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

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

There are 163037 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.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#106301 Jan 5, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You are confused. Others have provided links. No one has provided links that have shown ALL the trees will die. Likewise for genetic PROOF. If you know otherwise, then provide the slam-dunk reference specimens, and if they are what you assert, I will have no qualms about accepting them as such.
We don't need ALL trees to die. If most trees died, which has been linked, you should find evidence of massive global massive tree death. You don't see one. You don't see a sudden disappearance of tree pollens from varves and other deposits, which would happen if a large number of trees died off. You don't find any evidence of massive tree deaths anywhere.

So thank you for admitting we have even more evidence that the flood never happened.

And I see that you are still totally ignorant of the genetic information that shows there was no flood. That does not appear in trees, that appears in all life that was supposedly on the ark.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#106302 Jan 5, 2013
Here you go KAB. Slam dunk evidence from life that there was no flood:

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

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#106303 Jan 5, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Plants DO produce oxygen as a byproduct of photosythesis, but they also require it to live. It's just that they produce more oxygen than they consume.
Without free oxygen in the atmosphere and soil, all vascular plants would die in a year-long flood.
More: http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php...
Aah, thanks for clearing that up.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#106304 Jan 5, 2013
MazHere wrote:
I am glad you agree. Go tell that boofhead Kong and these other sidewinding ignorant evolutionists that have lost the thread topic and now want to chase their own tails and creationists tails taliking about philosophy.
There are stuff all facts to be known in TOE which is mostly based on flawed and biased data.
"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...
This peer reviewed research and many others appear to agree with me despite evos convenient evogoggles. You evos have got a long way to go before any of this rubbish of yours will be seen as empirical anything, let alone evidence.
Evolutionists publish and therefore believe they exist even though they do not know what they are talking about past the background noise of confusion and bias.
What you do not understand is all the OBSERVED evidence suggests man and the earth is very special=GOD IS MORE LIKELY THAN NOT, and it is more likely life was created by the hand of God than evolved after 'poofing' into life of its own accord.
Another thing you do not understand is evolutionists are the ones too stupid to stay on topic, look at Kitten and Konk and the rest of them....
Evolutionists do not deal in facts, they deal in biased circular philosophical reasonings and appear to need more faith than creationists.
My point was that your reference to a controversy involving tree ring dating of structures in the Mid-East had no bearing on a continuous record of rings extending to thousands of years before "Creation".

Nice rant, though.
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#106305 Jan 5, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You are confused.
We're not the ones who think bronze age, goat herder FAIRY TALES are scientifically hand historically true.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#106306 Jan 5, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
We don't need ALL trees to die. If most trees died, which has been linked, you should find evidence of massive global massive tree death. You don't see one. You don't see a sudden disappearance of tree pollens from varves and other deposits, which would happen if a large number of trees died off. You don't find any evidence of massive tree deaths anywhere.
So thank you for admitting we have even more evidence that the flood never happened.
And I see that you are still totally ignorant of the genetic information that shows there was no flood. That does not appear in trees, that appears in all life that was supposedly on the ark.
Still no data for your assertions. You might want to consider the numerous forest fires causing mass tree deaths annually and what the mass tree death picture around Mt. St. Helens will look like in 4500 years.
LowellGuy

Haverhill, MA

#106307 Jan 5, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Probably means maybe they would survive or some would, right?
Read the post again. It is unequivocal.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#106308 Jan 5, 2013
KAB wrote:
What would flood evidence be?
An anomaly in the ring pattern. Haven't we covered this?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#106309 Jan 5, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
This is the most consistent factual scientific failing of your side of this forum. Please tell the class what probably means.
It means "All vascular plants would die."

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#106310 Jan 5, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Still no data for your assertions. You might want to consider the numerous forest fires causing mass tree deaths annually and what the mass tree death picture around Mt. St. Helens will look like in 4500 years.
None of those are world wide.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#106311 Jan 5, 2013
KAB wrote:
More generally, do you think it is more effective to assert that there is a lot of evidence rather than provide one slam-dunk example? It isn't.
Don't you wish there was a piece of "slam-dunk" evidence for a Flood? Or any at all?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#106312 Jan 5, 2013
KAB, we have been bending over backwards to help you find evidence for your flood. Remember this is the job that you are supposed to be doing in the first place. Since we cannot find any evidence you should realize that your flood never happened.

