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

Full story: Asheville Citizen-Times

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 ...
Comments
74,101 - 74,120 of 134,121 Comments Last updated 24 min ago
KAB

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#74993
Feb 7, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
If the bog shows no evidence of flooding for 12,000 years, and you assert that it WAS flooded 4500 years ago, then it's incumbent upon you to demonstrate where the evidence is within that bog, or explain why such evidence would not appear.
But, beyond that, you can't state this alleged flood occurred without evidence to support it. At least, not while expecting to be taken seriously in a scientific discussion. Among people who are going to believe the story regardless of the evidence (or lack thereof), sure. Among us, not a damn chance. And, that is as it should be.
Reread Fossil's quote carefully, ideally while thinking at the same time (yes, there are people who can read and think at the same time), for your answer.
KAB

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#74994
Feb 7, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Discord wrote:
<quoted text>
May I suggest that is your problem right there. Instead of searching for conclusive evidence to prove something happened, wouldn't it be better to examine the available evidence and conclude what happened from the evidence?
Just the idea that you are searching for conclusive evidence to prove something could very easily lead to bias.
Believe it or not, scientists studying biology and genetics do not search out for evidence that conclusively proves Evolution, they just happen to find evidence that continually supports it.
Why would you want to arbitrarily stop the search for evidence when you can continue to add to the pile? The continuing search for conclusive evidence will most likely result in increasing the body of inconclusive evidence. That's not bad.
Adam

Stoke-on-trent, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#74995
Feb 7, 2012
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
OK Einstein. Please provide the evidence that evolution is not taking place? This should be good.
Adam

Stoke-on-trent, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#74996
Feb 7, 2012
 
Evidence of common descent

"Evidence of common descent of living things has been discovered by scientists working in a variety of fields over many years. This evidence has demonstrated and verified the occurrence of evolution and provided a wealth of information on the natural processes by which the variety and diversity of life on Earth developed. This evidence supports the modern evolutionary synthesis, the current scientific theory that explains how and why life changes over time. Evolutionary biologists document the fact of common descent: making testable predictions, testing hypotheses, and developing theories that illustrate and describe its causes."

Evidence from:

* comparative physiology and biochemistry
* comparative anatomy
* paleontology
* geographical distribution
* observed natural selection
* observed speciation
* artificial selection
* computation and mathematical iteration

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_comm...

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#74997
Feb 7, 2012
 
David wrote:
<quoted text>
Adam is wrong to say (to me)-“YOU can believe” to me, since he doesn't know what “I can believe.”
<quoted text>
But you falsely stated I throw out ALL of science. I don't.
<quoted text>
I leave “speculation” to you and Adam.
<quoted text>
Again, your speculation is wrong - I recognize that some false religions accept evolution.
<quoted text>
Your perception; speculation.
<quoted text>
And the letter doesn't apply to me since I don't accept or endorse the belief you refer to. You don't know enough about Christianity to decipher between real and false Christianity; two very different things.
<quoted text>
Having a belief in God doesn't make them Christians.
<quoted text>
Sure you do. You have faith in Darwinism, evolution, and yourself.
<quoted text>
“hate”?- again, your speculation. Then, using your own logic, since you are “vehemently opposed” to Christians, you hate Christians.
So does someone have to choose between accepting Evolution and being a true Christian? There is no way to do both? And if I am wrong in saying you equate Evolution with Atheism why do you continue to bring up Atheism in an Evolution forum?

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#74998
Feb 7, 2012
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would you want to arbitrarily stop the search for evidence when you can continue to add to the pile? The continuing search for conclusive evidence will most likely result in increasing the body of inconclusive evidence. That's not bad.
I am not saying stop doing research and stop collecting evidence, I am saying don't do those things with the intent of proving the flood. That intent could very well lead to bias as it makes you start with a presupposition that the flood happened. It's like the statement on the Answers in Genesis website that says that no scientific evidence should conflict with Scripture. That presupposition is bias and has no place in science.

The scientists saying the flood did not happen did not start with the assumption it didn't happen, but simply looked at all the available evidence and saw no indication that it did.

----------
TVtropes shirt "For Science" now available for pre-order:
http://discordmerch.com/index.php...

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#74999
Feb 7, 2012
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I would accept it if there was no conflicting evidence. If there was conflicting evidence, I would carefully study ALL the evidence and probably seek additional in an attempt to correctly resolve the matter.
But, you do admit that you begin with the premise that a global year-long miles-deep flood must have happened, and any evidence that might support that claim justifies your acceptance of that claim, while any evidence that contradicts it must be carefully scrutinized and either disregarded or dismissed as inconclusive.

Is this not correct?

Does science start with the evidence, or the claim?

Do you start with the evidence as it stands or the claim that a global miles-deep year-long flood must have happened?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#75000
Feb 7, 2012
 

Judged:

1

KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would you want to arbitrarily stop the search for evidence when you can continue to add to the pile? The continuing search for conclusive evidence will most likely result in increasing the body of inconclusive evidence. That's not bad.
If a theory is falsifiable, then there is no such thing as conclusive evidence. Therefore, you are holding science to an untenable standard that would actually contradict valid scientific methodology. In other words, you're demanding that science be unscientific for you to accept it. Fortunately, the rest of the world isn't quite so stupid.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#75001
Feb 7, 2012
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Reread Fossil's quote carefully, ideally while thinking at the same time (yes, there are people who can read and think at the same time), for your answer.
Oh, that's ok. I've demonstrated enough of your nonsense today. I'll let Bob have a go.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#75002
Feb 7, 2012
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You should have a sidebar with LG and possibly Dogen regarding conclusive evidence, or do you agree with me that conclusive evidence is possible?
That's ok, I'll step in here. MIDutch is referring to "conclusive" as in "no rational person who's educated in science would see this as anything but conclusive, or entirely convincing." But, that doesn't mean it IS conclusive. Conclusive regarding convincing is not the same as conclusive regarding proof.

