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

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

There are 164936 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.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#98318 Sep 25, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
By "during" do you mean completely contained within?
Why would evidence of a drought occurring during a flood such as you claim occurred not be able to exist?(HINT: it has to do with water).

If we find evidence of a drought occurring during the time period of the alleged flood, then the flood is an impossibility as you describe it.

If you think this flood happened, it's not possible for there to be any place on Earth that shows evidence of an uninterrupted drought through the time of the flood.

You remember how you keep asking if it's possible for there to be a flood during a drought? What do YOU mean by "during?" I'll mean it the same way you mean it.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#98319 Sep 25, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Creationism and Floodism as you probably know them are not true science.
What does ToE predict will happen with single-celled bacteria?

After an event has occurred the probability that that event occurred is 100%.

http://www.science20.com/adaptive_complexity/...

And here is the main paper the above information is based on:

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/02/13/...
forreal

Edroy, TX

#98320 Sep 25, 2012
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would evidence of a drought occurring during a flood such as you claim occurred not be able to exist?(HINT: it has to do with water).
If we find evidence of a drought occurring during the time period of the alleged flood, then the flood is an impossibility as you describe it.
If you think this flood happened, it's not possible for there to be any place on Earth that shows evidence of an uninterrupted drought through the time of the flood.
You remember how you keep asking if it's possible for there to be a flood during a drought? What do YOU mean by "during?" I'll mean it the same way you mean it.
when a person refusing to believe in biblical truth or biblical events that really happen or when a person like the man from Iran refuses to believe that there was never a Holocaust dont you think its about time for you move to Iran Unbeliever!

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#98321 Sep 25, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
My definition does map to demonstrable reality.

No, it maps here:

http://www.floridathemeparkvilla.com/Disney_M...


“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#98322 Sep 25, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
So, according to ToE, were eukaryotes generated from bacteria?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eukaryote#Origin...

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#98323 Sep 25, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
How does ToE predict eukaryotes came to be?
"Fossil records indicate that eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes somewhere between 1.5 to 2 billion years ago. Two proposed pathways describe the invasion of prokaryote cells by two smaller prokaryote cells. They subsequently became successfully included as part of a now much larger cell with additional structures and capable of additional functions.
Endosymbiosis
Membrane infolding"
http://www.infoplease.com/cig/biology/eukaryo...

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#98324 Sep 25, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I have not argued against any science, only participants in this forum.

Not so. You have disputed all of the fields of science listed and probably many more.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#98325 Sep 25, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
No, what I knew was that Tangled, and now perhaps also you, don't understand probablility distributions.

You mean 'probability' distributions?

And I do understand what a probability distribution is. I also understand that statistics don't lie, but liars often use statistics.
KAB

United States

#98326 Sep 25, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
A more honest and scientific question would be: can a major flood occur during a major drought without leaving any sedimentary evidence?
I have no doubt that such an episode would leave evidence. The more important question is how readily detectable/discernible/recogni zable would that evidence be after 4500 years of "wear and tear"?
KAB

United States

#98327 Sep 25, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Your statement is in direct contradiction to the words of Jesus as recorded in the bible.
Not if his words are taken in context.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#98328 Sep 25, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no doubt that such an episode would leave evidence. The more important question is how readily detectable/discernible/recogni zable would that evidence be after 4500 years of "wear and tear"?

I would imagine more detectable/ discernible/ recognizable than local floods that we do have evidence for that occurred hundreds of millions of years ago.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#98329 Sep 25, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Not if his words are taken in context.

he said the law will continue to the end of the world.

You want me to quote the whole chapter or the whole book?
KAB

United States

#98330 Sep 25, 2012
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. Ever actually read the Bible?
The animals weren't being sacrificed to God as an offering. Their blood was being used to cleanse the leper of leprosy.
But, let's even concede, for the sake of argument, that you're right. Are you saying that until Jesus showed up, the Leviticus method of curing leprosy worked? If so, what evidence supports that, and what evidence is there in leprosy that demonstrates such would have ever been the case, what the change would have been that would have stopped it from working, and when this occurred?
Is it more likely that leprosy magically stopped being curable with the blood of doves and sheep 2000 years ago, or that leprosy has been curable with the same treatments for as long as leprosy has been around, but we only discovered the cure recently with the advent of antibiotics?
There is no Leviticus cure for leprosy.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#98331 Sep 25, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no Leviticus cure for leprosy.
Leviticus14

