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

There are 20 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.

marksman11

Asheville, NC

#107968 Jan 17, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, it can account for the complexity of the brain that appears to process consciousness. No issue there at all.
Then show me. Sorry but I don't think you can.
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
We might have a problem determining how an organism complex enough to start this virtuous cycle got going in the first place (abiogenesis), but once its off (reproduction with heredity), its just a matter of the gradual, incremental, piling up of complexity layer by layer, with random changes to existing structures and natural selection collecting the changes that work.
That is nothing but wishful thinking with absolutely no observable scientific evidence at all to support it. Please show me how haphazard, without aim or method, mutations can fabricate the most extremely complex form of matter in the universe. I don't think you can. I think all you can do is claim that it can.
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Consciousness itself is not a mystery because of brain complexity, its a mystery, to me, because I cannot see the link between neural circuitry and chemicals buzzing around versus my internal experience. Just like science can define "red" as a wavelength of 5000 angstroms but this bear no relation to my internal perception of "red".
I don't think we can understand how consciousness works, but I think it even extremely more unlikely that something like consciousness and self awareness could ever be originated by something that is not self aware or even living. To propose something in some other field with the same scenario and probabilites would be considered by those in that field as insane.
KAB

United States

#107969 Jan 17, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
Well i missed the statement Maz made to that effect.
I take it was general in intent?
But i could not miss the tone and i have been doing some windng myself. Maz was in any case intent on those paradigms to the point of developing a blind spot.
But it is a waste of mind and negative feelings should not be allowed in any case, indeed. It drags everything down.
The good news is that unless someone actually succeeds in destroying data (e.g., obliterate a fossil before it is documented), we all have the same data available to us. The differences between us then always come down to different conclusions drawn from the same universe of data, and a lot of that results from who's looking at what data and not at what other data. If we're all willing to look objectively at all the data then we could potentially resolve a lot of conflict.
KAB

United States

#107970 Jan 17, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
That statement by itself is reasonable, but as answer to Dan i'm not so sure.
Or someone might just be a bit sceptic after witnessing the way facts get mutilated here, data mangled and both killed of.
The good news is that unless someone actually succeeds in destroying data (e.g., obliterate a fossil before it is documented), we all have the same data available to us. The differences between us then always come down to different conclusions drawn from the same universe of data, and a lot of that results from who's looking at what data and not at what other data. If we're all willing to look objectively at all the data then we could potentially resolve a lot of conflict.
KAB

United States

#107971 Jan 17, 2013
In my previous 2 posts I initially put my response to the second on the first. Sorry about that.
KAB

United States

#107972 Jan 17, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Incorrect, every time you refer to your book of myths you are taking a position, and when challenged you pretend it's an "attack" on you. Your bible is mythology, nothing more, face facts.
Still no comprehension/reasoning improvement I see.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#107973 Jan 17, 2013
MazHere wrote:
Nothing in the bible can be falsified but much has been confirmed.
MazHere wrote:
You are a fool, and a bigotted one, at that.
Jesus wrote:
But whoever says,You fool! shall be in danger of hell fire.
Uh-oh, Mazzys in danger of hell fire!
KAB

United States

#107974 Jan 17, 2013
Lililth_Satans_Bore wrote:
<quoted text>tell me your depth of training and or education in microbiology....
I know it has to do with very small living matter. Will you provide some data now to see how I handle it?

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#107975 Jan 17, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
what's your definition of a False Christian?
I don't know, but a false Scotsman is one who puts sugar in his porridge.
I have sometimes suggested that Evolutionists should play that game too.
Anyone who is embarrsing to Evolutionists was not a true Evolutionist.

We frequently have to apologize for Ernst Haeckel and his doctored up embryos.
So why don't we say that he was not a true Evolutionist?

Ian Plimer, in his 1988 debate with Duane Gish, was so rude and undiplomatic that many members of the audience converted the wrong way.
So why don't we say that he was not a true Evolutionist?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#107976 Jan 17, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Still no comprehension/reasoning improvement I see.
Still no evidence or defensible position, I see.

You forgot the comma in your post, FYI.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#107977 Jan 17, 2013
MazHere wrote:
Perhaps you could find the research that 'falsifies' the modern bird footprints being what they appear to be.

As I understand it, we have no evidence whether it was a bird or a dinosaur.
So the burden of proof is on anyone making a claim either way.
As I see it, the burden of proof is on anyone making a claim on a fifty-fifty function.
When someone says there is a God, I ask,How do you know?
When someone says there isnt a God, I ask,How do you know?

MazHere wrote:
Perhaps you can find these loosers redating the strata which I am expecting any time soon when they have quacked enough about it. Perhaps these are hidden under your fake credentials.

You mean there is a party of Loosers, going around redating strata?
Oh, my goodness!
Everyone watch out for Loosers in your area!
And when you see them, call 911 immediately!

