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

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

There are 160922 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.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#127105 Feb 21, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It means that all of the Bible is Inspired by God (original language literally "God breathed"), therefore, having God's backing.
Was this quote from the Bible written before or after the Bible was assembled with the specific books we now use?

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#127106 Feb 21, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It means that all of the Bible is Inspired by God (original language literally "God breathed"), therefore, having God's backing.
You have previously dismissed the stance of "the bible is true because the bible says it is true." Apparently, there was a time when you realized it was an absurdity which would not bear the weight of your abysmally sorry dataless assertion that "the bible is a demonstrated reliable source," yet now you fully embrace it. Play the hand you've been dealt, and "pray for the best," eh?. "Lord knows" you've got nothing else.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#127107 Feb 21, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Was this quote from the Bible written before or after the Bible was assembled with the specific books we now use?
Who knows? Like half of the other books in the NT, 2 Timothy was supposedly written by Paul - the guy who stroked out or was hit by lightening on the Damascus road and never even met Jesus (since he was already dead)- though Paul AKA Saul said he did, and that's proof enough for KAB...

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#127108 Feb 21, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It means that all of the Bible is Inspired by God (original language literally "God breathed"), therefore, having God's backing.

Oh, KAB, you have done it again. How can your supporters continue to worship the Watchtower of you can't even get basic things right.

It means all scripture (the old testament) is supposedly (according to one N.T. author) God breathed. But reference to that passage in the Bible to support the Bible is circular.

BTW KAB, I just learned that a very high percentage of JWs were abused as children and I was wondering if you fit that mold as well.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#127109 Feb 21, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Was this quote from the Bible written before or after the Bible was assembled with the specific books we now use?

It is is not even clear who wrote that passage. It is in 2 Timothy which was attributed to Paul but has long been known to be a pseudonymous work of unknown authorship and authority.

It may have been written by a follower of Paul and passed off as Paul's after the later's death. But that is not known for certain.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#127110 Feb 21, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I asked you to explain. You stated there was no need.
The need is defined by the asking. Choosing not to do so likely indicates it is unexplainable (i.e., nonsense).

KAB

United States

#127111 Feb 21, 2014
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
so then accordingly, the unexplainable falls under the category of "God works in mysterious ways" (i.e., nonsense).
I don't like that expression either, since for the most part he doesn't.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#127112 Feb 21, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't like that expression either, since for the most part he doesn't.
LOL! It's one of the only things in which "He" is consistent.
KAB

United States

#127113 Feb 21, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Was this quote from the Bible written before or after the Bible was assembled with the specific books we now use?
It was written before the Bible was assembled into present form since the letters to Timothy couldn't be included until they were written, duh.
KAB

United States

#127114 Feb 21, 2014
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
You have previously dismissed the stance of "the bible is true because the bible says it is true." Apparently, there was a time when you realized it was an absurdity which would not bear the weight of your abysmally sorry dataless assertion that "the bible is a demonstrated reliable source," yet now you fully embrace it. Play the hand you've been dealt, and "pray for the best," eh?. "Lord knows" you've got nothing else.
I provided something the Bible states. It isn't true just because the Bible states it. You are confusing me with your side's approach and disposition that if you provide something, it is true. That's not the way I roll, nor should you.
KAB

United States

#127115 Feb 21, 2014
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, KAB, you have done it again. How can your supporters continue to worship the Watchtower of you can't even get basic things right.
It means all scripture (the old testament) is supposedly (according to one N.T. author) God breathed. But reference to that passage in the Bible to support the Bible is circular.
BTW KAB, I just learned that a very high percentage of JWs were abused as children and I was wondering if you fit that mold as well.
I only used the reference to confirm that the Bible makes the statement. That's all.
KAB

United States

#127116 Feb 21, 2014
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL! It's one of the only things in which "He" is consistent.
You're entitled to your dataless opinion.

“The love of Paleontology:”

Since: Jan 14

Discover, explore, imagine.

#127117 Feb 21, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It means that all of the Bible is Inspired by God (original language literally "God breathed"), therefore, having God's backing.
The person who wrote the Bible: "Hey uh guys...God told me to write this book."

Christians: "Oh my God he did? Wow, there's no way you could possibly be lying! We believe you because we have nothing better to believe in."

The Atheist: "Lol, where's your proof God wrote this, or that he even existed."

Darwin: "There is so much more proof that backs up my evolution Evolution."

Christians: "Boo! We don't understand your Evo-whatever theory, so we don't like you!"

George Washington: "It is better to be alone than in bad company"

Haha, the last quote with George Washington is real.
Anyway mate, there's no way to prove the Bible was written by God or prove he existed. Sorry pal, the Bible isn't a reliable source.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#127118 Feb 21, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I only used the reference to confirm that the Bible makes the statement. That's all.
Who cares. You are just a bat guano crazy cult worshipping fool.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#127119 Feb 21, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It was written before the Bible was assembled into present form since the letters to Timothy couldn't be included until they were written, duh.
Exactly. So how do you know that the scripture it mentions is the same as the Bible as assembled today?