"The Lord said to Moses, 2 “These are the regulations for any diseased person at the time of their ceremonial cleansing, when they are brought to the priest: 3 The priest is to go outside the camp and examine them. If they have been healed of their defiling skin disease, 4 the priest shall order that two live clean birds and some cedar wood, scarlet yarn and hyssop be brought for the person to be cleansed. 5 Then the priest shall order that one of the birds be killed over fresh water in a clay pot. 6 He is then to take the live bird and dip it, together with the cedar wood, the scarlet yarn and the hyssop, into the blood of the bird that was killed over the fresh water. 7 Seven times he shall sprinkle the one to be cleansed of the defiling disease, and then pronounce them clean. After that, he is to release the live bird in the open fields."

Level 2

Since: Jun 08

Charlotte, NC

#98332 Sep 25, 2012
Dogen wrote:
Let me see if I got this right.... so you are saying:
No global flood data
No global flood.
Did I get it right?
I thought it quite clear and definitive as well. As for KAB, the only thing clear and definitive is his religious bias.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#98333 Sep 25, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no Leviticus cure for leprosy.

Leviticus 14:2-52

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...

Level 2

Since: Jun 08

Charlotte, NC

#98334 Sep 25, 2012
KAB wrote:
I did look it up. It apparently depends on where you look. This is another example of where one should be careful not to lose sight of the content by getting snagged on the labels.
Apparently you missed this research on cyanobacteria and multicellularity.

“The results indicate that a multicellular morphotype evolved early in the cyanobacterial lineage and was regained at least once after a previous loss. Most of the morphological diversity exhibited in cyanobacteria today —including the majority of single-celled species— arose from ancient multicellular lineages. Multicellularity could have conferred a considerable advantage for exploring new niches and hence facilitated the diversification of new lineages.”
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/11/45

[QUOTE who=”KAB”]So rephrasing my content-rich question, according to ToE, must it be possible for a multicellular lifeform to be generated from single-celled bacteria?[/QUOTE]
Let me repeat my previous post after you had already asked this question twice.

"No, but some do, showing cell differentiation along the way."
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~bi1/Bi1__Micro-_t...
http://www.pnas.org/content/102/32/11308.full
KAB wrote:
I'm told ToE can predict things. What does it predict here?
That the evolution of multicellularity occurred repeatedly and independently in diverse lineages including animals, plants, fungi, as well as green and red algae.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/...
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/5/1595
KAB

United States

#98335 Sep 25, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
But a hypothesis has evidence to support it.
Your wishful thinking has only your desires to support it.
A hypothesis may have evidence to support it and may also not be correct, correct?
KAB

United States

#98336 Sep 25, 2012
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
That is NOT what a hypothesis is defined as in science. Either you don't know how science works or you're being intentionally obtuse, which is dishonest. Which is it?
Neither, per usual.
KAB

United States

#98337 Sep 25, 2012
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's slow that down. Apart from it being a red herring.
>1 .)The first five books of the Bible
(what Bible? The orrible translation called OT or the TORAH?)
>2 .)have been tested on content
(when, by whom, against what? And mainly why since they are the word of G-d, thus do not need doubting, but can be open to any and all interpretation without limit and countless mitigations.)
>3 .)and demonstrated
(when, by whom, in what way, what method, compared to what?)
>4 .)to be reliable
(compared to what? By whom?)
>5 .) independent of whether written by one or many.
(They allready have various authors, but how would, one or many, have any impact on the first statements you made? As in not relevant whatsoever.)
The content of the first five books of the Bible is reliable.
That is all you are saying.
Why remains utterly unclear.
So it's another unqualified statement. i.e. opinion.
Yes it is my opinion. If you disagree then that is your opinion, or you could PROVE me wrong and resolve the matter. It only takes one confirmed error, but you have to provide the data not just make an assertion.

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 Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 5 hr Frindly 3,269
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 5 hr Frindly 83,837
No Evidence for Creation, a Global Flood, Tower... 5 hr Dogen 40
Ten Reason Why Evolution Is a Lie (Jul '09) Wed MIDutch 1,996
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) Tue Regolith Based Li... 223,191
Time Dec 9 THANKS 2
Evolution exposed Dec 8 Dogen 6
More from around the web