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

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

There are 154697 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

United States

#111282 Feb 27, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
But I have.
Then post a link resulting from your search.
KAB

United States

#111283 Feb 27, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Leviticus:
11:13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls ; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
11:14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
11:15 Every raven after his kind;
11:16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
11:17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,
11:18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,
11:19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.
Bats are not fowl.
That's right. Bats are flying creatures.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#111284 Feb 27, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
This is one for MF's "see what you want to see" file. Do you see only one Goliath? Does there have to be only one Goliath?


Not interested. Make your own points.
KAB

United States

#111285 Feb 27, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
So the Theory of Evolution is a demonstrated reliable source.
What is your point?
The Theory of Evolution is an idea which draws on numerous sources for support. It can only be as reliable as those sources.
KAB

United States

#111286 Feb 27, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
As usual, you through out bible quotes. Neither of these offers any explanation as to why the various translation do not agree or why Christians can't even agree on the number of books in the bible.
If you can't explain it, just say so.
The cited passages rather clearly explain that those who want to find reasons not to accept the Bible as inerrant will not be prevented from doing so even tho their course is demonstrably a matter of choice rather than the only valid conclusion.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111287 Feb 27, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
My point is that there was a lake in it at least once upon a time. It would be interesting to core sample and date the sediment from top to bottom.

If memory serves, that is how they established the age of the crater to begin with.

The impact cut through about 20 million years of sediment from about 250 million years ago.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111288 Feb 27, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Da Flud may have contributed.


Da flud could contribute nearly anywhere on earth, yet evidence for it is vigorously not forthcoming.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#111289 Feb 27, 2013
"Scientists have found a cave painting of a red sphere that is about 4,000 years older than the previously known oldest cave art in Europe (from France's Chauvet cave). They determined the date by measuring the decay of uranium atoms in the calcite coating of paintings in 11 Spanish caves, including El Castillo where the red sphere painting was found.

While Neanderthals still survived in Spain at that time, the art also coincides with the spread of Homo sapiens from Asia into Western Europe. Later hand prints from El Castillo that date to about 37,300 years ago are similar in style to later cave art definitely produced by modern humans in the area."

http://humanorigins.si.edu/research/whats-hot...

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observati...

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111290 Feb 27, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
This is one for MF's "see what you want to see" file. Do you see only one Goliath? Does there have to be only one Goliath?


Did you not read the verses. You must not have:

Read all of 1 Sam 17

David killed Goliath, right?

Next:
19 In another battle with the Philistines at Gob, Elhanan son of Jair[a] the Bethlehemite killed the brother of[b] Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaverÂ’s rod.

No problem here. Elhanan killed the brother of Goliath.

Then:
19 There was war with the Philistines again at Gob, and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite [a]killed [b]Goliath t
he Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaverÂ’s beam.


In fact this is a known scribal error. It was a simple mistake. In the NIV (I know, it is nearly as bad as the new world version) it translates it as the brother of Goliath and admit that is not what the Hebrew says.

Most biblical references admit it was an error.


I know, your cult knows better than those darn fool bible experts.





Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Besides 99% of the book of Genesis?
Who killed Goliath?
1 Samuel 17:50
2 Sam. 21:19
1 Chronicles 20:5
So, based on the three verses is is unreasonable that 2 Sam 21:19 is .....
is......
[Hint: the answer begins with Wro and ends with ng]

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111291 Feb 27, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
That's right. Bats are flying creatures.

Thank you for the admission of the biblical error.

Now that you have admitted the bible errors we can move on.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#111292 Feb 27, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Try substituting "extremities" for "edges". See if that takes care of the flatness.
I suppose it would.

Is 'extremities. from your (NWT) New World Translation Bible. A Bible that is known to have changed wording in it??

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#111293 Feb 27, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The Theory of Evolution is an idea which draws on numerous sources for support. It can only be as reliable as those sources.
Numerous sources contributing to one theory - each one correlating the other.
On the other side of the coin you provide a great insight - One (biblical) source of support, many ideologies? Reliability = GIGO.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111294 Feb 27, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The Theory of Evolution is an idea which draws on numerous sources for support. It can only be as reliable as those sources.

You don't seem to understand the rules for evidence in science.[actually you don't understand any science at all including that bats are not fowl].

Multiple sources of evidence are called Corroborating Evidence. Every additional source of corroborating evidence significantly increases the likelihood that one is on the right track. talkorigins may be a bit behind the times listing only 29 evidences, but it is certainly in the right ballpark.

Evidences for evolution come not only from biology, but also from physics, chemistry, paleontology,.........

