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

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

There are 151368 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.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110129 Feb 12, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Elohim is the anglicized rendering of the Hebrew word for god.

It would be more accurate (though less than perfectly accurate) to say that it is the rendering of the Hebrew word for Gods (plural).

It also has a feminine connotation, but that is beside the point.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#110130 Feb 12, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You could start with Genesis 1:1.
Oh, you must mean one of the English translations.

Sorry, when you said "original", I foolishly assumed that you meant, well, "original".

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#110131 Feb 12, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You didn't address substantiating the 29 evidences. Maybe it's only 5.
Trouble with arithmetic, too, eh?

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#110132 Feb 12, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
1 In the beginning Elohim created hashomayim (the heavens, Himel) and haaretz (the earth).
Humm.... no mention of "God" there.
Try another verse?
Hehehe. I was gonna hit 'im with that.

Thanks!

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#110133 Feb 12, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Elohim is the anglicized rendering of the Hebrew word for god.
God(desse)s as allready said, gathering of gods and nature-forces, people acting as the eldrs judges, including women.
El allready implies mighty, so shaddai means nurturing.
Used by the patriarchs.
Though Abram also thanked YHWH as did Seth when his son was born.
A site i read stated that the use was only attested after Moses came on the scene. So now i'm slightly confused as to it's use of 'patriarchs'.
Never mind. You have to wait almost till the period of enlightenment to find the actual word 'god' in a bible.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#110134 Feb 12, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Oh, you must mean one of the English translations.
Sorry, when you said "original", I foolishly assumed that you meant, well, "original".
I meant the/a word for "god" in whatever language you choose to consider.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#110135 Feb 12, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I meant the/a word for "god" in whatever language you choose to consider.
7000 years ago?
KAB

Wilson, NC

#110136 Feb 12, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
God(desse)s as allready said, gathering of gods and nature-forces, people acting as the eldrs judges, including women.
El allready implies mighty, so shaddai means nurturing.
Used by the patriarchs.
Though Abram also thanked YHWH as did Seth when his son was born.
A site i read stated that the use was only attested after Moses came on the scene. So now i'm slightly confused as to it's use of 'patriarchs'.
Never mind. You have to wait almost till the period of enlightenment to find the actual word 'god' in a bible.
When you provide references/data you'll begin to get my interest.
Until then you're wasting your fingers and relegated to the anybody can state anything category.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#110137 Feb 12, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
7000 years ago?
No, only up to about 6,000 years ago.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#110138 Feb 12, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
the sedimentlayer we date as representing 4500Years old in that locality, or other localities.They can thus be at differnt depths. THIS WAS THE INTERMEZZO
Back to the quote, the full quote of the communication went like this:
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, no. Every genetic bottleneck that has been identified is nothing more than a series of chemical reactions. You have no idea how DNA tests are done or genomes are cataloged, do you?
KAB: Perhaps I have a better idea than you, and you can only prove otherwise by providing some confirming data which you know I am eager to see anyway. Why do I provide and want to see data, and your side tends not to do so?
KAB could you for once in 100,000 posts show us how you think DNA tests are done, and how genetic material is extracted, and how genomes are cataloged.
(Since most of us have posted this kind off information allready thousands of times allover this topic.)
Especially since you say you might have a better idea then all we posted.YOU CLAIM means THAT YOU SHOW.
YOU never provide data...we always do the work.
SO to proof me wrong, grab your chance.
DNA is a conceptually simple "ladder" structure, albeit microscopic. A genome is essentially one organism's set of DNA ladders totalling hundreds of thousands to billions of rungs but comprised of only 2 different types, TA and GC, of rungs. So, similar to 1/0 computer code, it is the sequence (and orientation) of the rungs which provides the information content determining the make-up of the organism. Considering the huge number of microscopic "rungs" involved, "reading" DNA is a complex task involving chemical processes. Not surprisingly, this is where much of the exposure to error arises.

A catalog is a listing or organizing of information for a particular purpose, and genomic info can be and has been catalogued numerous ways and for various purposes. If you have a particular cataloging in mind then just mention it, and I'll consider it.

If there is any of this you do not accept, just identify it and I can provide appropriate data references.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#110139 Feb 12, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
In some places/matters that is true. Each point must be individually considered on its own merits. The well-worn notion that "the Bible is open to interpretation", taken to mean that everything in the Bible can legitimately be interpretted multiple ways, is patently incorrect.
So you can "take it out of context" but when an atheist quotes it in context it's still "taken out of context?" How .... hypocritical. You can't have it both ways.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#110140 Feb 12, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
No, only up to about 6,000 years ago.
The concept of "god," and words for it, are tens of thousands of years old, oddly. The first artifacts we find on the matter were animal worshipers, I think it was about 30,000 BC or some such, give or take a few thousand.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#110141 Feb 13, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
When you provide references/data you'll begin to get my interest.
Until then you're wasting your fingers and relegated to the anybody can state anything category.
get a book on hebrew grammar, a dictionary and read the tanakh. plenty data

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#110142 Feb 13, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
DNA is a conceptually simple "ladder" structure, albeit microscopic. A genome is essentially one organism's set of DNA ladders totalling hundreds of thousands to billions of rungs but comprised of only 2 different types, TA and GC, of rungs. So, similar to 1/0 computer code, it is the sequence (and orientation) of the rungs which provides the information content determining the make-up of the organism. Considering the huge number of microscopic "rungs" involved, "reading" DNA is a complex task involving chemical processes. Not surprisingly, this is where much of the exposure to error arises.
A catalog is a listing or organizing of information for a particular purpose, and genomic info can be and has been catalogued numerous ways and for various purposes. If you have a particular cataloging in mind then just mention it, and I'll consider it.
If there is any of this you do not accept, just identify it and I can provide appropriate data references.
You forgot a part that can be answered:
KAB could you for once in 100,000 posts show us how you think DNA tests are done, and how genetic material is extracted, and how genomes are cataloged.
(Since most of us have posted this kind off information allready thousands of times allover this topic.)

