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

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

There are 157668 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.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#106053 Jan 3, 2013
KAB wrote:
Provide data from a single piece of wood with a continuous set of rings spanning the time of the flood and we'll have something to consider.

I don't know the exact date.
So you'll claim that any piece of wood offered as evidence spans the wrong date.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#106054 Jan 3, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Maz, in your giddiness to post a 'scathing rebuke on science'(above), I doubt you read so far as the conclusions listed in this paper (called "How Can We Improve the Situation?" here in the report).
Some highlights copy/pasted for you to consider:
Is it unavoidable that most research findings are false, or can we improve the situation? A major problem is that it is impossible to know with 100% certainty what the truth is in any research question. In this regard, the pure “gold” standard is unattainable. However, there are several approaches to improve the post-study probability.
Better powered evidence, e.g., large studies or low-bias meta-analyses, may help, as it comes closer to the unknown “gold” standard. However, large studies may still have biases and these should be acknowledged and avoided. Moreover, large-scale evidence is impossible to obtain for all of the millions and trillions of research questions posed in current research.
~[Remind me, how many studies have Creationists/Intelligent Designers performed?]
Second, most research questions are addressed by many teams, and it is misleading to emphasize the statistically significant findings of any single team. What matters is the totality of the evidence.
~[ToE has been experimented upon by researchers from around the world -- including quite a few Christian scientists, their teams, Christian-sponsored University Biology Departments, etc -- all finding data FOR the ToE, and none disputing it]
Nevertheless, most new discoveries will continue to stem from hypothesis-generating research with low or very low pre-study odds. We should then acknowledge that statistical significance testing in the report of a single study gives only a partial picture, without knowing how much testing has been done outside the report and in the relevant field at large.
Finally, instead of chasing statistical significance, we should improve our understanding of the range of R values—the pre-study odds—where research efforts operate [10]. Before running an experiment, investigators should consider what they believe the chances are that they are testing a true rather than a non-true relationship. Speculated high R values may sometimes then be ascertained. As described above, whenever ethically acceptable, large studies with minimal bias should be performed on research findings that are considered relatively established, to see how often they are indeed confirmed. I suspect several established “classics” will fail the test [36].
~[Stated above is a good rule to follow when investigating any scientific hypothesis. The ToE has been buttressed by 150 years of investigation by countless persons, each confirming the massive volume of evidence behind it. The ToE is the most rigorously supported science there is. To 'Start Over' at the beginning each time a related hypothesis is to be tested is absurd. As would beginning with the hypothesis of a deity that has no provided us with no evidence His/Her/Its existance.
Religion is a state of FAITH. The mere supposition for a deity cannot be confirmed through subjective means.
SHOW GOD....then we'll talk.]
Unfortunately you have unsuccessfully tried to defend TOE. TOE is NO longer rigorously supported other than in the minds of those that have faith in TOE. You now have libraries of inaccurate and false information.

The flawed scientific method is endemic throughout evolutionary research.

My response is in my next post, seeing that the thread space here is inadequate.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#106055 Jan 3, 2013
Response to Kong.

Science is not qualified to speak to such things as deities. You don't have any trouble accepting dark mater do you? Dark matter is a mysterious powerful force that seems to control the universe, is unexplainable and unseen. This appears to describe God. You shouldn't have any trouble believing in God.

I have already supplied research that suggests most research findings are false. I can present a plethora of them, Kong. There is not enough thread space to post them all.

"But that's what happened. A paper published this week in the journal PLoS One by Campbell, Associate Professor of Mathematics Laurie Heyer, a Danish colleague, and the 10 undergraduates in his fall 2008 "Laboratory Methods in Genomics" course explains their discovery that computer-based annotations of genome sequences agree with each other less than 50% of the time."

http://www3.davidson.edu/cms/x36469.xml

“The different results we saw from different methods of gene expression analysis were shocking, and led us to reinvestigate the whole process on several platforms,” says Jakob Lovén, postdoctoral reseacher in Young’s lab and co-author of the Cell paper.“We then realized that the common assumption that cells contain similar levels of mRNA is badly flawed and can lead to serious misinterpretations, particularly with cancer cells that can have very different amounts of RNA.”

http://wi.mit.edu/news/archive/2012/whitehead...

