust upon them.(with appologies to Wm. Shakespeare)
KAB

United States

#119284 Jul 8, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
And the content of Gen 1 is consistent with a solar day, isn't it?
You don't have to say it. We know.
Physical data weighs heavily against that unnecessary conclusion.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119285 Jul 8, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The words "evidence" or "logic" are not used in the original language text. They're not Greek words. Think about it.

That is my point. Thank you.

There are not any words in the text that could logically or rationally be translated as 'evidence' or 'logic'.



Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
"Now faith (pi'stis) is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."
Neither evidence nor logic are mention in the text.
You may be hallucinating if you see the words evidence or logic in Heb. 11:1
KAB

United States

#119286 Jul 8, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
You would be better served citing an expert reference to make your case including providing actual data. Your reasoning may or may not be valid/applicable in all its parts, but without more specifics and confirming data it's just your dataless reasoning.
Please remember how much I lover pointing out examples of projection.
It's clear you have no qualms about wasting life. As long as the life you waste is your own alone, no harm no foul.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119287 Jul 8, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You apparently didn't notice that your post was in response to data I provided.

This would be a lie. You lie with authority of the author of lies.

I provided the entire chapter in context (DATA) which you were not able to respond to (as usual).

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119288 Jul 8, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I notice I'm not alone here!

I notice another dataless assertion.

You are the champion of dataless assertions.

You are their patron saint.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#119289 Jul 8, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Physical data weighs heavily against that unnecessary conclusion.
So, you're saying that the way the word is used depends upon the physical evidence we discover. Fascinating.
KAB

United States

#119290 Jul 8, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
LMAO
Thanks for your response characteristic of your acknowledging a valid point you'd rather weren't so.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119291 Jul 8, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Again glaringly, demonstrably incorrect. Anyone carefully reading and considering the content of Genesis 1 can readily confirm this to be the case. HINT: He called the light "day".

Again glaringly, demonstrably incorrect. Anyone carefully reading and considering the content of Genesis 1 can readily confirm this to be the case. HINT: He called the light "day" and the darkness he called night. "And there was evening and morning the ____ day."


1
2
3 Then God said,“Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. So there was evening, and there was morning, one day.
6
7
8 and God called the dome Sky. So there was evening, and there was morning, a second day.
9
10
11
12
13 So there was evening, and there was morning, a third day.
14 God said,“Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to divide the day from the night; let them be for signs, seasons, days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the dome of the sky to give light to the earth”; and that is how it was. 16 God made the two great lights — the larger light to rule the day and the smaller light to rule the night — and the stars. 17 God put them in the dome of the sky to give light to the earth, 18 to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. 19 So there was evening, and there was morning, a fourth day.
20
21
22
23 So there was evening, and there was morning, a fifth day.
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31 God saw everything that he had made, and indeed it was very good. So there was evening, and there was morning, a sixth day. CJB

Data, data, data. How will KAB deny the data.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119292 Jul 8, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
How does calling the light "day" equate to 24 hours?

Again, 24 hours is a red herring.

"So there was evening, and there was morning, a _____ day."

Reality is a bummer when you live in make believe land, isn't it?
KAB

United States

#119293 Jul 8, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Why not just find FIVE that did?
If you would be satisfied that 5 bottlenecks fitting the 4500 years ago timeframe confirmed the global flood, I would put forth the effort, otherwise not.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119294 Jul 8, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Physical data weighs heavily against that unnecessary conclusion.

Oh, now you want to bring PHYSICAL DATA into this?

Are you sure you want to do that buddy boy?

That would sort of CLOSE the flood gates, wouldn't it?

I let you think about bringing PHYSICAL DATA into this. Till then we have the words of the Bible. And you are left with a problem. What will you choose? Your cults dogma, or the Bible? Or (since you have provided a 3rd option) the PHYSICAL DATA!

Bwhahahahahahahaha

Now you have me right where I want you!


KAB

United States

#119295 Jul 8, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I did. I linked you to sites discussing human haplotypes.
That is the data, the methodology, the confirmation.
I have identified the lack of confirmation in your offering thusfar.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#119297 Jul 8, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Again glaringly, demonstrably incorrect. Anyone carefully reading and considering the content of Genesis 1 can readily confirm this to be the case. HINT: He called the light "day".
This is hilarious! And what did he call the darkness?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119298 Jul 8, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
If you would be satisfied that 5 bottlenecks fitting the 4500 years ago timeframe confirmed the global flood, I would put forth the effort, otherwise not.

I would think 5 bottlenecks would be a good start. But we already have 3 dis-confirming that so you are already in something of a hole.

Give it a crack. It will be nice to see you present some data for a change.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#119299 Jul 8, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
How does calling the light "day" equate to 24 hours?
Here we go again, context moron. Evening and morning the 'N' day. Context!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119300 Jul 8, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I have identified the lack of confirmation in your offering thusfar.

You can't look up halotypes? Something wrong with your google?
KAB

United States

#119301 Jul 8, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, KAB, you just don't get away with this.
You claimed that you could easily understand how haplotypes work because you could calculate how long it would take one couple to reproduce into 1000 people.
I was pointing out to you why the haplotype calculation is not that simple and that you have the model wrong. That's logic, a discussion argument, not something that requires going to references (which you won't read anyway, if the past is anything to go by).
So, since you won't READ links posted and this kind of science cannot be adequately covered in a topix post, you have merely insulated yourself from exposure to evidence you do not like.
Then claim none has been presented.
Its pretty obvious to me that you did not actually understand what I wrote and this is your way of trying to deflect. It would also explain why you do not read the links. You simply don't get them.
That also explains why YOU link to an article that discusses the cheetah bottleneck as a rare phenomenon in the animal kingdom but you completely miss that critical aspect of the article, because, after all, if you UNDERSTOOD it, even YOU would see how it falsifies the WW Flood.
Its pretty obvious to me that you did not actually understand what you wrote and its applicability. That's largely why you got the response you did. BTW, I have read every directly applicable body of info posted, if I saw it, and responded accordingly. Try posting something now and see what happens.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#119302 Jul 8, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for your response characteristic of your acknowledging a valid point you'd rather weren't so.
It wasn't a valid point. It was abject stupidity. If it had been valid, I would have responded to it. As such, I merely laughed. Which is what it deserved.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119303 Jul 8, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Its pretty obvious to me that you did not actually understand what you wrote and its applicability. That's largely why you got the response you did. BTW, I have read every directly applicable body of info posted, if I saw it, and responded accordingly. Try posting something now and see what happens.

Perhaps he should have said read AND understood. You have made a very convincing case that you have had no formal scientific training above, perhaps, the H.S. level, so it may be to much to ask you to understand Ph.D. level, peer reviewed, science. However, that is what you ask for.

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) 2 min Subduction Zone 66,349
What does the theory of evolution state? 2 min MADRONE 108
Why isn't intelligent design really science? 2 hr pshun2404 34
Mathematicians PROVED evolution IMPOSSIBLE! 2 hr pshun2404 81
An atheist told me this. 4 hr pshun2404 18
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 4 hr Regolith Based Li... 28,478
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 12 hr Agents of Corruption 221,195
More from around the web