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

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 ... Full Story

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Park City, Utah

#108310 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 write:
“There are only 2 games in town. Either life spontainiously <sic> 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.”

As regards the Goddidit option, you of course understand that that option has never been observed in the history of our universe and violates all known laws of the universe….don’t you??

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#108311 Jan 21, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> You are playing word games. As if biological evolution doesn't require chemical evolution. You can't have biological evolution without chemical evolution.

Error #1. Biological evolution and chemical evolution are both observed facts. Second, one does not need to understand how the sun formed to study sunlight. To think otherwise is obviously incorrect.

[QUOTE who="marksman11"] <quoted text> <quoted text>Ok, you have one lug nut for a non-existent tire, while your philosophy demands a space shuttle. It ain't happening.

SS Fallacy. Basic logic states one does not need to dispute a fallacy till it is corrected and supported.

[QUOTE who="marksman11"] <quoted text> You try to keep the two separated because you know how much knowledge and scientific evidence you lack concernnig the origin of life.

Actually, the scientific research on abiogenesis alone would fill a library. As usual your ignorance of a subject does not make it go away.

[QUOTE who="marksman11"] <quoted text> You are also similarly ignorant concerning human origins. The only difference is that evolutionist have built a large psuedoscientific fictional explanation that hey attempt to defend, and to avoid the coming embarassing exposure, so you try to separate the two.<quoted text>

Childish denial of one of the most obvious facts in all of science. Will your arguments every improve? I doubt it.

[QUOTE who="marksman11"] <quoted text> The current scientific evidence says that it can not happen. Only wild guesses and fantasy say that someday it might.<quoted text>You replicate the origin of life, but until you do, my certainty is not phoney.

LOL. You are always good for a laugh.

“What can I do to get the Topix”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

cops upset?

#108312 Jan 21, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's a reminder of the claim you're not making,
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TFA...
(i.e., The Bible is an unreliable source)
What I provide is rebuttal data for your purported Bible error data. I can't very well rebut what you don't provide.
You have become so engrossed in your pitch for snake lubricant that you seem to have forgotten that you have priority with an ongoing claim of the infallibility of the Bible. Mine has merely been in a rebuttal in continuance to your long standing claim. Your post is just more chicanery in an end run attempt to put the onus of doing your work onto others.

So, either put your data supporting the proven reliability of the Bible on the table or SHUT THE F*#K UP. None of this bass ackwards interpretation in leu of data either.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#108313 Jan 21, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>You falsely seem to think that the more they learn about biology, and seeking information on how life originated, the closer they are to replicating it. The more they study it, the more complexity that hits them head on, and the impossibility of ever replicating it.

Actually, the race to replicate life is just that, a race. It is already a question of when much more than if. It is a finite problem. All of life is made of matter so the solution is coming. Science can already do so many thing with life that would have been thought nearly impossible 10 or 20 years ago.

Of course you have your back-up rationalization ready to go when the news breaks.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#108314 Jan 21, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I see you continue to be dishonest and deceptive. Please don't attempt try to make me into something like you. IT AIN"T HAPPENING.

I just keep knocking your delusions out of the park.

Have you ever read a single science book? You have never answered this. I wonder why.

“What can I do to get the Topix”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

cops upset?

#108315 Jan 21, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's a reminder of the claim you're not making,
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TFA...
(i.e., The Bible is an unreliable source)
What I provide is rebuttal data for your purported Bible error data. I can't very well rebut what you don't provide.
Are you saying that you have forgotten the priority of your ongoing claim that the Bible is a proven reliable source. Or is this just more of your chicanery to make an end run around doing your own work.

Mine is just a rebuttal in continuance of your ongoing claim. Now either supply some data to support you claim or STFU!

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#108316 Jan 21, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Here are two quotes from the piece,
"Analyses of this individual's DNA showed that the Tianyuan human shared a common origin with the ancestors of many present-day Asians and Native Americans. In addition, the researchers found that the proportion of Neanderthal and Denisovan-DNA in this early modern human is not higher than in people living in this region nowadays."
"This individual lived during an important evolutionary transition when early modern humans, who shared certain features with earlier forms such as Neanderthals, were replacing Neanderthals and Denisovans, who later became extinct"
What's wrong with this picture? CLUE: What does their own data reportedly actually show in spite of their summary comment?
I suppose you're referring to the fact that the percentage of Neanderthal DNA is less in the current local population than that shown in the sample collected?

Would you expect Neanderthal DNA to be GREATER in the present population than that preserved in 40,000 year-old remains?

“What can I do to get the Topix”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

cops upset?

#108317 Jan 21, 2013
Sorry for the multiple posts. I am having technical difficulties.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#108318 Jan 21, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
So your criterion is that if enough people sign on then it's not speculation? I choose a more data-oriented approach. I can think of nothing about the relevant data which warrants adopting an understanding of related portions of documentation which puts them in unnecessary conflict with each other based on nothing more than the fact that the passages use different terminology. It's the kind of work I expect from someone looking for a reason to declare something erroneous. Is it possible that the involved experts could be looking for such?
a

No, because if that were the case...your side would win hands down.

