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

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 ... Full Story
KAB

Oxford, NC

#99591 Oct 7, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
We do know it. So what are you going to do with 'Kind" since it has now been refuted, just like the flood?
Not my kind.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#99592 Oct 7, 2012
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Circular definitions have no place in science.
That's why I don't use them.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#99593 Oct 7, 2012
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Dance for me!
Like I said, you're never going to answer. Penalties for wrongful accusation is irrelevant. What's the penalty for the Bible being wrong? We'll make the consequences of equal gravity.
Should you be locked up and forced to prove your innocence, or is your belief in the Bible's veracity irrelevant to the decisions and actions you make?
I don't know how much of a penalty it is, but if the Bible was wrong then I wouldn't accept what it records as correct.
forreal

Corpus Christi, TX

#99594 Oct 7, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I blame you.
Hypocrite! why do you question Gods word?You really dont blame me but God.If anyone is evolving for refusing to accept the truth in the Bible its you.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#99595 Oct 7, 2012
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Dodge.
By the way, why is there the presumption of innocence? HINT: it has to do with burden of proof and the null hypothesis.
Logic cannot save you from your lies.
Those who operate from a presumption of innocence do so in order not to have people imposing themselves on others undeservedly.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#99596 Oct 7, 2012
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Then apply it. Show us a kind and what separates it from other kinds that may seem similar.
The best I can do is identify some members of some kinds. I don't have the expertise to go beyond that.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#99597 Oct 7, 2012
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>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.
So what does a worldwide flood look like in a tree ring?
KAB

Oxford, NC

#99598 Oct 7, 2012
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
All you need to know and acknowledge is that the meanings of totter and quake are not identical which means that totter can mean things that quake cannot.
LowellGuy

Lowell, MA

#99599 Oct 7, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The data reveals that the methods are not foolproof.
Translation: as long as we don't know absolutely everything, there's a possibility, no matter how absurdly remote, that a year-long global flood happened, therefore it must be accepted as true.

This standard of evidence requires acceptance of infinite mutually exclusive conditions. You see logical impossibilities as something to be ignored. I see them as the strongest possible reason to adhere to the scientific method. You can pretend it's a useless pursuit, but the Bible never got man to the moon.
LowellGuy

Lowell, MA

#99600 Oct 7, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
But kinds can breed. That is your definition. Therefore ring species are not all the same kind. Get the implications or do you need me to connect the dots for you?
You want to rethink that stand?
"Rethink" implies he thought about it in the first place.
LowellGuy

Lowell, MA

#99601 Oct 7, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for a civil and reasonable question.
For me not to accept that the flood occurred or to accept that mindless evolution is the sole explanation for all life requires that at least one point in the Bible is confirmed after scrutiny to be incorrect, or similarly for any data confirming, not just supporting/indicating, that the flood did/could not occur or that mindless evolution generates new Biblical "kinds" (i.e., can reproduce themselves but cannot be bred with the originating kind). I can't overemphasize here that "confirming" is the key concept thru all of this.
You just accidentally defined ring species. They can reproduce themselves but cannot be bred with what originated them (you used "kind" in this definition of "kind," which is a circular definition, a la "a cake is a food that is a cake and isn't anything other than a cake). So, you are saying that ring species ARE new kinds. Thanks for accidentally saying I was right (liar) and admitting the Bible was wrong. See what happens when you answer questions? You end up dissolving your faith. That's why you stopped doing it for so long. I expect you'll stop again entirely now that answering questions has led you away from your Biblical literalism.
LowellGuy

Lowell, MA

#99602 Oct 7, 2012
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I ink science is wrong...
[QUOTE who=marksman11]I love science...[/QUOTE]

You liar.
LowellGuy

Lowell, MA

#99603 Oct 7, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
That's why I don't use them.
A kind can reproduce itself but can't breed with the originating kind. You used the word you're defining in the definition of the word you're defining. On the very page you denied doing so. That is the definition of a circular definition. Ever considered not being full of shit?

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Qufu, China

#99604 Oct 7, 2012
forreal wrote:
<quoted text>Paul said he was no longer him living but Christ in Him!!!

I bet the thief on the cross was disappointed.
Jesus promised him, "I assure you, today you will be with me in paradise."

Jim Jones probably got his idea from Paul.
When Father Divine died, he told Father Divine's followers that their leader had entered his body.
Some of the Divinites believed him and converted to his cult.

[QUOTE]Stupid Ape!
Are we apes?
I thought we were descended from Adam and Eve!
LOL
What does the the Third Commandment say?

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Qufu, China

#99605 Oct 7, 2012
Dogen wrote:
Too bad about your not having a sense of humor.
Hr probably does.
I'm beginning to wonder if he's a poe.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Qufu, China

#99606 Oct 7, 2012
KAB wrote:
... or that mindless evolution generates new Biblical "kinds" (i.e., can reproduce themselves but cannot be bred with the originating kind).
Fine, then.
Noah took 1,250,000 pairs of animals on the Ark with him.
That's all I wanted to know.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#99607 Oct 8, 2012
forreal wrote:
<quoted text>re you saying by sining or breaking Gods laws, there isnt an affect? Just look at a woman who doesnt take care of her self when she has a baby 40days? Or just look at when happens when you mingle milk and meat at night? or what about have so many sex parnters can you evolve a new speices?
Someone should start turving in how many ways forreal can get any statement wrong.

There is the niddah...no sex when a women has her period.
Noah drunkenly in festive mode disobeyed, and Ham and his brother simply become an instrument of god, so as to find out.
So therefore they are not wrong. But as stated have god on their side.
The act is wrong, it does not make people eternal sinners, to be forever punished.
Feeling embarrasment and shame are punishment enough.
The idea is that people have free will, and because they have free will and are aware of right and wrong which gives their acts meaning.
Anyone unawares and even god unaware would never conclude that someting could be amiss. The idea is that people have a choice that gives their acts towards perfection or away from it meaning.
Shared responsibility.
Certain rules go for certain environments, but maybe it's as simple as some priest being lactose intolerant. Never underestimate the power of organized religion and their fickle rules. Therefore it is a good thing that their can be mitigating circumstances and that there is a gradation in judging.

But the short would be that not every religion reads the Adam and Eve episode as the invention of sin, or babies form them on for ever born evil, or women meriting to stake and burning for being evil temptresses.

Apropos evolution: how do you understand be fertile and multiply, and subsequent huge variations in life.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#99608 Oct 8, 2012
Forreal you are aware that several species have asexual reproduction?
So are they disobeing god?

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#99609 Oct 8, 2012
a.o. things forreal wrote:
I bet the thief on the cross was disappointed.
Jesus promised him, "I assure you, today you will be with me in paradise."

end quote
Did you never notice something amiss in that entire narrative.

We find three people, of which one is exempt from being crucified.
Nevertheless three people are hung on the crosses.
forreal

Corpus Christi, TX

#99610 Oct 8, 2012
MAAT wrote:
Forreal you are aware that several species have asexual reproduction?
So are they disobeing god?
even animals will be judge for listening to the devil why would god curse the serpent.What about the swines who felt off the cliff over 2,000, did the demons used them as their way out?

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
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 3 min replaytime 133,865
How would creationists explain... 1 hr MADRONE 417
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 2 hr Dogen 667
Science News (Sep '13) Wed positronium 2,944
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) Dec 22 Chimney1 13,624
Creationism coming to Ohio classrooms? Not with... Dec 20 nobody 7
24 hour dental emergency (Nov '13) Dec 19 Zach 4
More from around the web