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#110143 Feb 13, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
The concept of "god," and words for it, are tens of thousands of years old, oddly. The first artifacts we find on the matter were animal worshipers, I think it was about 30,000 BC or some such, give or take a few thousand.
Tribal totem that traveled or was sent along with members that settled alsewhere.Usuall i suppose such a god was the Joker.
We find that also with the !kung. When something untoward happened the god laughed or was the cause.
But the depiction of an ancient horse with repeated PPPP sticks in my mind. Timetravel would be ideal.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#110144 Feb 13, 2013
I find it remarkable that when the thread is on the verge of dying out we finally get DATA. The second time i believe.

Level 1

Since: Jan 10

Asheville, NC

#110145 Feb 13, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
That would be an appeal to ignorance.
Though only to a certain group.
Simple biology will tell you that the female of our species does not clone herself.
I don't rcall it ever being said they did.
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
But i wonder whether you really understood my bad phrasing.
The chruch in 1950 wrote - not that jesus was received without Mary having intercourse- but that Maty was special because SHE was born without her mother having had intercourse.
That made her free of original sin.
I couldn't care less what the church said. THe church is not my authority. THe bible is, and the bible has never made that statement.Much like the church said the sun revolves around the earth. The bible never said that either.
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not saying it makes sense. Even tually you would end up with the prototype Eve. And that would lead to the conclusion that Eve was not considered sinfull.
Which wold bring christianity in line with judaism, but which creates a lot of trouble for people that believe original sin is the driving force for god dying on the cross.
So these concepts do not come from the 'O.T.' but from other cultures.
I would say that the same mindset is operative on interpreting evolution as is in the quote mining and twisting that must be practiced to reconcile tanakh with the gospel.
B.t.w. brit chasash-renewed covenant.(like the moon becomes new every month. See Jeremiah 31)If it was truly that and still related to the Torah and Tanakh we would not have John's theology quoted at us, about god becoming flesh.
What do you think Jeremiah 31 was talking about when GOD was going to make a new covenant? John 1 gives us that new covenant!!!

Level 1

Since: Jan 10

Asheville, NC

#110146 Feb 13, 2013
MAAT wrote:
Markyii wrote:
[..] human from non-human evolution is the biggest scientific fantasy in history .
end quote.
So what do you call a man made from mud and a women from his side?
A supernatural ex nihilo event of creation by an intelligent designer.
MAAT wrote:
If that is science phantasy then we should conclude that at least the torah does not conflict evolution.
Science is unqualified to deal with the supernatural.
MAAT wrote:
So one can only wonder where christians get their ideas.
It's called the bible.

Level 1

Since: Jan 10

Asheville, NC

#110147 Feb 13, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
As I recall, Chimney1 once wrote a post which went over this.
He explained that our ancestors lived in a place in eastern Africa where the jungle was turning into savannah land.
This made it necessary for our ancestors to adapt to savannah land.
Meanwhile, other species of monkeys and apes were doing just fine where there they were.
Chimney1's post should explain the why-are-there-still-monkeys question quite adequately.
Did you miss that post? Or did you merely decide to ignore it?
I don't remember it. I don't read every post. Just the ones addressed to me by a few posters, and don't read some by other posters. I was disrespected at times in here with foul language and ignorance. I gave each poster that did this a second chance, for those that continued, I've not purposefully read any of their posts or replied to them sense. You and I can disagree all day and I'll always try to give you a thoughtful reply, why? because you are not disrespectful.
Thomas Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
That's quite a double bind you got us in, Marky Boy!
If there isn't a smooth fossil succession, you can complain about the missing links.
If there is a smooth fossil succession, you can say "you can't define the difference between the two."
.
Well, you guys are the ones that have put yourself in that position. I have asked for years, "What evolved that made a non-human into a human? What is the difference?" Still no answer. How can you say that humans evolved from non-humans when you can't even define the difference between the two?

Level 1

Since: Jan 10

Asheville, NC

#110148 Feb 13, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Thomas Robertson was in the Topix site, reading the posts on his computer. He saw post after post written by marksman11. He became impressed with marksman’s impeccable logic and overwhelmed by marksman’s warm Christian love.
Thomas Robertson realized for the first time that he had been in error. He folded his hands and bowed his head.“Forgive me, Lord, for my wicked ways.” He prayed for Dogen. He prayed for MAAT. He prayed for all the misguided souls everywhere.
Just then, an enemy nation dropped a bomb on Linhan, China. A mile in the air went Thomas Robertson, his computer, and all his belongings.
The next thing he knew, he was standing at the Pearly Gates. Saint Peter was standing at the gates with a book.“May I have your name, please?”“Thomas Robertson.”“Ah, yes, Mr. Robertson! Your name has just been added to the book!”
The gates flung open. Thomas Robertson humbly walked through the gates while the bells rang and the angels sang.
Works for me!! Your point? IT worked for the thief of the cross! It doesn't matter where you are in the race on the back streach. It matters where you are when the race is over.

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 6 min renee 35,486
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 27 min Don Barros Serrano 199,527
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 34 min Richardfs 15,001
Complex Systems May Evolve More Slowly - Calcul... 8 hr Creationtruth 3
Evolution is merely a subroutine 9 hr Creationtruth 1
My Story Part 1 10 hr Regolith Based Li... 3
the dinosaurs of the lega-warega people: racial... 21 hr MIDutch 2
More from around the web