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

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

There are 168709 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.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#99406 Oct 5, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Roughly a year.
Try dendrochronology.

There are living bristlecone pines go back before your alleged Flood. They provide year-by-year records all by themselves.

There's a living Norway Spruce whose root system, at least, goes back nearly 10,000 years.

Sample stratification can go back even farther.

Year-by-year.

Interestingly, these redcords are particularly good at showing climate - and guess what? No worldwide flood.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#99407 Oct 5, 2012
^^ "records" ^^

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#99408 Oct 5, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Not to destruction. It remains land, just relocated.
Moving the goalposts. Nobody said anything about destruction. COLLAPSE. Things can collapse and not be destroyed. If the land collapses, it totters. If it totters, the Bible is wrong. You just conceded that the land collapses. Thank you for admitting that the Bible is wrong. Your pathetic attempt at equivocation is noted and dismissed.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#99409 Oct 5, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sorry, are you not reading my posts at all or just dodging before you even see the ball is coming?
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Because it is common knowledge among people who have taken a few science classes.....?
Yet you did not know it. Why is that do you suppose?
Common knowledge is not always correct. I think it's related to the whole common sense thing.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#99410 Oct 5, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
An EXACT portion of the EXACT quote states that "animal explorations MAY have predated the development of terrestrial plants" (emphasis mine). Comprende? You are EXPERT at seeing what you want in written material regardless of what it actually states.
It's not "may" as in "may contradict the current understanding." It's "may" as in "there wasn't a current understanding, and this adds to our knowledge." If true, it contradicts your Bible story. Not sure why you'd bother presenting actual science that actually contradicts your Bible story.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#99411 Oct 5, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Common knowledge is not always correct. I think it's related to the whole common sense thing.
Common knowledge is not the same as common sense. Common knowledge is when people are commonly educated about something. Common sense is what people call their ignorant preconceived notions so they don't have to think about if they have a clue.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#99412 Oct 5, 2012
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>How would you possibly know. And plants can exist before the sun. Light existed before the sun.<quoted text>Then what did they eat?
What temperature would the Earth be without the sun?
KAB

Wilson, NC

#99413 Oct 5, 2012
tangled bank wrote:
<quoted text>
No tricks involved. The picture of the skeletal pattern of the treated sting ray fin transformed by Hox genes in one generation, looks quite similar to the 6 fingered skeletal pattern of the (fossil) Tulerpeton autopod (tetrapod hand/foot).
http://www.google.com/imgres...
Furthermore, this experiment elucidated a genetic pathway by which this transformation could have occurred.
From the conclusion of Dahn's paper, "Sonic hedgehog function in chondrichthyan fins and the evolution of appendage patterning", 2007, Nature 445:311-314
"...We have also shown that differences in the timing and spatial domains of Sonic hedgehog expression in skate fins relative to tetrapod limbs correlate well with the morphological diversification of these structures. Therefore we suggest that regulatory changes in Sonic hedgehog signalling may provide an important potential source for generating morphological diversity, in addition to the evolution of downstream Sonic hedgehog responsive gene networks."
http://science.kennesaw.edu/~mdavi144/Publica...
This experiment demonstrated that the transformation of fin to limb did not have to involve the origin of new DNA, and as a result, would have occurred much faster than previously thought. The shift would have involved using ancient genes such as shark fin developmental Hox genes, in new ways to make limbs with fingers and toes. The suddenness of this shift would have produced the illusion of discontinuity.
It remains a REAL discontinuity until/unless it is demonstrated under naturally occurring circumstances. Intelligent not naturally occurring physical and chemical manipulation accomplished what is reported in your references.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#99414 Oct 5, 2012
tangled bank wrote:
<quoted text>
You really need to read Margulis and Sagan's book - "Acquiring Genomes.
Just provide specific points (excerpts) as appropriate.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#99415 Oct 5, 2012
tangled bank wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes it does. Time scale resolution does not make evidence disappear.
No global data
No global flood
No, resolution doesn't make data disappear, but it can make it impossible to distinguish from its surroundings (the technical word is resolve).
KAB

