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

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

There are 150608 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 evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#95721 Aug 11, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Blindly posting a link that you cannot logically defend only indicates that you've been backed into a corner. Every time I read an article on abiogenesis, I'm more convinced of the utter stupidity and overt dishonesty of those who peddle such a lie.
I find it hilarious that this is your reaction to someone who provides you a link that shows the actual science being done on Abiogenesis. Where are your sources supporting the comments you have made. We are all still waiting for you to fill that very suspicious vacuum.

Secondly you r argument is a logical fallacy commonly called an argument of incredulity. Your disbelieve in no way affects the reality that you keep denying.

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#95722 Aug 11, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Is this what you consider refuting?,
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TFA...
No, it was a different post from a little further back I recall. I am also waiting for you to offer a scientific reason why such a varnish would be support for a global flood event happening 4500 years ago. So far you have failed in supporting your comments.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#95723 Aug 11, 2012
TedHOhio wrote:
<quoted text>
There you are wrong. There is considerable evidence that in the distant past there was no life on Earth. Later along the timeline of Earth's existance, there is life. So no life -- then life. There is your evidence for Abiogenesis.
The question is how did it occur. There are 8 leading hypotheses as I previously stated. There is some evidence supporting each one -- which is why they are scientific hypotheses.
It really doesn't matter what the explanation of Abiogenesis ends up being, it will not effect the Theory of Evolution much at all.
What is lacking is ANY evidence that life started based on the actions of one deity or another. How many religions have a Creation story? How many of them have any actual evidence? Do you care to take a stab at answering that question? I don't think you will. If you do, I doubt you will answer is honestly, but here is your shot.
Your logic is flawed because your "evidence" relies on evolutionary presuppositions... That geological time periods ever existed. The entire premise of radiometric dating is a worthless pursuit because of its numerous unprovable assumptions.

There is no viable theory of abiogenesis... Only elaborate smokescreens which in reality constitute scientific fraud because actual obstacles are deliberately minimized or omitted.

As always, these discussions end up with debates about God..and they're always introduced by atheists who claim to be committed to science. You seem to believe in evolution not because it can be logically defended, but because you think God is more illogical. What is illogical and unscientific is to attempt to validate a scientific theory by attempting to falsify a religion.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#95724 Aug 11, 2012
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
If you have read ANYTHING about the rock varnish studies, you might learn that little is known about the process of accretion, much less about the RATE of accretion.
But it is widely assumed that biological processes are a key component in the formation of the rock varnish.
Since water (and therefore the presence of biological organisms needed to create the varnish) is all but absent (only fog in your source), it might WELL be expected for the rock varnish to accrete at a considerably slower rate.
SO -- again -- if you have reliable, SCIENTIFIC data about the thickness of Atacama rock varnish as it relates to the overall paleoclimatic ARID conditions that has been evidenced as having continued for past SEVERAL MILLION YEARS, please present this data.
You appear to have done some study. You didn't mention the overall accretion rate range given consistently in every article I've seen mention it. Why is that do you suppose? Are you not into full (objective) disclosure?

Here is the most comprehensive article I've found so far,

http://www3.wooster.edu/geology/geois/Meredit...

I wonder what is meant by "Desert varnish has been around for nearly 100,000 years"?
KAB

Wilson, NC

#95725 Aug 11, 2012
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
KAB harbors the misconception that because some things in the bible can be shown to be true, everything in the bible must be true. Logic is not his strong suit.
Hannity strikes again!

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#95726 Aug 11, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Your logic is flawed because your "evidence" relies on evolutionary presuppositions... That geological time periods ever existed. The entire premise of radiometric dating is a worthless pursuit because of its numerous unprovable assumptions.
There is no viable theory of abiogenesis... Only elaborate smokescreens which in reality constitute scientific fraud because actual obstacles are deliberately minimized or omitted.
As always, these discussions end up with debates about God..and they're always introduced by atheists who claim to be committed to science. You seem to believe in evolution not because it can be logically defended, but because you think God is more illogical. What is illogical and unscientific is to attempt to validate a scientific theory by attempting to falsify a religion.
You have no idea how science works.

Nothing in science is provable. As far as dating of strata and the Earth goes there are many methods and they all agree that the Earth and the solar system are hundreds of millions to billions of years old. There is a bit of variation because some of them put a different MINIMUM age of the Earth. That is not contradictory. If you collected bills that came to your house you could get a MINIMUM age for your house from those bills. You would know that your house was older than the oldest bill to that address. A younger bill would not mean your house was only one year old instead of fifty years old. We know that the sedimentary strata alone would take hundreds of millions of years to deposit since there are features to them that could not have been deposited quickly as creatrads tend to believe.

