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

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

There are 166302 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.

The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#105937 Jan 2, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing works here except an evolutionists overactive imagination and ability to poof mythical theropds out of thin air.
Yeah, I am still on about it with this new lot to see them all equally make boofheads out of themselves as you did.
Funny, it was dealt with on the other thread. You uh, couldn't deal then either. But maybe things'll go different this time!

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#105938 Jan 2, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>

This published paper appears to support much of what creationists have been suggesting all along. It is backed by cited commentary.
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false.
The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Ado...
So your position is that active research and study of genetics, geology, paleontology, archaeology, et al. by myriads of separate researchers, each adding/subtracting to/from the THEORY of evolution is less accurate than absolutist faith in a 3500 year old book.
How could you possibly fail to recognize that the parameters cited in the article are an order of magnitude more applicable to the Bible, Creationists and the system(s) of religion than to the diverse fields of research that indicate a world model which is completely at odds with Genesis?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#105939 Jan 2, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Mankind is capable of projection.
You, however, prefer to be called an ape.
Ape!
Gee, the old Nelson Muntz form of argumentation. Well done.
KAB

United States

#105940 Jan 2, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
marksman11, thank you for reading my posts.
How shall I research the validity of the resurrection?
Shall I research whether or not it is possible for a human to survive without oxygen?
Shall I research whether or not it is possible for a human to fly without modern technology?
Shall I research whether or not it is possible to be heart-dead but not brain-dead for three days?
Shall I research whether or not it is possible to live in Heaven and not be visible to astronauts?
Or shall I research why the resurrection myth which you believe is any more scientifically verifiable than the resurrection myths about Baal, Melqart, Adonis, Eshmun, Tammuz, Ra, Osiris, Orion, Dionysus, Adonis, Inanna, Ishtar, Persephone, Bari, Baldr, and Quetzalcoatl?
You should research the Bible from an unbiased starting point (i.e. wipe the slate clean). I realize that will be a significant challenge for you.
KAB

United States

#105941 Jan 2, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not going to spend the time looking for something you will accept. It is out there though.
Hers a shocker for You...I don't think it matters very much. To you of course it does...to others...not so much.
However, KAB, we like you, and you just motor on like you do.
It should concern you that, knowing as you do that it's out there, you just can't seem to find it. The only way you can prove it's out there is to provide it like I do.
KAB

United States

#105942 Jan 2, 2013
Usuallyunique wrote:
<quoted text>
That's about as likely as Galileo convincing Pope Urban VIII that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Galileo's argument was solid: Looking at the moon's crescent light shape and comparing that with what he saw to when a ball revolves around a candle, he discovered that their resulting crescent shadow matched what he was observing in his telescope for the other planets and realized that the sun was the candle, we were on a only one of the balls. There many problems assuming the Earth was at the center of the universe, namely: why the planets never went by on a predictable schedule.
But the Pope rejected his argument and pointed to scriptures like Psalms 104 verse 5: "He laid the earth upon its foundations: it shall not be removed for ever."
After hearing this very basic, very irrefutable evidence the Pope and virtually all of the Church Cardinals still wouldn't give up. Did they know, below their pretenses, that they were embarrassingly wrong? Or were they so dim that couldn't open their minds just a hair?
There is nothing in Psalm 104:5 that requires Earth to be the center of the universe. The verse simply assures that Earth is permanent.
KAB

United States

#105943 Jan 2, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
They were just close-minded like all the religious
Slight but important correction:
They were just close-minded like most the religious.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#105944 Jan 2, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>The chance that all life evolved from a common ancestor is miniscule: 1 chance in 10&#8743;150,000,000,000 according to
evolutiondismantled.com
also in your case, then 98% DNA does not support evolution!!
Actually it does. Especially as your references are idiots.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#105945 Jan 2, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>There is nothing in Psalm 104:5 that requires Earth to be the center of the universe. The verse simply assures that Earth is permanent.
So, it's an INTERPRETATION of the Bible that is incorrect re: geocentricity?

Is that what you're saying?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#105946 Jan 2, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Would you please just give us specific data proving evolution so we can believe in it instead? Short of that, everyone's entitled to his choice of religion, right?
Are several billion pieces of data enough for you?

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...