Wilson, NC

#99416 Oct 5, 2012
Johny wrote:
The Bible does not tell us the exact age of he earth, but based on the Bible it does suggest that the earth is much younger than the mainline scientific community says. The problem with the scientific community is that they don't even allow for the possible existence of God. This clouds and bias their science so they automatically assume evolution without any consideration of evidence that would counter it.
At least somebody here astutely perceives the big picture. Don't count on that Earth age differential tho. Also your reference to the "mainline scientific community" is an important distinction. Not all scientists side with that mainline.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#99417 Oct 5, 2012
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Ready to answer now? Should you be locked up and forced to prove your innocence, or is your belief in the Bible's veracity a non-factor in your life?
As a factor in my life, the Bible keeps me from locking up people unless its standard of justice is met. One person's prediction, regardless of track record, is not it.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#99418 Oct 5, 2012
Thomas Robertson wrote:
KAB wrote:
"Like you, I don't have a detailed comprehensive knowledge of the great variety of life on this planet, so I can't state with certainty which are all the members of a particular kind."
You're probably smarter than Darwin.
In Origin of Species, Darwin says he couldn't figure out the difference between a species and a variety.
That depends more on the definitions of the terms than the intelliigence of the evaluator. In general, the difference is determined by whatever is different about the definitions; the kind of stuff they teach in grade school Venn diagrams, but maybe not when Darwin was in grade school.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#99419 Oct 5, 2012
Thomas Robertson wrote:
KAB wrote:
"Like you, I don't have a detailed comprehensive knowledge of the great variety of life on this planet, so I can't state with certainty which are all the members of a particular kind."
I'm glad you can, because Duane Gish can't.
On page 35 of the 1978 edition of Evolution: The Fossils Say NO! he says that gibbons, chimpanzees, and gorillas are separate kinds.
On page 47 of the same book, he puts all apes in the same group--and of course, he wouldn't think of classifying humans as apes.
Duane Gish is as free to provide data as anyone else. Note, it's data that's most welcome, not opinions. BTW, I have no idea who he is, nor do I care.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#99420 Oct 5, 2012
Thomas Robertson wrote:
Incidentally, does your system follow the traditional system of classification?
Some Evolutionists are confused, because dogs fit into 35 species in 14 genii.
Bats fit into 1850 species.
Worms fit into 28,000 species in 18 phyla.
So I'm curious about whether Noah took only 2 bats which afterward microevolved like crazy, or whether Noah took 3700 bats.
Noah took what was necessary to generate life as it exists today. You can be sure he didn't take every specific variant of canine.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#99421 Oct 6, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
At least somebody here astutely perceives the big picture. Don't count on that Earth age differential tho. Also your reference to the "mainline scientific community" is an important distinction. Not all scientists side with that mainline.
Sure. There's a word for that there other-than-mainline science.

Kookery.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#99422 Oct 6, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Noah took what was necessary to generate life as it exists today. You can be sure he didn't take every specific variant of canine.
So whence came all of today's species (SPECIES) of canine come from?

Evolution?

In, what, 4,000-odd years?

Wow, that's a new species every few generations!

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Rio Rancho, NM

#99423 Oct 6, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Noah took what was necessary to generate life as it exists today. You can be sure he didn't take every specific variant of canine.
The only thing we can be sure of is you're stonewalling for stupidity.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#99424 Oct 6, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It remains a REAL discontinuity until/unless it is demonstrated under naturally occurring circumstances. Intelligent not naturally occurring physical and chemical manipulation accomplished what is reported in your references.
Is it possible for such a thing to occur naturally? If it is possible, then your argument is moot. If it is not possible, explain why it is not possible.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#99425 Oct 6, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
As a factor in my life, the Bible keeps me from locking up people unless its standard of justice is met. One person's prediction, regardless of track record, is not it.
Irrelevant. It's a FUCKING HYPOTHETICAL. Answer the question.

If I have a 100% accurate track record predicting child molesters, and I have successfully predicted 1 million of them, should the police lock you up and you be forced to prove your innocence if I declare you a child molester? Or, should my claim have to be demonstrated true with evidence, even though I have such an impeccable track record? The police act because I'm right every time. Their acceptance of my 100% accuracy is why they lock people up on my say-so, just like your acceptance of the Bible's 100% accuracy is why you act based on its teachings. You say the Bible should be accepted as true throughout because it's been true with every testable claim, just as I have been with my testable claims about child molesters. So, in this purely hypothetical situation, normal juris prudence notwithstanding, should you be locked up and forced to prove your innocence?

If you hold your Bible to a different standard than the hypothetical police hold me, explain the difference. Nobody here, I'm sure, sees the difference. As I said, normal juris prudence doesn't apply here. It's HYPOTHETICAL.

I know why you keep avoiding the yes/no answer, and so do you. It forces you to admit that the burden of proof rests on the believer to prove the Bible's claims, NOT on everybody else to disprove them. But, because you've now invested yourself into this argument, you can't back out and admit you were wrong, and you can't admit that the Bible shouldn't be accepted as 100% true because that's your supposed justification for your belief. You have such weak faith that to admit that the Bible can and, actually, IS wrong about anything anywhere ever is anathema to you.

You are a weak, small, pathetic little man with a mere facade of faith and a huge wellspring of doubt that he fears more than just about anything in the world. Doubt is a good thing. It demonstrates critical thinking. That you fear it so much says a lot.

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
E equals MC squared 31 min Jim Ryan 1
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr blacklagoon 3 94,172
Why the Big Bang is ALL WRONG. 9 hr Endofdays 268
Altruistic Behaviour negates the theory of Evol... 9 hr Rose_NoHo 3
Evolution is boring as Hell (Nov '17) 9 hr Mad John Kidd 46
List what words of Jesus (the Creator) you evol... 11 hr Mad John Kidd 35
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 15 hr Rose_NoHo 13,765