I started this rant with nothing in science is absolutely provable. There are things in science that are treated as fact because there is no evidence to refute it at all. Take the laws of thermodynamics. In a couple of hundred years no one has come even close to breaking the laws of thermodynamics on a non quantum level. The rules are a bit more complicated for quantum dynamics and those have not been broken either. Guess what else has no evidence against it for the last one hundred fifty years? That's right, evolution. There is evidence against a young Earth as you seem to believe in. Tell me what your beliefs are and I will tell you if there is evidence against it and what that evidence is.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#95727 Aug 11, 2012
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
I think we found the problem and the answer.
There is no evidence for a flood...so there's nothing for us to show you. Every thing that we can think of that might show evidence for a world-wide flood...doesn't
We actually tried to find the evidence and couldn't, so for us on the science side to believe in a world-wide flood YOU have to present us with evidence that it DID happen...we couldn't find any.
You're not listening (reading carefully actually)!
HTS

Mandan, ND

#95728 Aug 11, 2012
TedHOhio wrote:
<quoted text>
I find it hilarious that this is your reaction to someone who provides you a link that shows the actual science being done on Abiogenesis. Where are your sources supporting the comments you have made. We are all still waiting for you to fill that very suspicious vacuum.
Secondly you r argument is a logical fallacy commonly called an argument of incredulity. Your disbelieve in no way affects the reality that you keep denying.
The link you posted doesn't provide any science... only raw speculation. If you can't defend it and offer any logical reason why I should believe such worthless nonsense, then you don't have an argument.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#95729 Aug 11, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You have no idea how science works.
Nothing in science is provable. As far as dating of strata and the Earth goes there are many methods and they all agree that the Earth and the solar system are hundreds of millions to billions of years old. There is a bit of variation because some of them put a different MINIMUM age of the Earth. That is not contradictory. If you collected bills that came to your house you could get a MINIMUM age for your house from those bills. You would know that your house was older than the oldest bill to that address. A younger bill would not mean your house was only one year old instead of fifty years old. We know that the sedimentary strata alone would take hundreds of millions of years to deposit since there are features to them that could not have been deposited quickly as creatrads tend to believe.
I started this rant with nothing in science is absolutely provable. There are things in science that are treated as fact because there is no evidence to refute it at all. Take the laws of thermodynamics. In a couple of hundred years no one has come even close to breaking the laws of thermodynamics on a non quantum level. The rules are a bit more complicated for quantum dynamics and those have not been broken either. Guess what else has no evidence against it for the last one hundred fifty years? That's right, evolution. There is evidence against a young Earth as you seem to believe in. Tell me what your beliefs are and I will tell you if there is evidence against it and what that evidence is.
Radiometric dating is worthless as a science because it's very premise relies on assumptions as to how the earth was created... which is impossible to determine.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#95730 Aug 11, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Your logic is flawed because your "evidence" relies on evolutionary presuppositions... That geological time periods ever existed. The entire premise of radiometric dating is a worthless pursuit because of its numerous unprovable assumptions.
There is no viable theory of abiogenesis... Only elaborate smokescreens which in reality constitute scientific fraud because actual obstacles are deliberately minimized or omitted.
As always, these discussions end up with debates about God..and they're always introduced by atheists who claim to be committed to science. You seem to believe in evolution not because it can be logically defended, but because you think God is more illogical. What is illogical and unscientific is to attempt to validate a scientific theory by attempting to falsify a religion.
There is nothing of substance in your comments, nothing but fear and loathing.

Here's some up to date information related to the study of the origin of life.

http://issol.org/

KAB

Wilson, NC

#95731 Aug 11, 2012
TedHOhio wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it was a different post from a little further back I recall. I am also waiting for you to offer a scientific reason why such a varnish would be support for a global flood event happening 4500 years ago. So far you have failed in supporting your comments.
That was the first response to my initial posting! This is a prime example of why your side's chronic been-there-done-that assertion for every data request carries no weight whatsoever. I believe the appropriate expression coined by your side is your just making stuff up.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#95732 Aug 11, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Radiometric dating is worthless as a science because it's very premise relies on assumptions as to how the earth was created... which is impossible to determine.
You don't know what you are talking about. That only applies to dates that try to date the whole planet. Not dates of individual rocks.

“No such thing as ABIODARWINISM”

Since: Jan 11

No ABIODARWINISTS either!

#95733 Aug 11, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You're not listening (reading carefully actually)!
If that were true, then you could provide him the evidence of a flood. I am not talking about the Bible, but real, verifiable, scientific evidence. You don't because you cannot.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#95734 Aug 11, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't know what you are talking about. That only applies to dates that try to date the whole planet. Not dates of individual rocks.
I was a bit upset by that latest bit of idiocy.