We have done over half of your homework for you and you haven't done any.

Why don't you pack your nonsense up and take it to another website. You will get nowhere here.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#106313 Jan 5, 2013
KAB wrote:
First, there are very few "flood age" trees. Second, why a huge gap in rings? Can you confirm that no trees would have begun growing the year after the flood? Even if they didn't, how wouold you detect that in dead wood today? You would have the remains of a few trees which grew and ALL died at the time of the flood, and you would have the remains of a few trees which have grown and died since "shortly after" the flood. So what? How do you relate one group to the other by rings to demonstrate a huge gap? Think about that for awhile. Perhaps you have something else in mind. Please describe it.
Do you ever wish that you could escape the hopeless desperation that comes with being trapped in your insane religious cult?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#106314 Jan 6, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
"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."
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Ado...
Yes, already discussed the problem, especially prevalent in the social sciences and economics, about taking too much heed of false positive associations, especially in epidemiological studies. You still have not shown how this relates specifically to research connected to evolution.

All you can do, at this point, is try to discredit science itself. That is the agenda apparently.
"That seemingly inconsequential action turned the project in an entirely unexpected direction. As they looked at the three annotations side by side, the team noticed that they were not identical. In fact, less than half the genes were identical in all three annotations. Campbell was astounded. The annotations were different, and there was no way to know which one was biologically correct."
OK, so a single gene is thousands of bases long, and they found differences in up to half of the genes. How many differences? Well, if you find an error in half of the genes, and each gene is thousands of bases long, it means that half matched perfectly, and therefore statistically you would expect very few errors in the ones that were not identical. Perhaps one or two.

Meaning, in a sequence of thousands of bases, we are talking differences of 0.01 - 0.1 %!!!!

They might have been surprised that the results were not identical.

Now YOU show how 0.01 - 0.1% differences in genome sequencing punch holes in ANY critical aspect of evolutionary theory.
http://www3.davidson.edu/cms/x36469.xml
The results were published and this is the sort of algorithmic magic your myth is based on.
You mean, differences of less than 0.1% demonstrate "algorithmic magic"? maybe to someone who believes in magic, like you!
“Expression analysis is one of the most commonly used methods in modern biology,” says Whitehead Member Richard Young.“So we are concerned that flawed assumptions may affect the interpretation of many biological studies.”
http://wi.mit.edu/news/archive/2012/whitehead...
Yes, they might affect interpretation. But, since we now know there is an error that could be as high as 0.1% in the sequencing, it will be considered in any future conclusions. And/or sequencing technology will get better, of course.

Any idea which evolutionary conclusions are going to be affected by this? ANY? Or are you just blowing smoke as usual?
Now the best you evos can do is ridicule, talk philosphy, and continue on with the background noise of confusion and flawed data.
NEWSFLASH. All data is flawed. No measurement is perfect. Science has always fought through background noise and flawed data, its the nature of trial and error, experiment, instrumentation in the real world, and induction in general.

Yet science produces useful understanding in spite of that.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#106315 Jan 6, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I can show no more physical proof that the flood happened than you can show that it didn't.
Our proof has already been given and can be summed up in two areas -

1. continuity of life, cultures, species, genetic variation, biogeographical distributions, racial differences etc, through your supposed flood period, meaning the proposed "stop" demanded by your theology could not have happened.

2. geological evidence of many floods, upheavals, tectonics, vulcanism, meteorite impacts, climate change, ice ages, etc, from far further back in Earth's time, showing that a geologically recent global flood WOULD leave abundant evidence that you should be able to show easily. You cannot, as you admit.

