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

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

There are 152311 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

#111688 Mar 5, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
CM wrote: "While you are at it and if it wouldn't be too much trouble, could you also explain how, "Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld" might be construed as supportive data?"
<quoted text>
I'm sorry but I must point out that is a null response. The verse merely defines the word "faith" and does not provide any supportive information. Your answer is like saying that the phrase, "Belief is a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing" strengthens one's beliefs. Please provide an explanation of how Hebrews 11:1 provides any "supportive data."
Not to be a boor, but might I remind you that,
"... yes please. I would like supportive data of "an example of something correct in the Bible..." as long as it is pertinent to additional facts in the evolution debate." is still pending an answer.
The verse, as you acknowledge, defines (supports) what is Bible approved faith. Without such a supporting verse one would be free to imagine the Bible supporting something like blind faith. It's not like saying what you stated at all.

If I had an answer to your request under the conditions you impose, it wouldn't be pending.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#111689 Mar 5, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree that it is chronically abused, but I'm certain we would disagree by whom.
<quoted text>
If I were addressing your opinion you could have a point. However, I was referring to the validity of your statement in light of your posting record.
It's easy to evaluate. Just go back and look at sample posts to see who uses "I think" (or similar) and who doesn't.

What you refer to doesn't change my statement. It's not an assertion.
LowellGuy

Salem, MA

#111690 Mar 5, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
100 percent of those tested must be verified true. Beyond that, it's a judgment call as to when a sufficient number have been verified. The Bible has been subjected to such testing and shown itself to be a reliable source.
We've tested the global flood claim. Has it been verified true?

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#111691 Mar 5, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The verse, as you acknowledge, defines (supports) what is Bible approved faith. Without such a supporting verse one would be free to imagine the Bible supporting something like blind faith. It's not like saying what you stated at all.
If I had an answer to your request under the conditions you impose, it wouldn't be pending.
For the first part, I believe it might be fruitful to drag this (with minimal kicking and screaming, hopefully) back into context.

Chimney1 wrote:
"Yet all your own "supporting data" stems from the indefensible assertion that we should accept the Bible on faith."

KAB wrote:
"Are you going to provide data to confirm that, or do we just have to accept it on faith (Hebrews 11:1)?"

Logically or perhaps sarcastically, you are offering Heb 11:1 in favor of Chimney1's statement. Believing in that which is unseen (blind faith) is part of this biblical definition of "approved faith" no matter which translation is chosen.

For the second part - I've grown accustomed to waiting for answers along that vein from the devout - both with and without stipulations or conditions placed in the question.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#111692 Mar 6, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You are simple. I'll definitely grant you that. So simple that, characteristically, you provide no data, just assertions. Since you work with highly advanced mathematical concepts, perhaps you could share some of your data from that with us.
Now you are projecting, which is expected since you lack any logical and valid stance to counter my assertion. All the data required for my assertion is what you have provided. You believe in something just because some book writes about it, you believe it's reality just because a lot of people agree ... sort of. Thus you cannot disagree with those who believe leprechauns are real for the very same reason you believe in your god.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#111693 Mar 6, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Hebrews 11:1, "Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld", is supportive of Bible recommended/approved faith.
And scepticism is the demand for evidence when claims are made. Something you do not seem to understand.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#111694 Mar 6, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Good exercise. Let's take it one step at a time, so you can raise your concerns along the way.
Jesus dies: Mt. 27:50; Mr. 15:37; Lu. 23:46; Jn. 19:30
Yet the accounts of his death, what is said etc, are not consistent. The account of his resurrection is not consistent.

Only in the religious "faith filled mind" can conflicting account all be called infallibly true. Luther said Reason is the Enemy of Faith.

He was right there, even if he was baring from the wrong side.

