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

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

There are 141854 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.

KAB

Oxford, NC

#124902 Dec 31, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
It seemed a well thought out, constructed and demonstrated reliable statement - it even encourages the reader to verify the evidence (which is ample).
We already know that your criteria for truth vs. speculation vs. word games vs. "Truth" vs. complete bald faced lying through your teeth BS is by your arbitrary convenience.
The statement does not encourage the reader to verify. It simple mentions that the exercise can be pursued.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#124903 Dec 31, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Our "belief" is called "science". It is based on data which you eschew even while claiming you don't.
Let he who is technically savvy (not you) evaluate your absurd assertions.
I have asked you to learn some science and THEN try to engage this forum. But you have elected to remain ignorant and to make up your own pseudoscience as you go. That is not how it works.
Then provide the data and data-based scientific gaurantee that the flood overtopping of the crater had to be outward. This should be good since you've already admitted, by way of explaining another imprecise statement of yours, that there is insufficient data to know the rain vs springs contribution proportions in the rising floodwaters.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#124904 Dec 31, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Since the general assumption of providing data means to provide RELEVANT data you have actually failed at both.
Your random article generator does not ever seem to actually support your beliefs.
You CHOOSE to remain in ignorance. We choose not to. In both cases it is a choice, even if an unconscious one.
Give my regards to your cult supervisor (Elder) for being so lax in his duties of overseeing you. He probably has no idea how successful you have been at making people laugh at the JW cult.
Render unto science that which is science's and to Yahweh that which is Yahweh's.
BTW Yahweh is the ACTUAL name God gives in the O.T.
Jehovah is an 10th century error translating Hebrew into Spanish.
I see you're also ignorant in Biblical language and translation.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#124905 Dec 31, 2013
Dogen wrote:
Hey KAB, do you have the courage to actually read my posts?
To the end?
With comprehension?
What is 2+2?
I read everyone of your posts in their entirety, tho that may not continue much longer. I have a thing against wasting time, but I'm also very patient and thorough and generously give the benefit of the doubt. Remember, I've already pared your dataless posts down to whim status. That's only one step away from ignore.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#124906 Dec 31, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
What I was thinking is basic algebra.
You really cannot deduce simple algebra?
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
In the manor I have given. We do not have the data for a 'unique solution' so all we can get is the slope. To have a unique solution algebraically you need to have the variables defined by two sets of possibilities.
And you suggest I am the non mathematically savvy one. Hysterical.
I call this lie #2 for you.
I know algebra. I don't know what you think.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#124907 Dec 31, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
At what level of confirmation.
That we were not created last Thursday is not something we can know for absolute certain.
There are only 2 things we can know for absolute certain. Do you remember what they are?
1. Earth is not cubic in shape.
2. Presently living humans were not all created last Thursday.

I think philosopy (that's code for not science) sees it differently.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#124908 Dec 31, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, and ice is one of them.
And they all float. A square of any one of them will float off the flat bottom if the force is enough to overcome the surface tension of the water (hint: ice can)
Anything beyond that is obfuscation on your part.
The force from the bottom of the rigid stationary container on the bottom of the cube cannot raise the cube, can it? Here's a chance to show whether or not you can keep your mind within the bounds of the physical laws.

“Just because it is possible”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Doesn't mean it will happen.

#124909 Dec 31, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The topic was human mutation rate assessment. I provided an example. For random data, that's quite a coincidence. Don't you think? Additionally, your side's drumbeat assertion is that I don't provide data. If you mean I don't provide relevant data then state that and stop lying.
The topic was the Pingualuit crater tool. You posted a passage allegedly from a reference, but did not provide a link or a citation to the reference. I requested it and you hemmed and hawed and finally linked a reference to mutation rates which we were not talking about.

You must not be able to do one task at one time.

“Just because it is possible”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Doesn't mean it will happen.

#124910 Dec 31, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I read everyone of your posts in their entirety, tho that may not continue much longer. I have a thing against wasting time, but I'm also very patient and thorough and generously give the benefit of the doubt. Remember, I've already pared your dataless posts down to whim status. That's only one step away from ignore.
Have a care. If not for the patience of the rest of us for your dithering and double talk, you would be by yourself here posting into a sock.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#124911 Dec 31, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Have a care. If not for the patience of the rest of us for your dithering and double talk, you would be by yourself here posting into a sock.
Please, for the good of everyone see if you can get all your comrades to quit posting here. Then maybe I can encourage some data oriented individuals to contribute and stay.

“Just because it is possible”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Doesn't mean it will happen.