No flood. Not even close. Not even a hint.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#106316 Jan 6, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I am glad you agree. Go tell that boofhead Kong and these other sidewinding ignorant evolutionists that have lost the thread topic and now want to chase their own tails and creationists tails taliking about philosophy.
There are stuff all facts to be known in TOE which is mostly based on flawed and biased data.
"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...
This peer reviewed research and many others appear to agree with me despite evos convenient evogoggles. You evos have got a long way to go before any of this rubbish of yours will be seen as empirical anything, let alone evidence.
Evolutionists publish and therefore believe they exist even though they do not know what they are talking about past the background noise of confusion and bias.
What you do not understand is all the OBSERVED evidence suggests man and the earth is very special=GOD IS MORE LIKELY THAN NOT, and it is more likely life was created by the hand of God than evolved after 'poofing' into life of its own accord.
Another thing you do not understand is evolutionists are the ones too stupid to stay on topic, look at Kitten and Konk and the rest of them....
Evolutionists do not deal in facts, they deal in biased circular philosophical reasonings and appear to need more faith than creationists.
What evidence demonstrates the specialness of man and/or Earth? And, even if man and/or Earth were special, how does that in any way demonstrate that such specialness is the result of a God?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#106317 Jan 6, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Still no data for your assertions. You might want to consider the numerous forest fires causing mass tree deaths annually and what the mass tree death picture around Mt. St. Helens will look like in 4500 years.
Simple. There would be trees whose rings dated to years after the disaster in that area, while trees outside the area would have rings that overlap the disaster time. And, the rings in those trees outside the disaster area should have signs of bad water quality in their rings for the time of the disaster, based mainly upon where they are in relation to the air currents that pass over the disaster area. In other words, EVIDENCE THAT SOMETHING HAPPENED IN A SPECIFIC PLACE.

Please list for us all the land vegetation that you think would have survived a year-long mile-deep saline bath, and then list all the land vegetation seeds that would germinate in salinated soil.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#106318 Jan 6, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
As you note, you are speculating, and that is not data. The trees will not die until/unless you provie confirming data. More generally, do you think it is more effective to assert that there is a lot of evidence rather than provide one slam-dunk example? It isn't.
So, you're arguing that Noah lived in the time of Schrodinger's tree?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#106319 Jan 6, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
First, there are very few "flood age" trees. Second, why a huge gap in rings? Can you confirm that no trees would have begun growing the year after the flood? Even if they didn't, how wouold you detect that in dead wood today? You would have the remains of a few trees which grew and ALL died at the time of the flood, and you would have the remains of a few trees which have grown and died since "shortly after" the flood. So what? How do you relate one group to the other by rings to demonstrate a huge gap? Think about that for awhile. Perhaps you have something else in mind. Please describe it.
Here's a little conundrum for you: if the salt in the oceans was diluted enough that there would be grasses and other vegetation for the herbivores to eat within weeks, maybe months, of the flood ending, the saline levels would have changed too much for any salt water animals to survive. No whales, no dolphins, no marine fish, certainly no corals. And, all the marine plants would have died, too, so there wouldn't have been food for the herbivorous animals even if they DID survive the salinity change. The oceans would have been fouled because the detritivores of the ocean would have all died, too. No hagfish. No bacteria. All dead. Noah didn't take aquatic life aboard his boat. So...

Also, please show us evidence in coral reefs around the world that confirms such a cataclysmic event. The poor little corals are extremely sensitive to salinity changes, and none would survive a change in salinity that would leave the land arable afterwards, so there should be global evidence of coral die-offs that dates to 4500 years ago. Anybody found such evidence yet? Do you attribute the answer to that question to incompetence, ignorance, or conspiracy?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#106320 Jan 6, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you're arguing that Noah lived in the time of Schrodinger's tree?
OMG, that has got to be the most awesome comment ever as a response to this whole topic. You win one internet today.

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) 22 min Eagle 12 - 78,712
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 4 hr Eagle 12 - 32,457
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 6 hr Eagle 12 - 1,411
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 10 hr Regolith Based Li... 222,225
Mathematicians PROVED evolution IMPOSSIBLE! Sat Science 814
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... (Jan '17) Aug 5 yehoshooah adam 4,381
News Intelligent Design Education Day - Dallas Aug 2 John B 4
More from around the web