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

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

There are 162965 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.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#123419 Dec 3, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
Your whole position doesn't seem to float at all.
Laffin!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123420 Dec 3, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you ready to go head-to-head step-by-step on a comprehensive detailed explanation of buoyancy yet? Your unwillingness to do so will he readily understood regardless of any other explanation you may give.

We have already done this and did the math.

You were left behind.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123421 Dec 3, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>To what purpose? I have made no claims about my knowledge of buoyancy one way or the other. If you wish to show what you know of buoyancy and feel that your knowledge somehow supports your argument of a global flood, by all means make your case. Otherwise this is nothing more than another of your diversions to avoid reality and place the onus of responsibility on others.
If your knowledge is sound, then there is no reason for you to be unwilling to demonstrate that knowledge. Your backhanded attacks of what I may or may not know on the subject don't lend support the existence of your broad knowledge of buoyancy. Or the strength of your arguments. Your whole position doesn't seem to float at all.
The choice is yours. If you know something of buoyancy that will support your position, then you should have no trouble presenting it. For that matter, why wouldn't you?

Klownboy got nothing. He has just pulled another KAB and bit off more than he can chew.

KAB

United States

#123422 Dec 3, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>You are wise in the way of the Fundie though. In the face of overwhelming evidence against you, you declare victory and pretend you are right. There must be a class that you all have to take. Is it Ridiculous Lies 101 or Constantly Switch Stories for Poor Liars 102.
If you pay close attentlion you will notice I don't declare victory. It's your side which consistently does that. I just provide data. Why do you suppose your side feels compelled to incessantly declare victory instead of just providing data and letting it stand on its owm merits like I do?
KAB

United States

#123423 Dec 3, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
They didn't. If you could learn to focus I said the Wiki article was slanted, not the court documents. Try to focus and not change the subject.
Nice dodge on the ice issue. You have been trying to get as far away from your error as possible. But your error remains.
Here's your statement,

"The entry is very slanted pro-JW as is constant with the WBTS policy of systematic disinformation."

That's an odd way of blaming the Wiki article!
KAB

United States

#123424 Dec 3, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, but I do think kingdom halls are a way to avoid one.
How many JW meetings have you attended in their Kingdom Halls?

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#123425 Dec 3, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
If you pay close attentlion you will notice I don't declare victory. It's your side which consistently does that. I just provide data. Why do you suppose your side feels compelled to incessantly declare victory instead of just providing data and letting it stand on its owm merits like I do?
By comparison you don't provide any data to support your position. Why does it surprise you to lose in this against a position that does provide evidence?

You are not even providing the evidence you claim to have in the previous post. All you offer is more dodge, dip, dive, duck and dodge.

Again, the choice is yours. You can provide data to support your position or you can continue this charade. I am pretty certain what you will do whether you acknowledge it or not.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#123426 Dec 3, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Laffin!
Thanks. Glad you liked it.
Anonymous

Leeds, UK

#123427 Dec 3, 2013
my debate and thoughts https://www.facebook.com/photo.php...

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#123428 Dec 3, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Klownboy got nothing. He has just pulled another KAB and bit off more than he can chew.
Yeah, I know. Wouldn't expect any better from him.

So you are going for you PhD. Excellent. I am a big advocate of personal development and never stopping the learning process. An anti-JW position I know, but I am contrary like that.
KAB

United States

#123429 Dec 3, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>To what purpose? I have made no claims about my knowledge of buoyancy one way or the other. If you wish to show what you know of buoyancy and feel that your knowledge somehow supports your argument of a global flood, by all means make your case. Otherwise this is nothing more than another of your diversions to avoid reality and place the onus of responsibility on others.
If your knowledge is sound, then there is no reason for you to be unwilling to demonstrate that knowledge. Your backhanded attacks of what I may or may not know on the subject don't lend support the existence of your broad knowledge of buoyancy. Or the strength of your arguments. Your whole position doesn't seem to float at all.
The choice is yours. If you know something of buoyancy that will support your position, then you should have no trouble presenting it. For that matter, why wouldn't you?
I was beginning to think I was never going to be able to get anyone from your side to risk asking for a detailed buoyancy explanation.

Do you agree that buoyancy involves objects placed in fluids?
KAB

United States

#123430 Dec 3, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>By comparison you don't provide any data to support your position. Why does it surprise you to lose in this against a position that does provide evidence?
You are not even providing the evidence you claim to have in the previous post. All you offer is more dodge, dip, dive, duck and dodge.
Again, the choice is yours. You can provide data to support your position or you can continue this charade. I am pretty certain what you will do whether you acknowledge it or not.
Those providing appropriate data have no need to declare victory. Don't you agree?

Hold your thought about me providing the buoyancy data, and as I proceed to do so please don't bail, like everyone on your side has done so far, before we reach the conclusion together.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#123431 Dec 3, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I was beginning to think I was never going to be able to get anyone from your side to risk asking for a detailed buoyancy explanation.
Do you agree that buoyancy involves objects placed in fluids?
Don't let me interrupt you. Please take up the torch and just run with it. I will comment when you have fully fleshed out your argument.
KAB

United States

#123432 Dec 3, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Don't let me interrupt you. Please take up the torch and just run with it. I will comment when you have fully fleshed out your argument.
We're taking this step-by-step journey together or not at all!
Why should I waste my time if I lose you on the first step? I want to assure I have your agreement every step of the way, so I can adjust as needed to get it.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#123433 Dec 3, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I was beginning to think I was never going to be able to get anyone from your side to risk asking for a detailed buoyancy explanation.
Do you agree that buoyancy involves objects placed in fluids?
Not exclusively, no.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#123434 Dec 3, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
How many JW meetings have you attended in their Kingdom Halls?
How many lobotomies have you audited?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123435 Dec 3, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
If you pay close attentlion you will notice I don't declare victory. It's your side which consistently does that. I just provide data. Why do you suppose your side feels compelled to incessantly declare victory instead of just providing data and letting it stand on its owm merits like I do?

We declare victory because we win. You lose no matter what you declare. You even lie about providing data so why not lie about everything. You lie so naturally that you are no longer aware of doing it. The WBTS has you under its spell.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123436 Dec 3, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's your statement,
"The entry is very slanted pro-JW as is constant with the WBTS policy of systematic disinformation."
That's an odd way of blaming the Wiki article!

Exactly. Your own quote proves what I indicated.

How foolish of you to prove yourself wrong.

Pray continue.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123437 Dec 3, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
How many JW meetings have you attended in their Kingdom Halls?

I have gone to as many JW meeting as I have Satanic rituals. I have better things to do than to follow the goings on of satanic cults.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123438 Dec 3, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I was beginning to think I was never going to be able to get anyone from your side to risk asking for a detailed buoyancy explanation.
Do you agree that buoyancy involves objects placed in fluids?

No, that is not correct. You haven't even looked up the dictionary definition yet.

dumbarse.

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 Science 78,475
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Science 32,431
Mathematicians PROVED evolution IMPOSSIBLE! 1 hr Science 770
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 3 hr Eagle 12 - 1,314
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) Aug 13 Science 222,113
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... (Jan '17) Aug 5 yehoshooah adam 4,381
News Intelligent Design Education Day - Dallas Aug 2 John B 4
More from around the web