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

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

There are 154816 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.

KAB

Wilson, NC

#108254 Jan 20, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
This claim that the Bible has never been shown to be incorrect is simply untrue.
Bats are not birds.
Rabbits are not cows.
Gopher wood is not Kopher wood.
Those are just simple, real world, OBVIOUS errors.
Then there's things like:
There was never a Great Flood
Adam and Eve aren't real people
Snakes don't talk
etc etc etc
The fact that you accept ALL these things without question means that nothing you say can be taken seriously.
Does the Bible reference people and places which actually existed? Yes.
Does the Iliad reference people and places which actually existed? Yes.
Doesn't mean Zeus is real.
Where does the Bible state that bats are birds? That would be data. Let's see if you're intelligent/astute/learned enough to check the original language(s) of the writings in attempting to confirm the correctness of your assertion. It's not really your assertion tho is it? You just got that from someone else, and thought you would pass it along without verifying it, right? Hey, why not? It does support your cognitive bias doesn't it?
KAB

Wilson, NC

#108255 Jan 20, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, it's "these idiots are all the same" bias.
You're making all the same arguments that they make.
You are arguing that the Bible is infailable.
How do you justify being an OEC?
Genesis 1:1, time duration unspecified.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#108256 Jan 20, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you mean by "Biblical sources"? The Bible itself is the only thing I have proclaimed a demonstrated reliable source.
Yet, the bible has almost zero evidence supporting it's historical statements, and nothing supporting it's supernatural claims.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#108257 Jan 20, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it's statements like the following quote from the program that I tell myself are speculation,
"Many similar discrepancies, throughout its pages, suggest that the Bible has more than one writer. In fact, within the first five books of the Bible, scholars have identified the hand of at least four different groups of scribes, writing over several hundred years. This theory is called the Documentary Hypothesis."
What do you tell yourself it is? BTW, this is a test of your grasp of reality.
Odd that among Biblical scholars, the above statement is not even controversial and is almost universally accepted.

Again we see who really has a weak grasp on reality.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#108258 Jan 20, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Where does the Bible state that bats are birds? That would be data. Let's see if you're intelligent/astute/learned enough to check the original language(s) of the writings in attempting to confirm the correctness of your assertion. It's not really your assertion tho is it? You just got that from someone else, and thought you would pass it along without verifying it, right? Hey, why not? It does support your cognitive bias doesn't it?
By claiming that we need to go back to the original language, you are conceding that the Bible contains errors.

Therefore negating your premise that it is an infallible source of data for your arguments.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#108259 Jan 21, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Surprise!!! Morton wasn't carrying my card. Regarding geology, at least, it seems he may be carrying it now.
It's characteristic in this forum for your side to assume YEC, YEC, YEC for every input not from your side. What kind of bias is that? Would that be "any dolt can disprove YEC" bias, or "if YEC is all I can disprove, then all opposition is a YEC" bias?
While Glenn Morton's research does indeed play merry hell with YEC's for the simple mention of phenomena much older than YEC's claim the universe has been around, it does the same for OEC's or indeed anyone else who happen to believe in world wide floods.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#108260 Jan 21, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
This claim that the Bible has never been shown to be incorrect is simply untrue.
Bats are not birds.
Rabbits are not cows.
Gopher wood is not Kopher wood.
Those are just simple, real world, OBVIOUS errors.
Then there's things like:
There was never a Great Flood
Adam and Eve aren't real people
Snakes don't talk
etc etc etc
The fact that you accept ALL these things without question means that nothing you say can be taken seriously.
Does the Bible reference people and places which actually existed? Yes.
Does the Iliad reference people and places which actually existed? Yes.
Doesn't mean Zeus is real.
Um, KAB said the snake thing was done with ventriloquism.

Apparently.

And MAZ said the snake thing was done with shape changing spirits.

Using ventriloquism.

Apparently.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#108261 Jan 21, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The non-Biblical sources you mention do not meet the criteria for a demonstrated reliable source.
I request data from you to support your claims. I have provided and will continue to provide my own data for my claims.
I am not making a claim and despite that I have provided data showing that the Bible is not a reliable source for scientific information. You have to my knowledge, never provided any data supporting your outlandish claim. All you have ever done is cite passages in the Bible, provide your interpretation and then claim, based on your agreement with your interpreation, that the Bible is a demonstrated reliable source. By that method, I claim the non-biblical sources are demonstrated to be reliable.

What are these secret criteria that you use to render the Bible a reliable source if they are not as I stated? For that matter what do you mean by reliable? Do you simply mean that you have ready access to a Bible or multiple versions that are available on the web? Perhaps like Joseph Smith, you have a direct line of communication with the alledged inspiration of the Bible and are getting inside information.