Now, please name one element of "faith" - conviction without evidence - required to accept evolution.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#111695 Mar 6, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It's easy to evaluate. Just go back and look at sample posts to see who uses "I think" (or similar) and who doesn't.
What you refer to doesn't change my statement. It's not an assertion.
Alright, I went back a couple pages and found a sample post in which you actually said something.
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>Evidence for the global flood comes forth most vigorously if one looks where there is assurance of its occurrence and preservation.
Yet, there is no evidence for a global flood. Not even trickling forth most meekly. So when we couple that with your statement,
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>I think evolution should be considered entirely on its own merits.
it becomes even more undeniable that you DO NOT consider either evolution OR the Bible objectively, by evidence, by supportive data or on their own merits.
KAB

United States

#111696 Mar 6, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
We've tested the global flood claim. Has it been verified true?
The global flood claim hasn't been verified either way. I meant to include that, of course, only claims which are testable to a conclusion of either true or false are meaningful to the evaluation. I knew if I didn't, you would act as if that wasn't a given, and you did.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#111697 Mar 6, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The global flood claim hasn't been verified either way. I meant to include that, of course, only claims which are testable to a conclusion of either true or false are meaningful to the evaluation. I knew if I didn't, you would act as if that wasn't a given, and you did.
Yes KAB, it has been verified that there was no global flood. It has become a given that the flood story is a myth.
There is no genetic bottleneck. There is no meteorological mechanism capable of it. There is no evidence of it in paleoecology, in taphonomy, in botany or in any other field of study. There is no geological evidence of it. The archaeological record is contiguous throughout the period it supposedly took place.
We've beaten that horse into hamburger and God Himself has told you to be honest.
KAB

United States

#111698 Mar 6, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
For the first part, I believe it might be fruitful to drag this (with minimal kicking and screaming, hopefully) back into context.
Chimney1 wrote:
"Yet all your own "supporting data" stems from the indefensible assertion that we should accept the Bible on faith."
KAB wrote:
"Are you going to provide data to confirm that, or do we just have to accept it on faith (Hebrews 11:1)?"
Logically or perhaps sarcastically, you are offering Heb 11:1 in favor of Chimney1's statement. Believing in that which is unseen (blind faith) is part of this biblical definition of "approved faith" no matter which translation is chosen.
For the second part - I've grown accustomed to waiting for answers along that vein from the devout - both with and without stipulations or conditions placed in the question.
For the first part, it's not blind faith if it's based on supporting data, which is what Heb. 11:1 seems to require.

For the second part, remove the condition(s), and see what you get.
KAB

United States

#111699 Mar 6, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you are projecting, which is expected since you lack any logical and valid stance to counter my assertion. All the data required for my assertion is what you have provided. You believe in something just because some book writes about it, you believe it's reality just because a lot of people agree ... sort of. Thus you cannot disagree with those who believe leprechauns are real for the very same reason you believe in your god.
The reasons aren't the same. That's just your dataless assertion which will never make anything true which isn't.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#111700 Mar 6, 2013
<<More evidence for Evolution released today>>

A glimpse into the evolution of proteins
March 6th, 2013 in Biology / Cell & Microbiology

( Phys.org )—ETH-Zurich researchers look several billion years back in time, when life on Earth was just beginning. In a laboratory experiment, they examined how a primitive protein was able to evolve. However, the journey into the past also afforded the scientists a glimpse into the future of synthetic biology.

Life did not emerge overnight. The first primitive life forms that developed on Earth around four billion years ago had little in common with today's organisms. They probably managed without proteins. And the first proteins that formed in the following few hundred million years to become essential elements of the living world also differed from those of today: scientists assume that the first proteins were composed of a reduced repertoire of only seven or eight different amino acids. The repertoire of today's proteins, however, typically contains twenty amino acids.

A team of researchers headed by Donald Hilvert, a professor at the Laboratory of Organic Chemistry, has now simulated how the minimal starting amino acid repertoire might have expanded in the course of evolution. Not only do the researchers draw conclusions regarding the past from their work, they also gain important insights into future directions for synthetic biology.

Evolution of a simplified enzyme

The ETH-Zurich researchers conducted evolution experiments with a synthetic protein they developed some years ago in their lab. It is based on an enzyme that actually exists, a so-called chorismate mutase. While the real enzyme is composed of all twenty amino acids, however, the synthetic protein contains a reduced repertoire of only nine. "Our synthetic chorismate mutase has the same function as its natural counterpart, but is less stable and less active," says Hilvert.

The scientists have now examined how far the simplified protein can be optimised and how exactly it behaves if it is allowed to expand the amino-acid repertoire – just as it may have occurred during millennia of evolution. To this end, they introduced the corresponding gene for the protein into bacteria that do not contain a natural chorismate mutase and allowed the bacteria to grow in a bioreactor for one and a half months. In the course of this experiment, mutations naturally arose in the genetic material. The researchers then studied the extent to which the synthetic protein and its gene had changed.

