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

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

There are 143906 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.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#108110 Jan 18, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
This is not new science, Kitten..
A team of 20 physicists from four institutions has literally made something from nothing, creating particles of matter from ordinary light for the first time. The experiment was carried out at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) by scientists and students from the University of Rochester, Princeton University, the University of Tennessee, and Stanford.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1997/09/...
Indeed if one is to believe that all the matter in the universe was contained within a singularity, then similarly a source of energy has formed into the matter of the universe.
Energy, has been observed to produce matter. Organic matter, blood, organs and cerebral engrams are only elements in precise locations, mixed with water, and electric spark.
Now I responded with many reasons as to why I have faith and you have chosen to address one of them.
Why do you and others have faith that there is no God and life can arise out of elements or rock into complex factories of reproduction all by themselves hanging around those deep vents or organic soup pond or any other speculation?
Your premiss hinges on the idea made popular ie. popular misconception, that photons have no mass nor weight.
Which is not true.

But more sailliant is that you have not proven that electro-magnetic energy (recall that you say god is) all by itself, as in not working on mass can simply change into matter.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#108111 Jan 18, 2013
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Particl...
Photons being massless is a figure of speech.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#108112 Jan 18, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually the title is biblical inconsistencies. And the second one is a fail for you as it is a contradiction too. You cannot both never tempt someone and tempt someone. Once you have tempted someone from that time on you will have tempted someone. And what is funny is that the claim that God never tempts anyone came long after the act of temptation in the Bible.
That is basic logic. If you try to defend the Bible after that video all I can say is that it is time to get into a shorter river.
Who stated that the Bible does not record any "inconsistencies" of that type? If someone reports that a parent sometimes rewards and sometimes punishes his children, does that mean the actions didn't take place?

Round 2:
According to Gen. 22:1 Jehovah did not tempt (e.g., Gen. 3) Abraham with anything. He gave him an instruction to test him. Do you actually know of a Bible translation in which Gen. 22:1 refers to God tempting Abraham?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#108113 Jan 18, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
This is not new science, Kitten..
A team of 20 physicists from four institutions has literally made something from nothing, creating particles of matter from ordinary light for the first time. The experiment was carried out at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) by scientists and students from the University of Rochester, Princeton University, the University of Tennessee, and Stanford.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1997/09/...
Indeed if one is to believe that all the matter in the universe was contained within a singularity, then similarly a source of energy has formed into the matter of the universe.
Energy, has been observed to produce matter. Organic matter, blood, organs and cerebral engrams are only elements in precise locations, mixed with water, and electric spark.
Now I responded with many reasons as to why I have faith and you have chosen to address one of them.
Why do you and others have faith that there is no God and life can arise out of elements or rock into complex factories of reproduction all by themselves hanging around those deep vents or organic soup pond or any other speculation?
So, if our scientists can do it, it's not something that requires a massively magical and not understood being to accomplish. Very good, you have provided evidence that no god is needed for the universe to exist. You have proven your own notion of what a "god" is completely wrong. How does it feel to finally wake up?
KAB

Oxford, NC

#108114 Jan 18, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Tyre.
Still there.
Both of them? Why shouldn't one or the other or perhaps both be?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#108115 Jan 18, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Who stated that the Bible does not record any "inconsistencies" of that type? If someone reports that a parent sometimes rewards and sometimes punishes his children, does that mean the actions didn't take place?
Round 2:
According to Gen. 22:1 Jehovah did not tempt (e.g., Gen. 3) Abraham with anything. He gave him an instruction to test him. Do you actually know of a Bible translation in which Gen. 22:1 refers to God tempting Abraham?
Your god is pitiful, prone to fits of rage over very minuscule slights that are nothing but imagined. That is not a parent, that is a tyrant. A parent, a good one at least, does not go into fits of rage and kill off all their offspring for imagined slights, much less, they don't punish their children for their entire lives simply for not buying some snake oil.