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#111295 Feb 27, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Scipture says what scripture says. Sorry you don't like it, and it refutes your world view.
No.

Scripture says whatever the gene-tampered turkey preaching at you says it says.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#111296 Feb 27, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
There is roughly 200 feet of lake sediment in Barringer Crater. What is your point, KAB?
*sigh*

It's a bowl.

At the time of impact, Arizona was a lot cooler and wetter.

Yes, water collected in the bowl.

You're not even pretending to attend, are you?

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#111297 Feb 27, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, Barringer crater has been a lake a lake at times in it's history, including shortly after the impact, during wetter periods in that region.
What does that have to do with Da Flud?
I gotta start reading backwards.

Laffin.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#111298 Feb 27, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
BTW as a bonus, your source states that C14 dating places the origins of writing, state societies, and civilization, including Sumer and Egypt at 4500 years ago.
What's in a label? Adam and Eve were the first humans (i.e., what science today calls "modern humans").
To somewhat sensitize you to the realm, here's some puzzling data from your reference.
mtDNA varies among "modern" humans by an average of 8 base substitutions. "Modern" human mtDNA varies from Neanderthals by 27 substitutions. Neanderthals mtDNA varies from one another by 20 bases, but they are stated to be less diverse than "modern humans. Since I don't want to give anything away I'll just ask what can you conclude from this?
BTW as a bonus, your source states that C14 dating places the origins of writing, state societies, and civilization, including Sumer and Egypt at 4500 years ago.
As a final thought, have you honestly never seen anyone living who could have passed for a Neanderthal?
You write:
"BTW as a bonus, your source states that C14 dating places the origins of writing, state societies, and civilization, including Sumer and Egypt at 4500 years ago."

I just sent an email to the Smithsonian asking for a clarification in their dating graphic and that dating of writing and civilizations. I'll show it to you when I get a reply. Its been pretty much established that people in the Babylonian area were writing by 3,600+- to 3,100+- BC

We have known for a long time that Jericho dated back to around 9,000+- BC and the civilization of the Sumerians is dated to 4,500+- to 4,000+- BC.

Now Babylon is dated to approximately 2,286+- to 1,894+- BC and the Akkadians to 2,334+- BC

Mesopotamia continues to hold the honor as the area of the 'Birth of Civilization,'but not the 'Cradle of Humanity' honor.

The last I heard scientists were still of the opinion that Egypt's civilization began with the rise of Narmer around 3,100+- BC and the merging of upper and lower Egypt.

You write:
"What's in a label? Adam and Eve were the first humans (i.e., what science today calls "modern humans").

Yeah....200,000 years ago, and probably part of a group, and sharing the land with Neanderthals in Africa.

You write:
"To somewhat sensitize you to the realm, here's some puzzling data from your reference.
mtDNA varies among "modern" humans by an average of 8 base substitutions. "Modern" human mtDNA varies from Neanderthals by 27 substitutions. Neanderthals mtDNA varies from one another by 20 bases, but they are stated to be less diverse than "modern humans.
Since I don't want to give anything away I'll just ask what can you conclude from this?"

Nothing at this point.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#111299 Feb 27, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree, though naturally not for some absurd verification that the western U.S. was covered by 4.26 kilometers of rainwater.
http://www.barringercrater.com/about/history_...
http://www.arizonanevadaacademyofscience.org/...
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/books/ba...
According to this 2007 article, more thorough coring research of the Barringer sediments and breccia was pending funding.
So you wouldn't object if the objective was to objectively investigate the object?
KAB

Wilson, NC

#111300 Feb 27, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Da Flud did not. If you have any objective desire to advance some rational evidence to your flud, you are looking at the wrong crater. Try the Burckle, not the Barringer.
Why do you state that Da Flud did not contribute to the Barringer Crater sediment?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111301 Feb 27, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The cited passages rather clearly explain that those who want to find reasons not to accept the Bible as inerrant will not be prevented from doing so even tho their course is demonstrably a matter of choice rather than the only valid conclusion.

Equally, those who want to find reasons TO accept the Bible as inerrant will not be prevented from doing so even tho their course is demonstrably a matter of choice rather than the only valid conclusion.

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) 2 min One way or another 48,568
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 33 min Aura Mytha 216,723
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 4 hr karl44 23,504
Richard Dawkins tells the truth 13 hr Timmee 9
Science News (Sep '13) 19 hr _Susan_ 3,985
Might life have spontaneously have started mill... Sun The Northener 642
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) Dec 3 Aura Mytha 179,707
More from around the web