In this case, I am citing experts in the field of Biblical studies. It is the vast majority of experts...those who have taken a very careful look at the evidence...who have decided that the Bible is the result of many different authors. Even the "works of Moses", the Pentateuch, have been determined to have at least 5 different groups of priests write it over several centuries.

You, otoh, merely declare that they are "speculating" and ignore the evidence they are basing their conclusions on.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#108319 Jan 21, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>You have become so engrossed in your pitch for snake lubricant that you seem to have forgotten that you have priority with an ongoing claim of the infallibility of the Bible. Mine has merely been in a rebuttal in continuance to your long standing claim. Your post is just more chicanery in an end run attempt to put the onus of doing your work onto others.
So, either put your data supporting the proven reliability of the Bible on the table or SHUT THE F*#K UP. None of this bass ackwards interpretation in leu of data either.
How can the reliability of a source be established to your satisfaction?

Level 2

Since: May 12

Bellevue, WA

#108320 Jan 21, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
How can the reliability of a source be established to your satisfaction?
That's the problem... the bible is a myth... so move on
KAB

Oxford, NC

#108321 Jan 21, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Are you saying that you have forgotten the priority of your ongoing claim that the Bible is a proven reliable source. Or is this just more of your chicanery to make an end run around doing your own work.
Mine is just a rebuttal in continuance of your ongoing claim. Now either supply some data to support you claim or STFU!
So you now admit, with the evidence in full view of everyone of course, that you actually did make a claim, and then stated that you didn't, right?

“Al Qur'an is Revolution ”

Since: Oct 12

Islam is Future

#108322 Jan 21, 2013
darwinism are lacks the facts so far

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#108323 Jan 21, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
How can the reliability of a source be established to your satisfaction?
Find one that produces the same results no matter who tests it. That would be a start.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#108324 Jan 21, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
I suppose you're referring to the fact that the percentage of Neanderthal DNA is less in the current local population than that shown in the sample collected?
Would you expect Neanderthal DNA to be GREATER in the present population than that preserved in 40,000 year-old remains?
Houston, we have confirmation, bias that is. Your comprehension exudes your bias. Read the quotes again carefully, and if possible, objectively (what'd be the chances of that happening?).

Meanwhile, my answer to your question is no.

“What can I do to get the Topix”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

cops upset?

#108325 Jan 21, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
How can the reliability of a source be established to your satisfaction?
Give it a whirl and I will let you know.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#108326 Jan 21, 2013
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>a
No, because if that were the case...your side would win hands down.
In this case, I am citing experts in the field of Biblical studies. It is the vast majority of experts...those who have taken a very careful look at the evidence...who have decided that the Bible is the result of many different authors. Even the "works of Moses", the Pentateuch, have been determined to have at least 5 different groups of priests write it over several centuries.
You, otoh, merely declare that they are "speculating" and ignore the evidence they are basing their conclusions on.
You are absolutely correct. The experts have decided, not proven, that the contributions ostensibly of Moses were actually the work of at least 5 different "groups" of priests over several centuries. The data confirming that conclusion as correct was not presented.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#108327 Jan 21, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Houston, we have confirmation, bias that is. Your comprehension exudes your bias. Read the quotes again carefully, and if possible, objectively (what'd be the chances of that happening?).
Meanwhile, my answer to your question is no.
Alright. Spell it out, what is YOUR take -- after reading one article, where you -- as a person untrained in anthropological research found that apparently the researchers themselves that actually are TRAINED in anthropology, and did the work overlooked?

“What can I do to get the Topix”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

cops upset?

#108328 Jan 21, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
So you now admit, with the evidence in full view of everyone of course, that you actually did make a claim, and then stated that you didn't, right?
No, I don't admit that. My statemtnes are in response to your continuing claim that the Bible is infallible. A belief you offer nothing in the way of support. If my wording was poor, then that is on me, but it doesn't change my position.

You however, appear to be in the mood for fencing and knit picking. Pursuits that will no doubt end without the requisite data to support you claims.

Are you next going to claim that you did not say the Bible is infallible, but in fact a proven reliable source? Thus avoiding my refute of your claim based on my synonomizing your claim.

You have spent a great deal of time on here failing to show that a global flood occurred or that it even could occur. I suppose with that failure stinging in your mind you have moved on to your current dataless sword fight.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#108329 Jan 21, 2013
Lililth_Satans_Bore wrote:
<quoted text>That's the problem... the bible is a myth... so move on
How can the reliability of ANY source be established to your satisfaction?

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
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 7 min DanFromSmithville 149,200
Creationism isn't a science and doesn't belong ... 13 min thewordofme 576
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 22 min Denisova 1,342
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr thetruth 16,579
has science finally debunked the 'god' myth? 1 hr Denisova 8
South Dakota bill would allow teachers to quest... 1 hr paul porter 1
An Open Letter About Religion Any One Of Us Cou... 4 hr paul porter 2
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 6 hr The Dude 176,787
More from around the web