There are deductions that are made about how the Earth was formed based on observations of other stars in the process of formation. The only assumption that must be made for radiometric dating to be accurate is that the rate of decay does not change. Since we have not found any ways using any physical event that would occur on the Earth to change the rate of decay that is a reasonable assumption. Radioactive decay is a nuclear effect. That means that it is NOT affected by processes that involve the electron shells. It takes a LOT of energy to get to the nucleus. That energy is not typically found on the Earth. And as is usually the case for those very rare atypical events there is plenty of evidence to let us know what occurred. Like in the one or two rare cases where uranium was concentrated enough in the Earth to make a very slow nuclear reactor.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#95735 Aug 11, 2012
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>If that were true, then you could provide him the evidence of a flood. I am not talking about the Bible, but real, verifiable, scientific evidence. You don't because you cannot.
You're not listening either?

Since: Apr 12

Beijing, China

#95736 Aug 11, 2012
HTS wrote:
There is no logical reason to believe in Abiogensis . No observation in science remotely suggests that it is possible. Experimental biochemsistry leads to the conclusion that it's impossible. DNA cannot self organize from raw materials,... I have never read an article on abiogenesis (and I've read a lot of them) that even addresses the obstacle of information evolving from non living matter.
Then why do you keep bringing the subject up?

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

#95737 Aug 11, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't hold that which has not been confirmed against a source, although it is a favorite failing of your side. The valid approach is to prove the source is not what it is purported to be. In the case of the Bible, just prove (that's code for provide confirming data, another thing your side very seldom even attempts to do. I imagine failed attempts get tiring.) one thing is not correct.
Well, there is a few problems with that. For one, proving one thing from the Bible wrong that has nothing to do with the Flood does not help confirm or refute the Biblical account of the Flood.

Second, no one really knows how much of the Bible is meant to be historical documentation and how much is meant to be allegorical lessons. Obviously, believers in the Bible accept it as a matter of Faith that certain things happened as advertised but even some Christians don't think the Bible is 100% literal.

Ultimately, all of that is irrelevant. According to geologists, if there had been a worldwide Flood as described in the Bible it would have left certain signs or evidence. And, to my knowledge and please correct me if I am wrong, no one has ever found such evidence.

Now, I guess God could have manipulated the Flood in such a way as to not leave the kind of evidence we would expect, but that would leave this entire discussion moot, because the Flood could have happened yesterday and we were all Created this morning with all of our memories of our lives implanted. All we can go on is what we know about geology and so far no evidence has been discovered.

Another thing that could refute the Flood, since it was supposed to have killed everyone but Noah and the others on the Ark, would be evidence of a culture or civilization that existed and continued uninterrupted during the time the Flood was supposed to be occurring.

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

#95738 Aug 11, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Your logic is flawed because your "evidence" relies on evolutionary presuppositions... That geological time periods ever existed. The entire premise of radiometric dating is a worthless pursuit because of its numerous unprovable assumptions.
There is no viable theory of abiogenesis... Only elaborate smokescreens which in reality constitute scientific fraud because actual obstacles are deliberately minimized or omitted.
As always, these discussions end up with debates about God..and they're always introduced by atheists who claim to be committed to science. You seem to believe in evolution not because it can be logically defended, but because you think God is more illogical. What is illogical and unscientific is to attempt to validate a scientific theory by attempting to falsify a religion.
So was there ever a time when there was no life on Earth?

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

#95739 Aug 11, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Radiometric dating is worthless as a science because it's very premise relies on assumptions as to how the earth was created... which is impossible to determine.
How is half life and radioactive decay an assumption of how the Earth was created?

Since: Apr 12

Beijing, China

#95740 Aug 11, 2012
KAB wrote:
Surah 4:12 takes care of the Koran. It literally mathematically does not compute.
How about II Chronicles 4:2, which describes a basin in Solomon's temple?

d = 10 cubits
C = 30 cubits
C = d x pi
Therefore, pi = 3

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.

Asheville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Confederate Flag Flap Liberal Screen To Hide R... 11 hr Confederate Patriot 1
Whatever Happened To Mtn Xpress Forums? Mon Satyam Thomas Hof... 48
DONNA BARROS SERRANO TRANSGENDER ewwwww Mon Satyam Thomas Hof... 4
rednecks are taking over asheville! Mon Satyam Thomas Hof... 3
Poll Has America lost its backbone? (Apr '09) Mon Goodbye Gentry 80
DOES BOTHWELL's D.W.I. CRIMINAL CONVICTION END ... Mon Satyam Thomas 17
News Confederate flag fan defends the stars & bars (Jun '15) Mon Donna Barros Serrano 266
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Asheville Mortgages