That is one of the reasons we know your god is nothing more than your super ego, and imagined being to use as an excuse for your own ends.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#108116 Jan 18, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, here we go again!'Day' can mean anything KAB wants it to mean. How many times have we played this stupid ass game now?
So far it's every time you decice to play it. The verifiable facts (data) never change, nor will they. It appears you don't choose to harmonize your thinking with the demonstrable harmony of the complete body of relevant data.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#108117 Jan 18, 2013
MAAT wrote:
Mazhere wrote:
My faith is based on the empirical evidence that energy, the form God is described as, can create matter and faith that HE can create organic matter because God is meant to be smarter than we.
---
1,What empirical evidence that energy is ever described as being god? Where?
2,How does energy create matter?
3,And if smarts can create organic matter, then any creature giving birth or replicating would be god too.
4,just some thoughts. On what are basicly your definitions and not necessarily the way other believers define.
1,The empirical evidence is a book that was written prior to modern science. It is called the Bible.

This is the message we have heard from him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in him there is no darkness at all (1 John 1:5).

Which he will bring about at the proper time - he who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see. To him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen (1 Timothy 6:15,16)

2.It was light used as the source of energy in the particle accelerator. They have produced photons as well. Don't be lazy and go look up your own research. That is unless you call be a liar and then I'd be glad to make a fool of you and let you be lazy.

3,Desperado! No one doubts the biological process of reproduction. We are talking about the first life/s. Unless you are talking about rocks giving birth, then I guess you are just prepared to look silly for the heck of it.

Yes when data leads to different interpretations based on different assumptions they are not necessarily the way 'other' believers define. Does that come as a surprize to you?

I have many reasons listed as to why I have faith in the God of the bible. A source of light/energy has been OBSERVED to form matter. I also have factual information that so far there is NO observed life in our galaxy or the universe.

What have you got that demonstrates elements can organze themsleves into complex factories themselves or by chance? Do you have any observed evidence that life has arisen in a similar way elsewhere, or even multiple times on the earth, to demonstrate the 'naturalness' of this process?

So is this yet again going to be all about creos supporting their stand with evolutionists chasing us and their own tails and hiding away? Could this be because evos have nothing of merit to offer for their basis for faith? eg elements orgaizing themsleves into complex factories of reproduction whilst hanging around some deep ocean thermal vent, life elsewhere, etc?

What makes you think the evocation a deity is less plausible than suggesting rocks or dirt have intelligence and a plan, or 'luck' did it?
KAB

Oxford, NC

#108118 Jan 18, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
What does it matter? I've been a member of more than one denomination over the years.
<quoted text>
You actually need to have this explained??? And I doubt, based on your posts, that we would agree of much of anything.
What I want to have explained is what YOU mean by Biblical literalist. As you note, we probably don't agree on much, that would include Biblical literalist.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#108119 Jan 18, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course it can. But it is clarified by the use of 'evening' and 'morning'. Thus spake your god.
As has been demonstrated, evening and morning are terms which are also not restricted to time periods within a 24 hour day. Thus testifies the data.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#108120 Jan 18, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course it can. But it is clarified by the use of 'evening' and 'morning'. Thus spake your god.
Perhaps you will find this reasoning helpful, unless you're determined not to allow your mind to be changed no matter what.
You acknowledge that day can mean a time period other than 24 hours. Morning and evening are terms referring to portions of a day. Think about it.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#108121 Jan 18, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Yes it does, because if the biblical GOD is the creator, and he did it the way the bible claims, then the rest of the story is correct and evolution never happened. He created man and man never evolved from something that was non-human. So yes, the truth about the origin of man is related to human from non-human evolution. Either evolution works or it doesn't, and evolution concerning the origin of life at this moment in time appears as if it is impossible.
No, Mike is right. Because if God created matter, etc, it still does not prove or even support your contention that the actual God is the same sort of God as the one portrayed in your primitive myths. They might have had a conception of God, but its not up to the reality as we understand it now. Just as, any conception of God we might formulate today might not be up to the conception of God humans might have 1000 years from now.

