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

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#109298 Jan 29, 2013
A-BA water'+ share-overflow'
Come back in the form of prayer (+ZU), ruling and might, like f.i. rabi or raba. Particulary the word 'overflow'-ra would signify a sort of divinity (god-kinging) at work.
BARA would form a double overflow. Share Abundance.

In Sumer and later a command-staff would be carried, and the main task was making channels and dividing water. So the ruler was a sort of water-engineer.
Symbolically we find that back in the moses tale.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#109299 Jan 29, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The "name" (identifier) stems from a concept not sounds, just as the concept of ignorance is not a word or sound, but we give it a label so we can handily talk about it. If I don't use a recognized label, discussion and clear communication involving the concept becomes more difficult.
If you collected $.25 from every person that really cared about this subject, you still wouldn't have enough to buy a cup of coffee.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109300 Jan 29, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
And they never let a little logic get in the way of ardent positions.
1. Looking at the history of all the creation narratives (wiki) or allusions to it (4 in all) we find mesopotamian tales and greek influences (everyone forgets that asia was frankly invested with greeks and thus influences) of matter so small it can not be seen by the naked eye, and which can be devided ever smaller.(Democritos f.i.)
2. If no eyes and awareness are around, who would be there to see?
http://www.bibleandscience.com/bible/books/ge...
There is an interesting Ugaritic phrase tu-a-bi-(u?) that may be the same as the Hebrew tohu wa bohu. In one of the polyglot vocabularies tu-a-bi-(u) is equivalent to the Akkadian na-bal-ku-tum and Hurrian tap-su-hu-(u)m-me (RS 20.123:II:23; Tsumura, 1989, 23). The Akkadian phrase occurs twice in the Atr-Hasis Epic. The earth’s womb is said to be na-bal-ku-tum or barren (out of order). It is parallel with the phrase "no plants growing" (Lambert and Millard, 1969, 108:49, 110:59). It is also used for the older phrase u-ul ul-da which clearly means barren, parallel to the phrase "no plants were growing" (Ibid, 78:4).
The LXX
h de gh hn aoratos kai akataskeuastos - But the earth was invisible and unformed
The LXX translates tohu wa bohu as aoratos kai akataskeuastos which means "invisible and unformed." This same word aoratos "invisible" is similar to Hebrew 11:3 ek fainomenwn, meaning "out of unseen things" the world was created. This seems to be related to the platonic ides that the visible world came from the invisible world including the idea of logos.
Another possibility is the way Josephus may have understood it that the earth was covered with water and thick clouds and therefore could not be seen (LCL, 1930, 15).

Another nice post MAAT. I read your posts with interest even though I don't always respond to them. Very interesting points.

Thanks for the fascinating ideas.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109301 Jan 29, 2013
MAAT wrote:
Naming was giving things existence in the days of yore

Giving existence and also giving a means of controlling.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109302 Jan 29, 2013
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
If you collected $.25 from every person that really cared about this subject, you still wouldn't have enough to buy a cup of coffee.

Have not seen you around much lately, DS. Your more active presence is missed.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109303 Jan 29, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but do you not know how to admit you're wrong?
I can easily admit when I'm wrong, WHEN I AM WRONG!!
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109304 Jan 29, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Classic.
You now going to try and defend your idiotic comments that birds manipulate gravity?
That is your boy lowell guy. He's the one that says the law of gravity is violated all the time!!!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109305 Jan 29, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I can easily admit when I'm wrong, WHEN I AM WRONG!!

You are wrong again.

Your being wrong is a virtual given.

“What can I do to get the Topix”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

cops upset?

#109306 Jan 29, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I can easily admit when I'm wrong, WHEN I AM WRONG!!
I accept that as an admission that you have spent three years being WRONG. Finally, we have opened your eyes. No need to thank us. It was a pleasure. Looks like our work is done on this thread.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109307 Jan 29, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>That is your boy lowell guy. He's the one that says the law of gravity is violated all the time!!!

Good example. You are wrong about that and have not admitted it.

The law of gravity is violated every second of every day by the planet Mercury.