Of course how do we know that it wasn't just Goddoingitwithmagic?(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#105947 Jan 2, 2013
Whisgean Zoda wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact there are odds given still leaves the possibility, no matter how unlikely the odds may be.
However, the odds that ALL life evolved from a common ancestor are 0%, unless someone's gonna argue that plants and animals have a common ancestor.
Actually the likelihood that all life shares common ancestry is quite high, considering the way DNA works. Of course it is possible that evolution is incorrect because it was all magically poofed into existence by an undetectable invisible magical Jewish wizard, but since that's not scientifically verifiable then it has no bearing on reality, and hence will not affect those odds in any way.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#105948 Jan 2, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Statisics show that once you reach 1 in 10 to the 50th. power, you have reached statical zero possiblities of the event occuring.
Actually if it's above zero then all you would be showing would the event would be extremely unlikely.
marksman11 wrote:
My number was beyond that.
It was beyond no further than the bowells of your buttt.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#105949 Jan 2, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
There is nothing in Psalm 104:5 that requires Earth to be the center of the universe. The verse simply assures that Earth is permanent.
It's dust in about 6 billion years.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#105950 Jan 2, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
So, it's an INTERPRETATION of the Bible that is incorrect re: geocentricity?
Is that what you're saying?
KAB's a literalist??? When the heck did THAT happen?

:-/
KAB

United States

#105951 Jan 2, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey don't blame ME, it was Mazzy's claim.(shrug)
No, the NEED was your claim, and here it is again,

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TFA...

It was a free-will choice, not a need.
KAB

United States

#105952 Jan 2, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
So, it's an INTERPRETATION of the Bible that is incorrect re: geocentricity?
Is that what you're saying?
That is correct. It was an unnecessary interpretation out of harmony with physical data.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#105953 Jan 2, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
That is correct. It was an unnecessary interpretation out of harmony with physical data.
"...The world also is firmly established, it shall not be moved"
{I Chronicles 16:30}

"...Surely the world is established, so that it cannot be moved"
{Psalm 93:1}

"He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble.(Job 9:6)"

"Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand.(Job 38:4)"

....Ummmm dunno, KAB. You got some 'splainin to do....

Then take on *THIS GUY* and explain to him that he got his interpretation incorrect:

"Within these pages you'll see the scriptural references to the sun's travels and see how many times the Bible talks about the earth traveling around the sun. We'll talk about the scientific rule of observance, the seasons, moon phases, tides, eclipses, satellites and history." http://staticearth.net/index.html
KAB

United States

#105954 Jan 2, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Are several billion pieces of data enough for you?
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...
Of course how do we know that it wasn't just Goddoingitwithmagic?(shrug)
Where/what are the several billion pieces of data? Actually, I'm most interested in just one conclusive piece. You'd think there would be at least one in several billion. Aren't those evolution type odds?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#105955 Jan 2, 2013
Whisgean Zoda wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact there are odds given still leaves the possibility, no matter how unlikely the odds may be.
However, the odds that ALL life evolved from a common ancestor are 0%, unless someone's gonna argue that plants and animals have a common ancestor.
Why could they not have a common ancestor?

What are euglenas? Animals or plants?

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

Ever actually read a science book?

By the way, if the odds are 0%, how about you prove that?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#105956 Jan 2, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
"...The world also is firmly established, it shall not be moved"
{I Chronicles 16:30}
"...Surely the world is established, so that it cannot be moved"
{Psalm 93:1}
"He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble.(Job 9:6)"
"Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand.(Job 38:4)"
....Ummmm dunno, KAB. You got some 'splainin to do....
Then take on *THIS GUY* and explain to him that he got his interpretation incorrect:
"Within these pages you'll see the scriptural references to the sun's travels and see how many times the Bible talks about the earth traveling around the sun. We'll talk about the scientific rule of observance, the seasons, moon phases, tides, eclipses, satellites and history." http://staticearth.net/index.html
So, the Earth can't be moved, but it CAN be shaken from its place? Oh, dear...what's an ape to think of all this?

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 13 min Samuel Patre 87,244
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) 14 hr knows 1,824
What's your religion? Sat Endofdays 767
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) Sat superwilly 5,811
Scientific Method Feb 15 stinky 20
Evolving A Maze Solving Robot Feb 6 Untangler 2
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) Feb 1 Rose_NoHo 223,360
More from around the web