Is there aspect of science about which you're not entirely ignorant (willfully or otherwise)?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#75003
Feb 7, 2012
 
Usuallyunique wrote:
<quoted text>
I read the bishop's 12 points and some of his writings. If all scripture is inspired how can he possibly exclude sections of bible that he now declares is untenable. There is no authority as to who gets to say what is to be followed and what is now outdated. Why be Christian at all? It's basically meaningless.

I think you missed his main thesis: that literalism is not a valid way to look at the bible or extra biblical scripture. Any scripture can be valuable, regardless of the source, if it contains useful spiritual teachings. The label "Christian" is just that, a label. Why be Christian? Why not be Christian? That may sound flip, but I say it to make a point. Funnymentalism clearly does not work. But Funnymentalism is not necessary. What is necessary is to look at what Jesus actually taught and to see the value in his teachings.

You are put off by the absolutes? Spong removes those (false) absolutes and gets back to what is important, what Jesus (and Buddha and Lao Tzu and......) taught. How we can live our lives better, NOT by judging others and lording over them.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#75004
Feb 7, 2012
 
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text>False evidence!!!
200000 years!!
Impossible!
Were they born at that particular year given by them??
How can the people of this generation be knowledgeable than people of the past??

Science. Genetics, Anthropology,....

The people of the past were ignorant and superstitious. Not everyone today is ignorant (yourself as a notable exception).

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#75005
Feb 7, 2012
 
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text>Who do you think you are!!
The bible ofcourse is the book!!!

I bet Archie and Jughead are more reliable.

“Pay it forward!”

Level 4

Since: Oct 09

Harrisburg

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#75006
Feb 7, 2012
 

Judged:

1

KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I've already won the data game. I provided. You didn't. You have to be in it to win it!
What data?

The few links you provide are of other Topix posts that don't quote or link to any "data".

Your word is not data. Your word is your belief.

No data = no intelligent discussion.

Give it up KAB. The only game you've won is Twister.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#75007
Feb 7, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text>On a more serious note,what is the statistics of atheist populations to that of the christian population,in the US specifically and in the world generally???

That depends on how one defines "atheist" and how one defines "Christian".

If you define "atheist" as anyone without a theistic belief in god then Atheism would have more followers than Christianity (no matter how loosely you define it). If you define Atheist as only people who define themselves as 'atheists' then their numbers are fewer.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#75008
Feb 7, 2012
 
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text>You may be right in a way...
200000 years is just an exaggeration...
The informations the ancients gave to us was and is very accurate...
No one or child can say he or she is more knowledgeable than their parents,impossible...

Really? My daughter is more knowledgeable than myself in a number of areas. She is also a therapist but works with Children and knows much more than myself about the emotional, psychological and physical disorders of childhood than I ever hope to know.

You are just talking and try to rationalize everything. It only works for you.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#75009
Feb 7, 2012
 
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Then please show me where you can or have, observed the origin of life. Let's be clear, as much as Human from non-human evolutionists would love to proclaim it, evolution and the origin of life are related. No one knows scientifically how the origin of life occurred. Biology shows us that life is so complex that it is statistically impossible to have originated by random mixing of chemicals and energy. Scientists can't even replicate it while trying extremely hard for complete lifetimes. THus it makes more sense that the origin of life occurred because an intelligent designewr designed it, and put forth the atmosphere and enviroment for it to live in. And if an intelligent designer did so, then said design has no need for evolution, which makes sense because human from non-human evolution has never been observed, tested, nor replicated, which by the definition of the scientific method, makes it a none theory.
You are right about one thing. There is no real debate. Creationism is clearly the most logical of the 2 faith based alternitives.

I feel no need to refute what has already been refuted.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#75010
Feb 7, 2012
 
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I love science. And when you stick to REAL SCIENCE Christianity and science mesh together as perfectly as machined gears.

Real science IS
Evolution
Genetics
Anthropology,

And you are right, they do mesh. But now you can deny what you just said. Unskilled an unprincipled liar that you are. To bad only you falls for your lies (aka delusions).

[Question to crowd, is this guy so stupid that he thinks one of these times he will be able to slip one in? What a maroon.]

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#75011
Feb 7, 2012
 
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>It is nice to know that I get under your skin to the point that you are so insecure that you must insult me, and arrogantly think you have to tell new posters who you fear the most in hoping that they don't experience the beating you have received.

I insult you for your benefit. It keeps your delusional system strong. And I see your delusions are doing well.

You are welcome.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#75012
Feb 7, 2012
 
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>
If you even slightly knew the bible, you would have never posted this. All you have done is put the absolute correctness of the bible on display!!!
<< 2 Thessalonians 2:3 >>
Don't be fooled by what they say. For that day will not come until there is a great rebellion against God and the man of lawlessness is revealed--the one who brings destruction.
English Standard Version (©2001)
Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
You are right, and for you, it ain't gonna get any better.

You do know that your rant is not related to the original post at all. You should double check before you hit the "Post Comment" button.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••