Life evolved. If you believe in God, it can only mean that God decided it should be that way. Never mind what Moses understood - you understand more than Moses could possibly know about mundane things like disease and lightning. As we grow, our understanding grows.

Your clinging to Biblical Literalism is nothing more than the hope of a child that Santa exists. Of course, he does. My mother told me, when I grew out of literal Santarism, that Santa was real but as the spirit of love and giving. That is what "Santa" really meant. Now....
KAB

Oxford, NC

#108122 Jan 18, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean like not looking at the data from the Atacama Desert?
Specifically what data have I not looked at from the Atacama? It's always possible I could have missed something.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#108123 Jan 18, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you and others have faith that there is no God
I do not have faith that there is no God. There may be, even if there is no positive evidence for one. Of course, nobody can define this God well enough to make God a testable hypothesis, but yes even so, there may be. Nobody can disprove the hypothesis.
and life can arise out of elements or rock into complex factories of reproduction all by themselves hanging around those deep vents or organic soup pond or any other speculation?
And again, I cannot claim life arose out of nonliving matter spontaneously, either, though its a possibility.

What I do maintain, backed by mountains of evidence, is that once there was primitive life, it evolved, and all modern life shares common ancestry, based on the evidence we have.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#108124 Jan 18, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
What I want to have explained is what YOU mean by Biblical literalist. As you note, we probably don't agree on much, that would include Biblical literalist.
Lets say this, since even the phrase "biblical literalist" varies hugely depending on who it is insisting he knows what the Bible actually means.

If you think your interpretation of the Bible is senior to all the physical evidence we have, you are a moron.

Case closed.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#108125 Jan 18, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
So, if our scientists can do it, it's not something that requires a massively magical and not understood being to accomplish. Very good, you have provided evidence that no god is needed for the universe to exist. You have proven your own notion of what a "god" is completely wrong. How does it feel to finally wake up?
Actually seeing as I have to spoon feed you. The particles that form cannot be made into atoms yet because all the energy on earth cannot do it.

Therefore I have demonstrated that it is possible to turn light/energy into matter, but mankind does not have the power to capture matter to make an atom.

Indeed what was the singularity, where 'it' all was contained in the size of an atom? No scientist has any idea other than the laws of physics break down.

I still marvel at your incompetence and wanting to chase creos to verify every single statement they claim with empirical evidence of high quality and yet you lot run and hide and have stuff all to show at all for your rocks/dirt poofing into complex factories.

This marvel of avoidance and demanding better than evos can present themselves, continues on this thread, and is the best demonstation that creationists of any variety have the upper hand over the ridiculous and non-plausible claims evolutionists make. Evos have nothing of substance to talk about as their observed data, and this is being demonstrated very robustly.

This of course is trying to evade the fact that you have even less observed data that rocks can organize themselves into complex factories than I have for my claims.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#108126 Jan 18, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I do not have faith that there is no God. There may be, even if there is no positive evidence for one. Of course, nobody can define this God well enough to make God a testable hypothesis, but yes even so, there may be. Nobody can disprove the hypothesis.
<quoted text>
And again, I cannot claim life arose out of nonliving matter spontaneously, either, though its a possibility.
What I do maintain, backed by mountains of evidence, is that once there was primitive life, it evolved, and all modern life shares common ancestry, based on the evidence we have.
..and because philosophicl discussion always go around in circles I avoid them like the plague. This all springs form targeting one example of why I have faith. Waste of thread space to talk philosophy, as far as I am concerned. Science is not qualified to speak to God and cannot falsify him.

The point being in line with the thread topic, creos have the facts in their support, evos do not. You have nothing for abiogenesis but theories, and you can do no more than to envy any I have.