#124912 Dec 31, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Please, for the good of everyone see if you can get all your comrades to quit posting here. Then maybe I can encourage some data oriented individuals to contribute and stay.
Is there another JW available that will post the data you claim to post, but fail to post. Perhaps there is a newby that hasn't learned to lie, evade and meander yet.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#124913 Jan 1, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Is there another JW available that will post the data you claim to post, but fail to post. Perhaps there is a newby that hasn't learned to lie, evade and meander yet.
I had in mind those whose present worldview is different from mine. The data-filled posts I seek are the protection against the lie (Acts 17:11). The dirth of such posts from your side is the reason for the difficulty experienced in this forum presently, too much assertion, too little confirmation.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#124914 Jan 1, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's data confirming that lie #3 is yours,
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TFA...
While what you stated on this matter is true, so is it true that your side has stated that I provide no data.
BTW, my condolences to those you supervise.

You lie about not lying. That is lie #4.

Your link was to a perfectly reasonable post. Data means relevant data in the context given. The judgement stands, this is a lie on your part.

I will tell my team that you pass their condolences along to them. They may be surprised as many of them have told me I am the best supervisor they have ever had. Their noses get a bit brown at times.



“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#124915 Jan 1, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with your crater premise except that only craters having global flood gauge characteristics qualify. Identify one.

All of the ones I have listed.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#124916 Jan 1, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Thaink you. Henceforth, if you want this interchange to continue, then either provide Proof-of-Lie or state that you THINK I lie, thus showing recognition that you could be wrong like this time. I don't mind in the least if you state in every post 'til the cows come home that you think I lie. I mind when you catagorically state something you can't confirm.

When I call you a liar (and I have stated this before so is should not surprise you) I am generally referring to fixed delusions you express that are not technically astute (no correct).

There is precedent for calling someone a liar based on the material presented being untrue regardless of if the person believes it or not.

Therefore I will continue to call your delusions lies. This is in no small part due to the fact that these were told to you by your cult as lies and your repeating them is simply an extension of the lying tradition of the JW and their master Satan.

Merry New Year!






“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#124917 Jan 1, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Then provide the data and data-based scientific gaurantee that the flood overtopping of the crater had to be outward. This should be good since you've already admitted, by way of explaining another imprecise statement of yours, that there is insufficient data to know the rain vs springs contribution proportions in the rising floodwaters.

Global flood has been refuted.

Quibbling about the specifics of myths is a waste of time.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#124918 Jan 1, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I see you're also ignorant in Biblical language and translation.

I am technically savvy in that area.

But that is not important because your post was simply a smokescreen to avoid the issues.


Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Since the general assumption of providing data means to provide RELEVANT data you have actually failed at both.
Your random article generator does not ever seem to actually support your beliefs.
You CHOOSE to remain in ignorance. We choose not to. In both cases it is a choice, even if an unconscious one.
Give my regards to your cult supervisor (Elder) for being so lax in his duties of overseeing you. He probably has no idea how successful you have been at making people laugh at the JW cult.
Render unto science that which is science's and to Yahweh that which is Yahweh's.
BTW Yahweh is the ACTUAL name God gives in the O.T.
Jehovah is an 10th century error translating Hebrew into Spanish.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#124919 Jan 1, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I read everyone of your posts in their entirety, tho that may not continue much longer. I have a thing against wasting time, but I'm also very patient and thorough and generously give the benefit of the doubt. Remember, I've already pared your dataless posts down to whim status. That's only one step away from ignore.

You clearly did not read to the end even though I challenged you to do so.

If you cannot keep up with the conversation then there is little point in my continuing to refute your lies.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#124920 Jan 1, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I know algebra. I don't know what you think.

If you know algebra then you don't need mindreading.

Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
In the manor I have given. We do not have the data for a 'unique solution' so all we can get is the slope. To have a unique solution algebraically you need to have the variables defined by two sets of possibilities.
And you suggest I am the non mathematically savvy one. Hysterical.
I call this lie #2 for you.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#124921 Jan 1, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Earth is not cubic in shape.
2. Presently living humans were not all created last Thursday.
I think philosopy (that's code for not science) sees it differently.

Philosophy cannot provide the above as absolute certainty.

Only two thinks can be know for absolute certainty.

1. Cogito ergo sum.
2. 1st person reports.

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 Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 6 min DanFromSmithville 168,959
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 7 hr Brian_G 19,796
News Aliens and evolution (Jun '12) 11 hr thetruth 6,221
has science finally debunked the 'god' myth? Fri Paul Porter1 13
How can we prove God exists, or does not? Jul 2 Paul Porter1 197
How would creationists explain... (Nov '14) Jul 2 Paul Porter1 561
three preventive measures for PID Jul 2 qiu 1
More from around the web