MazHere wrote:
I thought so! It appears you are the flucker!]

Lilith is a flucker?
If she is, I guess I need to take biology class all over again!

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#107978 Jan 17, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Isn't that what I just said? THe tire tracks are observable. I don't know what vechicle it was, just that it was a vehicle.
Or, it was God who made the tracks. You don't know. You weren't there. You didn't OBSERVE it!

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#107979 Jan 17, 2013
KAB wrote:
In my previous 2 posts I initially put my response to the second on the first. Sorry about that.
No worries.

The idea is clear.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#107980 Jan 17, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Then show me. Sorry but I don't think you can.<quoted text>That is nothing but wishful thinking with absolutely no observable scientific evidence at all to support it. Please show me how haphazard, without aim or method, mutations can fabricate the most extremely complex form of matter in the universe. I don't think you can. I think all you can do is claim that it can.<quoted text>I don't think we can understand how consciousness works, but I think it even extremely more unlikely that something like consciousness and self awareness could ever be originated by something that is not self aware or even living. To propose something in some other field with the same scenario and probabilites would be considered by those in that field as insane.
What does "emergent properties" mean?

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#107981 Jan 17, 2013
Worth reflecting upon.
The judaism forum is also involved with the issue
Frijoles:
Science does not work with the notion of "correct" - it looks at competing explanations and selects the best (i.e. most likely) based on an analysis of data (i.e. evidence) and than couches their conclusions in terms of probibility (i.e. estimates how likely their explanation fits the data).
In science one is not only always seeking data driven explanations, but refining those explanations. Its the "refining process" that you are alluding to when you say that science is always contradicting itself, or that science is correcting itself.
Its not an either/or. Its a question of best, with a statistical qualification.
Bible thumpers who grow up with rigid either/or categorical modes of thinking have a problem with this notion. They tend to be hung up on binary categories - correct/wrong, with the bible as the process to provide the standard, not data driven analytical analysis
For Creationism to be a valid scientific construct, it should be 1) data driven,
2) hypothesis tested, and
3) statistically qualified.
As far as I am aware, in the broad sense, Creationism has never been able to withstand these processes. Therefore, Creationism is an ideology, not a scientific discipline.
If you want to teach ideology(religion) along side with science in schools, than that is certainly your right in a private school. But dont call Creationism science, because it isnt. Intelligent Design is not science, it is junk science, for the reasons expounded above in the previous paragraph.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#107982 Jan 17, 2013
MazHere wrote:
Nothing in the bible can be falsified but much has been confirmed.
You really need to take a look at REAL archeological studies. Much in the Bible has been falsified.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#107983 Jan 17, 2013
HI guys. Just touching base. Haven't been on Topix in quite a while.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#107984 Jan 17, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
I know that fact.
But the snow/ice data was directed to yo directly.
I could ask you to accept it on fate (as written in exodus). Grammar and the clear mention of morning and evening of the first day a.s.o., and g-d saw it was right.
Exodus (some pages back when i came on the forum after some absense, so not too far back.) also explaines it as being exactly a week. Exo. 30 ?
I would not know were i put it anymore. The main arguement was in a different thread. Tangled Bank and Mike F. also tackled it.
Your reaction was that you would decide yourself whether you found it convincing.
As i recall you did not, then. Or an argument from convenience since it would exclude research outside of the scope of the timeframe we set.
Your snow/ice reference leaves me cold, and what does it have to do with the acceptable possible meanings of yowm?

Yowm is not used to mean a week in Exodus 30 or anywhere in Exodus.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#107985 Jan 17, 2013
Me neither so as far as i know you have been around al the time. ;)

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#107986 Jan 17, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Your snow/ice reference leaves me cold, and what does it have to do with the acceptable possible meanings of yowm?
Yowm is not used to mean a week in Exodus 30 or anywhere in Exodus.
Even though they were place close together i gave you a link to pages of Greenland icedata. And still you complained, and for some reason could not watch the almost neverending list of DATA.
---
Sorry what I meant is that they make it clear that the days constitute a week, so as to emphazise the celebration and restday of sabbath.

Level 2

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#107987 Jan 17, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
What's your definition/description of a true Christian?


I think most fun is had when we allow the christians to define chrsitianity

here is one: take any ten of the 38,000 christian sects and ask a leader of each of those ten, if your person is a christian; any time at lest eight of those ten say yes, that person is a christian.

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
No Place For ID? 16 min In Six Days 80
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 16 min Blitzking 161,777
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) 1 hr In Six Days 1,677
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 hr Chimney1 18,851
Why Are There No Transitional Animals Today? (Mar '09) 7 hr yoo 895
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) Sun Paul Porter1 13,692
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) Sun Kong_ 178,596
More from around the web