You havn't forgotten have you that there are theist evolutionists. I don't accept TOE because it is rubbish, not because I am a theist.

In actual fact the best evidence that there is a God is that despite all the rhetoric around the demonic Copernican principle, indeed mankind is special on the earth being the only species that can make meaning of the universe, and earth is the only planet with life found on it, AND we also happen to be in the centre of the universe according to models that don't rely on mysteries.

The upshot is that from here on anything you present from that mountain of what evos call evidence is now challenged and likely flawed.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#106056 Jan 3, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Unfortunately you have unsuccessfully tried to defend TOE. TOE is NO longer rigorously supported other than in the minds of those that have faith in TOE. You now have libraries of inaccurate and false information.
The flawed scientific method is endemic throughout evolutionary research.
My response is in my next post, seeing that the thread space here is inadequate.
Tell a Catholic that the scientific method is flawed, they'll tell you how that very method has found no credible miracles. You decry the method because your fraudulent claims cannot survive in it. It's simple jealousy.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#106057 Jan 3, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Where did you dig "10% uncertainty" out of? Please describe how you arrived at that figure.
And Prometheus is only the one, single tree ring data that you insisted upon. The OVERLAPPING and multiple confirmation of dendrochronology from several million individual tree ring samples that composes the full record pushes back the data from tree rings quite a few millenia further.
Then there's ice cores, archaeology, geneology, anthropology, geology, and perhaps a few other disciplines that all point to the conclusion that your flood never happened.
Sorry KAB. Still no flood.
Bristlecone pines go back at least 5,000 years.

There's a Norway Spruce (actually in Sweden) with a living root system that goes back about 9,500.
KAB

United States

#106058 Jan 3, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
They were right there. You ignored 'em as usual.
<quoted text>
Evolution does not use one, it uses lots to form a working scientific theory. That's what you were given.
<quoted text>
Hey, if you think there was something wrong with all those then by all means just find one human being with a genome more akin to a cactus.
<quoted text>
Evolution type odds are that no creationist will ever even bother trying to dealing with the evidence for evolution, prefering evasion or arguing against a caricature instead. I see you are still consistent in that manner at least.
I see you've abandoned the scientific approach to a challenge.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#106059 Jan 3, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell a Catholic that the scientific method is flawed, they'll tell you how that very method has found no credible miracles. You decry the method because your fraudulent claims cannot survive in it. It's simple jealousy.
It is great to see you have nothing but ridicule to add to the discussion, as usual.

Why would a creo be jealous that we have not offered over 150 years of hubris?

Your horns are showing!

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#106060 Jan 3, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I see you've abandoned the scientific approach to a challenge.
I am actually surprised Dude is game to show his face here. I am still waiting for his big hero reply re the deteriorating genome.

I have presented many papers that suggest the scientific method is flawed. It appears these evolutionists do not have a scientific approach to anything so we can forget expecting it.

Everything evolutionists use is flawed. Any idea will be moulded to suit the evolutionary paradigm, regardless of it being factual or not. Uranium and samarium 146 carbon dating, they are all flawed as well. I am not a YEC but they have some very good points.

"In what follows, much of the work that has been done in Anatolian tree-ring matching is reviewed. The conclusions are disturbing, and have implications for treering studies generally."

http://www.informath.org/ATSU04a.pdf

"Two of the solar system's best natural timekeepers have been caught misbehaving, suggesting that the accepted ages for the oldest known rock samples are off by a million years or more."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21644-a...

Dating methods are no better than the other flawed research that gets presented here KAB.

We know, many scientists know, I have presented research from many well credentialled evolutionists as well as peer reviewed pubications so these evos here should know, and still we can hear the background noise of evolutionary faith. Go figure!