You've had ample opportunity to present some observed facts/data to suggest you have some. So far all you can do is chase creos and have demonstrated what you have is no better and often much worse.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#108127 Jan 18, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
..and because philosophicl discussion always go around in circles I avoid them like the plague. This all springs form targeting one example of why I have faith. Waste of thread space to talk philosophy, as far as I am concerned. Science is not qualified to speak to God and cannot falsify him.
The point being in line with the thread topic, creos have the facts in their support, evos do not. You have nothing for abiogenesis but theories, and you can do no more than to envy any I have.
Even worse, there is no support for abiogenesis apart from hypotheses. A lot of discovery about the natural synthesis of amino acids, RNA, lipid microspheres, and ADP, but I grant, no theory of how it all comes together.
You've had ample opportunity to present some observed facts/data to suggest you have some. So far all you can do is chase creos and have demonstrated what you have is no better and often much worse.
No, what we have is a comprehensive theory of how life evolved after existing already, one with so much evidence in favour of it that fools who try to pretend that Ichthy is like a whale merely make themselves look really, really stupid in the light of the fossil evidence and our ability to analyse it.

I mean, how stupid can they get? Lets see......Maz? How stupid are you willing to get in your defense of the indefensible?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#108128 Jan 18, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
..and because philosophicl discussion always go around in circles I avoid them like the plague.
Fair enough
The point being in line with the thread topic, creos have the facts in their support, evos do not.
Hugely, enormously, ridiculously funny. Falling over, so funny.
You have nothing for abiogenesis but theories
Actually worse. Just hypotheses.

Which are being examined and tested. Good night, idiot, you do not have a clue how science works.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#108129 Jan 18, 2013
Mazzy! I havent seen you for a day or two!
This thread isnt the same without you posting the same message over and over again.
My question was directed to marksman, but I appreciate your taking the time anyway.
Now to address your questions:
MazHere wrote:
What is your faith based on?
I have never gone out with a pickaxe and a shovel and dug up fossils.
I have never seen a DNA strand under a microscope.
I have never watched an embryo develop.

I have faith, however, that anyone writing a bogus report of such experiences would quickly get exposed as a fraud. When scholars read a lab report which is difficult to believe, they go in the laboratory and see if they come up with the same thing. South Korean geneticist Hwang Woo Suk claimed that he could clone humans. Scholars read his report, followed his instructions, and found that he was loony. The results were veryt disappointing for Hwang Woo Suk.

On the other hand, Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget performed experiments on cognitive development in children. Scholars read his reports, didnt believe them, and went into the laboratory to prove him wrong. They found, to their utter amazement, that he was right.

I am impressed that students of fossils, biochemistry, embryos, and vestigial organs have worked independently from each other and come up with identical answers.
If students of fossils said we were descended from an ape, students of embryos said we were descended from a rabbit, students of embryos said we were descended from a cocker spaniel, and students of vestigial organs said we were descended from a eucalyptus tree, I would say that the whole thing is baloney.

I am also impressed that so many thousands of scientists have testified in favor of evolutionary theory and none have defected, exposing the whole thing as a hoax. I doubt that a secret shared with that many people could be so hermetically sealed.

In 1977, Lamar Keene quit his position posing as a medium for dead spirits and told the world how the trick was done. Members of the Scientology cult, the Mormon church, and the Jehovahs Witnesses have defected and told us their secrets. Furthermore, their testimony has been remarkably similar. Thats why I believe the defectors.

Yet no one has defected from the alleged holocaust hoax. Thats why I believe that the holocaust wasnt a hoax. And no one has defected from the Evolution hoax. Thats why I believe that Evolution is not a hoax.

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 Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 59 min DanFromSmithville 173,432
What exactly is life? Chimcal mix or more than ... 2 hr facefacts 20
The Definition of a Creationist Scientist 2 hr Zog Has-fallen 128
Beware of Kamikaze Snakes. They Are Evolving in... 8 hr Zog Has-fallen 82
What Motives Created Social Darwinism? 15 hr Zog Has-fallen 97
Darwinism: Science or Philosophy? Fri Zog Has-fallen 55
Is the Evolutionary theory mathematically prove... Fri Chimney1 134
More from around the web