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#127120 Feb 21, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I provided something the Bible states. It isn't true just because the Bible states it. You are confusing me with your side's approach and disposition that if you provide something, it is true. That's not the way I roll, nor should you.
If it is not true, then why did you cite it, and if it is true how do you know? Because it says it is.
This is akin to a used car salesman stating, "I never lie. Ask me and I'll tell you so."

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#127121 Feb 21, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You're entitled to your dataless opinion.
I'm even entitled to an informed opinion, as long as I don't join your cult.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#127122 Feb 22, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you aware that the variation contribution to the mtDNA genome is about the same from the Control (hypervariability related) region as from the Coding region?
Whether true or false, its merely a red herring.

The issue is required specificity, not whether a region is a control or a coding region. Whether coding or controlling, the point is whether substitution of bases (or deletion or addition) will affect viable essential function or not. If changes are more likely to affect essential function, the region will be more highly conserved, whereas if changes are less likely to affect function, the region will be more variable.

So you still have not answered the point. You have now been dancing around it for months, and have no answer, but keep pretending that you do.

Must be a bastard to have your Flood hypothesis trounced, and not be able to do anything about it except lie. There is an alternative of course, the one that objective students will accept. The WW Flood of 4500 years ago is a myth.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#127123 Feb 22, 2014
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Your problem is, you act as though there are no other alternatives to your pet hypothesis and that ALL data supports you. It doesn't.
I guess all the available data does support the ToE, or you would have produced the falsification data instead of just making an empty claim.
Your hypothesis doesn't even attempt to touch the evolution of chemicals that had to evolve in order to cause the origin of life!!
Correct. Because the ToE presupposes the existence of a self replicating organism, just as the theory of gravity presupposes the existence of mass. How the first self replicator got there, and how mass got there, is by simple logic the result of a different process than what each does once its there.

As these are areas of some mystery, feel free to do what everyone of your kind always did at the point of ignorance - just say that "God" explains it. Your problem is that science keeps pushing the point of ignorance back, leaving less and less for you to attribute directly to God.
Your hypothesis never touches your inability to provide the violation to the law of biogenesis.
Correct, for the same reasons as I just stated. The ToE covers the way life develops and diversifies, not how it arises in the first place. And yes, your bogus application of Pasteur's law is noted. Don't kid yourself that you are on the same playing field as real scientists when you bring up and mangle that one.
Your hypothesis has no idea how something that is completely unaware of it's own existence, evolved consciousness and self awareness, and this is just a start.
I'm the first to admit we do not know how to make the leap from complex neurology to true self awareness, and its a mystery.

But since consciousness and self awareness are only evident in creatures with functional complex brains, we assume that brains are responsible for said features...and the selective advantages that brains provide in some organisms are sufficient for brains to evolve from the simplest neural structures, so long as the benefits of increasing complexity outweigh the costs.
But guess what, my hypothesis does.
Actually your hypothesis explains nothing at all. Whatever you cannot explain, just say "God" and go back to sleep.

All you have listed above is the unknowns which any scientist is happy to acknowledge - but that does not invalidate what we do know.

The ToE does not disprove God's existence but it DOES disprove your literal interpretation of a book of old Myths i.e. Genesis.

You would LOVE to make this a fight between God and Atheism, but its not.
Its a fight between science and crackerhead fundamentalism.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#127124 Feb 22, 2014
marksman11 wrote:
[Biblical Literalism] It's not dead with me, and all the Christians I know.......that is just your fantasy, and spoken like a true liberal.
Biblical Literalism is dead intellectually. It is insupportable against the evidence we now have that Genesis gets so much wrong. And its even dead among not just scientists but Biblical Scholars who have studied the Bible with some critical analysis, even among those who still accept its core messages.

The fact that it survives among those who put no value on intellectual integrity and think that even questioning the Bible is an arrogant sin...well, that is irrelevant. Literal Quranic belief is also intellectually dead and they also think questioning the Quran is a sin, though you can find hundreds of millions who accept every word of it literally.

For that matter voodoo witch doctory is intellectually dead too, but you will find millions who still follow that too.

Dead as a door nail.

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 Defending the Faith: Intelligent design vs. 'Go... 3 min Subduction Zone 246
Stacking the Deck and Intellectual Integrity 22 min Timmee 24
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 28 min IB DaMann 67,029
Why Are There No Transitional Animals Today? (Mar '09) 28 min Timmee 914
Is the Peer Reviewed Journal argument sound? 39 min Timmee 53
One species or three 1 hr Timmee 278
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 6 hr Dogen 28,569
More from around the web