Evos publish, therefore they think they exist. Too bad nothing else verifies their existence.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#106061 Jan 3, 2013
MazHere wrote:
Response to Kong.
Science is not qualified to speak to such things as deities. You don't have any trouble accepting dark mater do you? Dark matter is a mysterious powerful force that seems to control the universe, is unexplainable and unseen. This appears to describe God. You shouldn't have any trouble believing in God.
"Dark Matter therefore God"? Really?

Dark Matter (and Dark Energy) are merely phenomena that science is currently investigating. Give it time, we just started looking at it.

I have no problem with the concept of a Supreme Deity. Really.

But if He/She/It exists, He/She/It used the forces described with science (Chemistry, Physics -- and including the ToE) to do His/Her/Its bidding.

The Bible is NOT a science book.
MazHere wrote:
The upshot is that from here on anything you present from that mountain of what evos call evidence is now challenged and likely flawed.
I'll consider your opinion if/when the majority of those in the business (science, specifically Biology) make that same pronouncement.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#106062 Jan 3, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
"Dark Matter therefore God"? Really?
Dark Matter (and Dark Energy) are merely phenomena that science is currently investigating. Give it time, we just started looking at it.
I have no problem with the concept of a Supreme Deity. Really.
But if He/She/It exists, He/She/It used the forces described with science (Chemistry, Physics -- and including the ToE) to do His/Her/Its bidding.
The Bible is NOT a science book.
<quoted text>
I'll consider your opinion if/when the majority of those in the business (science, specifically Biology) make that same pronouncement.
Oh dear Kong, after all I have said about the hubris TOE is you want to talk about philosophy that science is unqualifed to speak to. How typical of an evolutionary escape artist!

Well my dear croes, I suspect that Kong is saying it all.

Evos are gobsmacked and speechless in defending this evolving theory of theirs with its flawed data.

Evolutionists exist in their own minds, backed by flawed data that supports over 150 years of rubbish.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#106063 Jan 3, 2013
MazHere wrote:
Response to Kong.
Science is not qualified to speak to such things as deities. You don't have any trouble accepting dark mater do you? Dark matter is a mysterious powerful force that seems to control the universe, is unexplainable and unseen. This appears to describe God. You shouldn't have any trouble believing in God.
I have already supplied research that suggests most research findings are false. I can present a plethora of them, Kong. There is not enough thread space to post them all.
"But that's what happened. A paper published this week in the journal PLoS One by Campbell, Associate Professor of Mathematics Laurie Heyer, a Danish colleague, and the 10 undergraduates in his fall 2008 "Laboratory Methods in Genomics" course explains their discovery that computer-based annotations of genome sequences agree with each other less than 50% of the time."
http://www3.davidson.edu/cms/x36469.xml
“The different results we saw from different methods of gene expression analysis were shocking, and led us to reinvestigate the whole process on several platforms,” says Jakob Lovén, postdoctoral reseacher in Young’s lab and co-author of the Cell paper.“We then realized that the common assumption that cells contain similar levels of mRNA is badly flawed and can lead to serious misinterpretations, particularly with cancer cells that can have very different amounts of RNA.”
http://wi.mit.edu/news/archive/2012/whitehead...
You havn't forgotten have you that there are theist evolutionists. I don't accept TOE because it is rubbish, not because I am a theist.
In actual fact the best evidence that there is a God is that despite all the rhetoric around the demonic Copernican principle, indeed mankind is special on the earth being the only species that can make meaning of the universe, and earth is the only planet with life found on it, AND we also happen to be in the centre of the universe according to models that don't rely on mysteries.
The upshot is that from here on anything you present from that mountain of what evos call evidence is now challenged and likely flawed.
This above is the point Kong.

The thread topic is "It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in evolution debate".

I strongly suggest to all creationists and faithful evolutionists that the thread topic has been sustained.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#106064 Jan 3, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh dear Kong, after all I have said about the hubris TOE is you want to talk about philosophy that science is unqualifed to speak to. How typical of an evolutionary escape artist!
Well my dear croes, I suspect that Kong is saying it all.
Evos are gobsmacked and speechless in defending this evolving theory of theirs with its flawed data.
Evolutionists exist in their own minds, backed by flawed data that supports over 150 years of rubbish.
Actually, I'm not "escaping" anything.