If you are interested I have an autographed copy of the Bible for sale at a reasonable price. It is guaranteed to be an authentic signature based on my own criteria for authenticating signatures.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#108262 Jan 21, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
marksman11, how did you become so proficient in reading other people's mood changes all of a sudden?
Did you just purchase a long distance biofeedback meter or what?
I've been reading their posts for a long time. I can tell when frustration sets in.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#108263 Jan 21, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
This claim that the Bible has never been shown to be incorrect is simply untrue.
Bats are not birds.
Rabbits are not cows.
Gopher wood is not Kopher wood.
Those are just simple, real world, OBVIOUS errors.
Then there's things like:
There was never a Great Flood
Adam and Eve aren't real people
Snakes don't talk
etc etc etc
The fact that you accept ALL these things without question means that nothing you say can be taken seriously.
Does the Bible reference people and places which actually existed? Yes.
Does the Iliad reference people and places which actually existed? Yes.
Doesn't mean Zeus is real.
Ah but, Zues is real. I can verify it from a demonstrated reliable source that he is. A few years ago, he and Hera retired, but like any god, he became restless for lack of anything meaningfull and constructive to do. Hera was at her wits end trying to keep him from turning into a bull or a shower of gold and raping the local virgins when she came up with the idea of starting a business. So in his spare time with some capital he secured from fellow god, Bill Gates, he is running a start up science company. This company, Iliad Reliable LLC is using the principles of evolution to develop more vigorous varieties of crops using conventional and molecular breeding along with transgenics.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#108264 Jan 21, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
Kitten Koder wants some arguments for Creationism, but she can’t get any.
Let me see what I can do:
Due to the extreme complexity of life, the origin of life could not have evolved from non-living material. There are only 2 games in town. Either life spontainiously generated, which has never been observed violated in a lab or nature in the history of the planet, and requires a known violation of the Law of Biogenesis, which also has never been observed, or GOD did it, or there is an unknown 3rd. option. It is clear spontainious generation never occurred, so that leaves GOD, or an unknown 3rd. option. You guys say GOD didn't do it, so either you are forced to admit that life is the product of an intelligent designer, or produce observable scientific evidence of this unknown 3rd. option. YOUR MOVE!!!

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#108265 Jan 21, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Due to the extreme complexity of life, the origin of life could not have evolved from non-living material. There are only 2 games in town. Either life spontainiously generated, which has never been observed violated in a lab or nature in the history of the planet, and requires a known violation of the Law of Biogenesis, which also has never been observed, or GOD did it, or there is an unknown 3rd. option. It is clear spontainious generation never occurred, so that leaves GOD, or an unknown 3rd. option. You guys say GOD didn't do it, so either you are forced to admit that life is the product of an intelligent designer, or produce observable scientific evidence of this unknown 3rd. option. YOUR MOVE!!!
Evolution happens only after life exists.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#108266 Jan 21, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Due to the extreme complexity of life, the origin of life could not have evolved from non-living material. There are only 2 games in town. Either life spontainiously generated, which has never been observed violated in a lab or nature in the history of the planet, and requires a known violation of the Law of Biogenesis, which also has never been observed, or GOD did it, or there is an unknown 3rd. option. It is clear spontainious generation never occurred, so that leaves GOD, or an unknown 3rd. option. You guys say GOD didn't do it, so either you are forced to admit that life is the product of an intelligent designer, or produce observable scientific evidence of this unknown 3rd. option. YOUR MOVE!!!
You have a complete misunderstanding of what spontaneous generation means. What use to be considered to occur was that fully formed organisms formed from some nonliving material. For example mice formed from straw and manure in barns or flies spontaneously developed from decaying meat. What abiogenesis describes is chemical evolution that leads to more and more complex molecules and autocatalysis. These molecules would eventually form the basis for the development of life. These two concepts are not the same things.

Spontaneous chemical reaction are known to occur. There is an old chemcial waste site in Colorado that never had 2-4D dumped in it, but 2-4D was found resulting from a spontaneoud reaction of the right chemicals under the right conditions. So, conceptually, it isn't a stretch to consider that same process occurring in nature.

By all means, however, don't let me stop you beating your dead horse in desperate attempt to defend what must be a very weak belief system.
LowellGuy

Salem, MA

#108267 Jan 21, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it's statements like the following quote from the program that I tell myself are speculation,
"Many similar discrepancies, throughout its pages, suggest that the Bible has more than one writer. In fact, within the first five books of the Bible, scholars have identified the hand of at least four different groups of scribes, writing over several hundred years. This theory is called the Documentary Hypothesis."
What do you tell yourself it is? BTW, this is a test of your grasp of reality.
Why is there such a hypothesis at all, KAB?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#108268 Jan 21, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think you're confident enough in your position to actually verify it. Are you confident enought to cite what you think is the best specific example of data directly in cotradiction with a WWF. You only make reference to disciplines. Are you willing to actually put a specific data example on the table for consideration? I didn't think so (So far I have a good record of foretelling the future!). You probably don't even understand the data from the disciplines.
I already mentions mitochondrial haplotype data, many times, and pointed you to links which you ignored.

They show clearly that the current diversity of humanity has separated lined of descent going back up to 100,000 years, and 60,000 at the bare minimum. That cannot happen if all modern humans radiated from a single closely related mini-clan a mere 4,500 years ago.

Note that similar analysis applies to many creatures also tested, and they also violate your recent bottleneck.