There are countless violations of nearly every "Law" that you can name.

If you understood what the word "Law" meant in science and the limitations of that term you would understand why this must be so.

But you never will since you do not want to learn.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109308 Jan 29, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
It would be more accurate to say, as I did, that if there is a selective advantage, and a way for it to happen that does not compromise the system, then any mutation that removes a useless feature (or adds to a useful one) will be selected. That's all.
It almost seems that mutations and selection can perform miracles!!It might seem more "real" if it wasn't for the fact that most mutations are neutral or fatal to the system. Sorry, I just don't have enough faith to be an evolutionist.
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I took the liberty of putting these related quotes together though they appear at different places in your post.
No problem my friend.
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Firstly, I do not have to show how matter creates mind in order to validate evolution. Its an interesting question. Put it this way - even if you have a soul and even if its immortal, and even if God put the universe in place and the first life, the evidence that you evolved is still overwhelming.
That is your tail, I sit on mine. There is no evidence for human from non-human evolution that isn't better explained by creationism, plus creationism explains the mysteries that human from non-human evolution can not answer. Like the mystery of the origin of life, information found in DNA, consciousness, and extreme biological complexity..
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
YOu are making two mistakes. The first you are making is in challenging an entire world view (materialism), not a specific scientific theory.
I am challenging both because naterialism is a flawed philosophy and due to this flaw leaves evolution , as weak and unconvincing as it is, as the only alternative, when one steps out of the flawed philosophy of materialism, then the world opens up to the truth and much better and logical explanations..
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>The second is the false argument that unless we can explain EVERYTHING, we cannot explain ANYTHING. That is not how science works.
I'm not saying that. I agree you don't have to have all the answers to accept something, but that is not what is happening. What we are dealing with is not what we don't know, it's what we do know. And we know that random mutations, haphazard without aim or method mutations, can produce the complexity we observe in reality. It's not accepting things we don't know, but accepting things that appear to be totally wrong, and accepting them anyway because you abore the alternative..
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Anyway, reversing the order explains nothing. Where does mind come from? If there is God, why is there God rather than nothing at all? You answer ultimate causes just as blankly as any materialist.
That is because I have the luxury of being comfortable in a belief that is faith based. Something else you guys hate
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109309 Jan 29, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
And here we have proof positive of Marky's dishonesty.
It has been explained to him many times that Darwin himself wrote that evolution would not always proceed at a fixed pace. He was even given the *exact* quotes by myself and others. Now he's trying to bullshit his way through another idiot argument that PE was a recent idea. While Darwin didn't use that term, he did state the concept.
Liar, liar, pants on fire, Marky!
I don't care how long it has been around, or who laid claim to it. It has never been observed and is a psuedoscientific fantasy.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109310 Jan 29, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? You are going to base your version of reality and everything inside and out of it on a couple pages of primitive stories as handed down in tribal legends and then claim that you have some vastly superior insight of a universe that is over 93,000,000,000 light years across and over 13,000,000,000 years old. I don't care if you are a YEC or OEC - it makes not a whit or jot of difference which goatskin tent you choose pitch in the creationist camp.
Being theologically bigoted against critical thinking and objectivity gives you no advantage (much less a monopoly!) over being able to read or understand the NIV, KJV or any other printing of the books of the Bible.
The thread title is "It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in evolution debate." The Bible has nothing relevant to contribute to this topic besides willful and wanton ignorance.
You believe that, but as for me, I'll believe....