I'd just like you to explain "Dark Matter, therefore God".

The theory of evolution needn't depend on me (at work, and under a deadline) to explain to Creo's the massive volume of, and the intricate nuances of Evolution. Besides, there are others that are much more knowledgable of it than I.

But I HAVE noticed that YOU have yet to provide ONE IOTA of evidence FOR Creationism/Intelligent Design.

Then again, nobody else in the history of Mankind has done so before, either.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#106065 Jan 3, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
It is great to see you have nothing but ridicule to add to the discussion, as usual.
Why would a creo be jealous that we have not offered over 150 years of hubris?
Your horns are showing!
Hubris is a word used to try to scare people into not questioning. Remember the lady in The Mist, Steven King, who used that word all the time? It was so she could kill without remorse. Why do you employ terrorism to make your points?
KAB

United States

#106066 Jan 3, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
You said the Bible said the Earth was permanent. Which is it?
If Earth is still here in 10 billion years it will weigh heavily in favor of confirming the Bible's declaration of permanence to be correct.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#106067 Jan 3, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
If Earth is still here in 10 billion years it will weigh heavily in favor of confirming the Bible's declaration of permanence to be correct.
In the amount of time you typed that, the entire solar system moved millions of miles through the galaxy. The galaxy moved millions of miles through the universe. That's not very permanent. If we draw too close to one of the black holes near us, we're gone before we know it. For a plan, this was the worst planet in the universe to put life on. There are many better ones we can see with our telescopes already, all capable of supporting life, and some probably already have it. If your god did plan this, it's one really bad plan.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#106068 Jan 3, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
If Earth is still here in 10 billion years it will weigh heavily in favor of confirming the Bible's declaration of permanence to be correct.
Astronomers have determined that as our Sun is in its later stages of life (+/- 5Billion yrs), it will become a 'red giant' star, and expand to engulf the orbit of the earth, and our planet will be vaporized.

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php...

So much for 'permanence'.
KAB

United States

#106069 Jan 3, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't look at the ages like that. Sheesh. A 4,000 year old tree that died a few hundred years ago is 4,100 years old by our time, but lived only 4,000 years. They tend to petrify when they die, leaving a nice, easy to see, set of rings. You overlap those rings for the times they lived, and they form a complete calendar. As I said, you don't read anything scientific at all.
You don't seem to understand anything scientific or mathematical at all. How did you combine "4000 year old", "few hundred years ago", and "lived only 4,000 years" to get "4,100 years old by our time"?

You also didn't address the multiple rings in a given year possibility.
KAB

United States

#106070 Jan 3, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Where did you dig "10% uncertainty" out of? Please describe how you arrived at that figure.
And Prometheus is only the one, single tree ring data that you insisted upon. The OVERLAPPING and multiple confirmation of dendrochronology from several million individual tree ring samples that composes the full record pushes back the data from tree rings quite a few millenia further.
Then there's ice cores, archaeology, geneology, anthropology, geology, and perhaps a few other disciplines that all point to the conclusion that your flood never happened.
Sorry KAB. Still no flood.
What's the significance of and aggregate sequence of more than say 5,000 tree rings? Are you thinking there would have been no trees before the flood?
KAB

United States

#106071 Jan 3, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
4844 rounded up is ...?
Not greater than 5,000!

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#106072 Jan 3, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know the exact date.
Yes you do, its in the JW's blue book

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
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 3 hr Aura Mytha 1,158
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr Aura Mytha 52,081
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 4 hr Eagle 12 24,841
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 5 hr replaytime 218,799
Can the universe be God's brain? (Jun '07) Jan 19 scientia potentia... 98
News Darwin's Doubt: Giving a Case for Intelligent D... Jan 19 scientia potentia... 1
The Fossil Record Does Not Support The Theory O... Jan 18 scientia potentia... 48
More from around the web