Surprisingly only minor changes

Sure enough, the gene and the protein were altered in the experiment – only marginally but with major effects: the enzymatic activity of the protein and its stability increased. The fact that the changes in the sequence of amino acids were comparatively minor surprised the scientists. While the protein consists of roughly 100 individual amino acids, only two of them changed. At one site, the amino acid isoleucine was replaced with the amino acid threonine, and at another site leucine with valine. "Structurally speaking, these are only very minor changes. The new amino acids aren't all that different from the ones they replace," says Hilvert. The scientists would have expected a greater number of more significant changes. "Even if the two mutations are very conservative, we were able to show that they give the protein a clear selective advantage," explains Hilvert.

"One lesson from this project is that you shouldn't consider only spectacular synthetic amino acids in developing the amino-acid repertoire further in synthetic biology," says Peter Kast, a professor at the Laboratory of Organic Chemistry, who was also involved in the project. "Amino acids with minor differences from natural ones also proved to be very useful."

<snipped for brevity, full article at link below>>

http://phys.org/news/2013-03-glimpse-evolutio...
KAB

United States

#111701 Mar 6, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
And scepticism is the demand for evidence when claims are made. Something you do not seem to understand.
I'm the one who about two years ago initially raised the demand for evidence in this forum upon noticing that very little was being provided. I have continued driving that and setting an example of providing data ever since.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#111702 Mar 6, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The reasons aren't the same. That's just your dataless assertion which will never make anything true which isn't.
So then you are a hypocrite, since you deny the existence of leprechauns but accept the existence of your god based on the same amount of evidence.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#111703 Mar 6, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm the one who about two years ago initially raised the demand for evidence in this forum upon noticing that very little was being provided. I have continued driving that and setting an example of providing data ever since.
You guys are on a roll today. "...setting an example..." Yeah, an excellent example on how to ignore multiple lines of evidence that your flood never occurred.
KAB

United States

#111704 Mar 6, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet the accounts of his death, what is said etc, are not consistent. The account of his resurrection is not consistent.
Only in the religious "faith filled mind" can conflicting account all be called infallibly true. Luther said Reason is the Enemy of Faith.
He was right there, even if he was baring from the wrong side.
Now, please name one element of "faith" - conviction without evidence - required to accept evolution.
Where is the conflict in what he said? What physical law(s) require that he could only say one thing and/or that all who document an event must each identically record everything that was said?

Per Heb. 11:1, Luther was wrong. True faith harmonizes with and thrives on reason. Blind faith does not. Perhaps Luther had blind faith in mind.

To accept evolution, one must have faith that all the existing variety of life occurred in the available timeframe set forth by the data, since observed mutation rates don't get the job done.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111705 Mar 6, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
KAB supposes he said ALL of those things as his last words, and it's just some weird oddity that two heard and remembered only one thing, one remembered only another thing, and a fourth only remembered yet another thing, but ABSOLUTELY NO OVERLAP across those three things. But, totally reliable.

I know KAB can't think for himself.

Actually the Romans like to make a public spectacle out executions, but no one but the Roman guards were likely close enough to someones dying words.

The words recorded in Matt and Mark seem the most believable, however.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111706 Mar 6, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Hebrews 11:1, "Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld", is supportive of Bible recommended/approved faith.

I will go with anything that refutes apologetics and that serves pretty well.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111707 Mar 6, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
100 percent of those tested must be verified true. Beyond that, it's a judgment call as to when a sufficient number have been verified. The Bible has been subjected to such testing and shown itself to be a reliable source.

Since it is confirmed to be wrong on a number of issues it would seem that your above statement is a false assertion.

We have busted down the flood and you have been unable to support it (just one example).

So, what we have is a confirmed UNreliable source. At least for matters of historical fact.

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) 14 min replaytime 210,136
Science News (Sep '13) 5 hr Voyeur 3,629
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 9 hr River Tam 20,327
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) Thu SoE 45,560
America evolving into lockdown on purpose Sep 25 Dogen 68
New law to further hatred towards police Sep 24 One way or another 4
Hillary, a taco stand on every corner Sep 24 One way or another 4
More from around the web