Psalms 118
8 It is better to take refuge in the Lord
than to trust in humans.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109311 Jan 29, 2013
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
Impossible. Conciousness dies with the body. Nobody gets to check on anything after death.
I bet you can't prove that.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109312 Jan 29, 2013
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
..... or not. Fundies always leave that part out on account of they figure they've got everything figured out.
Good morning.
Good morning....
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109313 Jan 29, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong again Marky. Creationism cannot explain all sorts of things, if they could there might actually be a THEORY of Creationism. They cannot explain the fossil record, they cannot explain nested hierarchies. They cannot explain ERV's. I could go on but I figure it is three strikes and you are out.
Why? Why can these things not be a part of how GOD created them, and you have misinterpreted their existence?
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Now as to your things that evolution "cannot" explain:
Irreducible complexity. Hmm, you might have an argument, in reality all you are stating is "you can't explain this" and you forget the extremely important word that should follow "yet".
But that is wishful thinking, an evolutionists hope, but it is not current science.
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text> Idiots like you have tended to pick problems that they thought were inexplicable using evolution only to find out that since it takes several years AFTER a problem is discovered for it to be solved, and since the popular press is usually several years behind the research, the problem has been solved or is solved very shortly after IDiots present their claim.
Then you have support for your philosophy. Currently, that support does not exist.
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text> Evolution of the the immune system, claimed in court by Behe to be "irreducibly complex", solved. He was surround be a literal fortress of papers and books that explained how it was solved.
You can present lots of things claiming "this or that" could have happened, but you have nothing observable to say it did. Is it impossible that GOD designed the immune system to do what the immune system does? The fact is, you can't even account for your belief of why the immune system exists at all!!
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text> The rotator flagellum, solved. Eye evolution, solved. All of these so called "irreducibly complex" problems have been solved.
No they haven't. You've never seen evolution produce an eye. You've never observed a human that evolved from a non=human. You say these things are solved, but that is just dishonest. Show me observable evidence where evolution produced the origin of a bacterial flagellum. I bet you can't.
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
The anthropic principal is a tautology at best and does not prove anything.
It solidly suggests that a creative designer designed this universe in such a balance that it is viable for human existence.
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Oops, matter has been observed to create itself. There are several experiments and tests that show it happening. Google search the Casimir effect for one.
The Casmir effect produces a force, not matter.

"the Casimir effect manifests itself as a force between such objects"

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

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#109314 Jan 29, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I don't care how long it has been around, or who laid claim to it. It has never been observed and is a psuedoscientific fantasy.
Actually it has been observed. In the laboratory, in the field, and i the fossil record. You can deny it as much as you like, but until you come up with something you have lost this debate since the courts have always said evolution wins since the one win creationists had in the Scopes trial.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109315 Jan 29, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
I doubt whether you even know what the topic is about!
All you have been doing is shifting goalposts and trhowing in aunt sallies (a.k.a. strawmen) that we do not refute because you do!
The rest and particularly Kittenkoder, apparently understands that this is what bringing up and refuting a deflection is about and therefore called strawmen.
It leads away from the actual topic or discussion point, and is introduced for that purpose. But is thus irrelevant and hides ignorance or demonstrates the incapabiity to concede a point to the other party.
Thanks for your "irrelevant" contribution to the debate on Creationism vs. Evolution....NOT!!
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109316 Jan 29, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I accept that as an admission that you have spent three years being WRONG.
Oh...please do!!!(shakes head)
KAB

Oxford, NC

#109317 Jan 29, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
I gave you the verses. It *is* what is written. Explain yourself.
I did explain, but you either didn't comprehend or weren't paying attention. I commend you for providing the verses, and as you note, THAT is what is written, although even it is a translation of the original. What you gave other than that is your understanding of what the verses mean. You seemingly think that yours is the only understanding, and that betrays a weakness in your grasp of language mechanics. If you check with someone who is good with language, they will tell you that, in general, expressions have more than one possible meaning. When you start allowing for that you will have made a significant advance in your language skills, but it comes at the cost of loosening your grip on your bias. Restrictive use of language is an immediate and consistent sign of bias. In contrast, I also gave an understanding of the meaning, but I recognize that yours is another possibility except that it is out of harmony with other data, so why would one choose that possibility when it isn't necessary? Understand now?

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) 6 min Titus33 149,364
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr Aura Mytha 16,690
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 3 hr NoahLovesU 1,344
Brainwashed: Christian school taught Intelligen... 4 hr emrenil 2
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 4 hr emrenil 176,826
Creationism isn't a science and doesn't belong ... 5 hr Gillette 608
Birds Evolved From Dinosaurs Slowly—Then Took Off 11 hr Gillette 5
More from around the web