Myself, and others, have already pointed out continuous cultural strands that go right through your population bottleneck line, and BTW in many cases there is cross correlation between these cultural lines and the haplotype (genetic lines), which means independent corroboration.

Why do you keep asking for evidence then ignoring anything actually given to you?
LowellGuy

Salem, MA

#108269 Jan 21, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I am not making a claim and despite that I have provided data showing that the Bible is not a reliable source for scientific information. You have to my knowledge, never provided any data supporting your outlandish claim. All you have ever done is cite passages in the Bible, provide your interpretation and then claim, based on your agreement with your interpreation, that the Bible is a demonstrated reliable source. By that method, I claim the non-biblical sources are demonstrated to be reliable.
What are these secret criteria that you use to render the Bible a reliable source if they are not as I stated? For that matter what do you mean by reliable? Do you simply mean that you have ready access to a Bible or multiple versions that are available on the web? Perhaps like Joseph Smith, you have a direct line of communication with the alledged inspiration of the Bible and are getting inside information.
If you are interested I have an autographed copy of the Bible for sale at a reasonable price. It is guaranteed to be an authentic signature based on my own criteria for authenticating signatures.
Oh KAB has already admitted that his criteria for deeming the Bible reliable are completely subjective and, thus, useless. KAB also admits that this completely subjective standard is flexible, to the point that it can be made strict enough to disqualify any source or loose enough to approve any source. In other words, nobody else can ever know his standard, and his standard may not be applied to anything he doesn't want it applied to, because that would only expose the folly of his "method."
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#108270 Jan 21, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution happens only after life exists.
You are wrong. If there is no GOD, the origin of life had to evolve. Non-living things had to somehow come together, and evolve from non-life to life. Of course that is a violation of the Law of Biogenesis, but heck, you have enough faith, you'll believe it anyway.

Evolutionists always try to seperate the origin of life from human from non-human evolution because they know how unlikely the origin of life could have possibly occurred naturally, thus shining a darkness over the likely hood of human from non-human evolution also ever occurring naturally. So they falsely try to seperate the two. I'm not letting you get away with it!!
LowellGuy

Salem, MA

#108271 Jan 21, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Due to the extreme complexity of life, the origin of life could not have evolved from non-living material. There are only 2 games in town. Either life spontainiously generated, which has never been observed violated in a lab or nature in the history of the planet, and requires a known violation of the Law of Biogenesis, which also has never been observed, or GOD did it, or there is an unknown 3rd. option. It is clear spontainious generation never occurred, so that leaves GOD, or an unknown 3rd. option. You guys say GOD didn't do it, so either you are forced to admit that life is the product of an intelligent designer, or produce observable scientific evidence of this unknown 3rd. option. YOUR MOVE!!!
Stop being stupid. YOUR MOVE!!!

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#108272 Jan 21, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Surprise!!! Morton wasn't carrying my card. Regarding geology, at least, it seems he may be carrying it now.
It's characteristic in this forum for your side to assume YEC, YEC, YEC for every input not from your side. What kind of bias is that? Would that be "any dolt can disprove YEC" bias, or "if YEC is all I can disprove, then all opposition is a YEC" bias?
You are right, its easy to put every Biblical apologist in the YEC camp when YEC is merely the most extreme version of your position.

So where do you stand? Are you a theistic evolutionist, who accepts common ancestry but believes there had to be intelligent guidance to achieve what evolution has? Do you believe that there were proto-men and God guided evolution to a point where He decided that this vessel was ready to spark with an immortal soul and abstract self awareness? Is that your line?

Or do you step back even further, and assume that there was a God who simply set up a universe in which evolution could occur, confident that eventually it would deliver life intelligent enough to appreciate Him?

I expect not, or you would not be defending Biblical infallibility so staunchly. So, where is your position?
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#108273 Jan 21, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>You have a complete misunderstanding of what spontaneous generation means. What use to be considered to occur was that fully formed organisms formed from some nonliving material. For example mice formed from straw and manure in barns or flies spontaneously developed from decaying meat. What abiogenesis describes is chemical evolution that leads to more and more complex molecules and autocatalysis. These molecules would eventually form the basis for the development of life. These two concepts are not the same things.
Spontaneous chemical reaction are known to occur. There is an old chemcial waste site in Colorado that never had 2-4D dumped in it, but 2-4D was found resulting from a spontaneoud reaction of the right chemicals under the right conditions. So, conceptually, it isn't a stretch to consider that same process occurring in nature.
By all means, however, don't let me stop you beating your dead horse in desperate attempt to defend what must be a very weak belief system.
Listen Skippy, you act as if unaided, haphazard without aim or method random nature could produce the origin of life, when scientists have spent entire lifetimes trying to replicate it and can't. I don't have your faith.

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) 3 hr Serum1915 216,895
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 5 hr SoE 48,824
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 6 hr GoTrump 1,047
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 6 hr GoTrump 179,741
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 9 hr Aura Mytha 23,562
Evolution in action (May '16) Wed Thick cockney cha... 36
Richard Dawkins tells the truth Dec 5 Timmee 9
More from around the web