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

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

There are 164673 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.

Level 1

Since: Jan 10

Asheville, NC

#111773 Mar 7, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
)I don't hold blind faith as being something to aspire to.
Me either. I have faith in the bible and GOD. but it is far from blind faith. But you do incorporate blind faith if you reject GOD, for you believe in a naturalistic oigin of life, and there is zero evidence that that could have ever occured. In fact, due to the extreme complexity of even the most simple life forms, naturalism is shown to be an impossible path to the origin of life. So there is your blind faith my friend.
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>Let's put the shoe back on the right foot here.
Why are you unwilling to consider secular answers to a secular questions in a secular topic? Are you afraid the Elders are watching?
Secular answers are not getting the job done on the secular questions. Here's you one. "Can you provide observable evidence for a naturalistic origin to life???" I'll await your secular response.

Level 1

Since: Jan 10

Asheville, NC

#111774 Mar 7, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, I'll go slower for you.
"Faith is the substance of things hoped for".
"Things hoped for" have no substance, any more than wishes or dreams.
In other words, "faith" is the substance of things that have no substance.
Like your "faith" in a naturalistic origin to life?

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#111775 Mar 7, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I refer to "It's not supposed to be taken literally".
Poetry and folklore. Right.
Are you trying to make a point here?

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#111776 Mar 7, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Like your "faith" in a naturalistic origin to life?
"Naturalistic"? Perhaps you meant "natural"? Oh, well:
Absent compelling evidence, there's no reason to suppose a "supernaturalistic" origin.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#111777 Mar 7, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I was hoping you would ask. Please remember this when I ask for data. I will.
http://www.geotop.ca/upload/files/publication...
Thank you, KAB. I'd already found and read it. The "... basin-scale erosive slide occurring around 4200 cal BP and likely
related to 1) a seismic event due to the glacio-isostatic rebound following the last deglaciation or 2) slope
instabilities associated with rapid discharge events of the lake" does not appear to be supportive evidence of the deluge, or even a deluge.
KAB

United States

#111778 Mar 7, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
So, that wasn't your requirement, you stated you needed a demonstrably accurate source that they are written in, but a lot of people do assert that they are real, even today. Even more people swear they had seen a leprechaun than those who have seen your god.
That's an assertion you'll have to confirm by quoting me.
BTW, Exodus 33:20.
KAB

United States

#111779 Mar 7, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Grimm's Fairytales has the same percentage of demonstrable facts in it as your bible, almost exact percentage. Most of the places mentioned are real places in Europe. Many of the people are demonstrably real as well. The stories told are from multiple sources. It is the perfect mirror of your bible .... do you believe in the Headless Horseman now?
Is Grimm presented as history (HINT: It's Grimm's FAIRYTALES)?
KAB

United States

#111780 Mar 7, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Poetry and folklore. Right.
Are you trying to make a point here?
The Bible does contain some poetry. Nothing prevents poetry from being completely factual or requires poetry to be unreal. Also, the Bible does not present itself as folklore. I await your provision of data to confirm your assertion.
KAB

United States

#111781 Mar 7, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you, KAB. I'd already found and read it. The "... basin-scale erosive slide occurring around 4200 cal BP and likely
related to 1) a seismic event due to the glacio-isostatic rebound following the last deglaciation or 2) slope
instabilities associated with rapid discharge events of the lake" does not appear to be supportive evidence of the deluge, or even a deluge.
You apparently take their two suggested possibilities as an exhaustive list even tho I've already given a third which better explains the data.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#111782 Mar 7, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Me either. I have faith in the bible and GOD. but it is far from blind faith. But you do incorporate blind faith if you reject GOD, for you believe in a naturalistic oigin of life, and there is zero evidence that that could have ever occured. In fact, due to the extreme complexity of even the most simple life forms, naturalism is shown to be an impossible path to the origin of life. So there is your blind faith my friend.
Yes, yes.. I've often heard this proposition before. Only the devout believe that it takes more faith to be an atheist or agnostic than it does to be a zealot. I contend that this speaks toward an inability to even comprehend a mode of thought that is not saturated/obsessed with the supernatural.
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Secular answers are not getting the job done on the secular questions. Here's you one. "Can you provide observable evidence for a naturalistic origin to life???" I'll await your secular response.
And of course, I've heard this proposition before, as well. Typically, those who have Faith that life was Created complex and fully formed at the onset have immense difficulty with any hypothesis that relatively complex chemical interactions could become relatively simple biochemical mechanisms.
"Secular answers are not getting the job done..." so we must regress to theology? On the contrary. More clues all being discovered all the time, but when one has a mindset that believes complexity and diversity were spontaneously Created by God, even breakthroughs are promulgated as nothing but irrelevant ruses.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#111783 Mar 7, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You apparently take their two suggested possibilities as an exhaustive list even tho I've already given a third which better explains the data.
Two does not comprise "an exhaustive list."
I would be open to consider that maelstrom rains caused the sedimentary layer if it did better explain the data, but it doesn't. If I'm reading the abstract correctly, the sediment layer is the result of a slough - and as with sink holes, that was probably caused either by seismic activity or by the removal of water, not the addition of it. If there was a flood event that over-topped the rim (as there has been during post glaciation) and contributed material to the lake bottom one should expect foreign detritus to be mingled with that deposition.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#111784 Mar 7, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, I'll go slower for you.
"Faith is the substance of things hoped for".
"Things hoped for" have no substance, any more than wishes or dreams.
In other words, "faith" is the substance of things that have no substance.

I am not sure what he is not getting. He is programmed to believe what his cult tells him to believe.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#111785 Mar 7, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Britannica doesn't present leprechauns as real.
Britannica doesn't present Noah's Flood as real, either.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#111786 Mar 7, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I was hoping you would ask. Please remember this when I ask for data. I will.
http://www.geotop.ca/upload/files/publication...

Funny, not one word about a global flood nor even anything close.

BTW,

Lets take a look at what was going on in the rest of the world in 2200 B.C.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/22nd_century_BC


"The 4.2 kiloyear BP aridification event was one of the most severe climatic events of the Holocene period in terms of impact on cultural upheaval.[1] Starting in &#8776;2200 BC, it probably lasted the entire 22nd century BC. It is very likely to have caused the collapse of the Old Kingdom in Egypt as well as the Akkadian Empire in Mesopotamia.[2] The drought may have also initiated southeastward habitat tracking within the Harappan cultural domain.[3]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4.2_kiloyear_eve...

Maybe you would like to try another century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/23rd_century_BC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24th_century_BC

Wow. Looks like just a whole mess of civilization going on all through that period. And how does aridification occur at the same time as a global flood?

How come science can track a region becoming dryer over time that far back but can't find bumpkis related to a global flood?

Sorry. You lose again.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#111787 Mar 7, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't make sense of it either. Fortunately, there are renderings which are readily understood.

In REAL bibles? Or one made up by a group who's average education was 11th grade?

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#111788 Mar 7, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I seem to recall that it is understood there are one or more submerged outlets from the lake.

.....So.......?

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#111789 Mar 7, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not aware of anything which contradicts the flood. That's why I keep asking you for data which does just that. Please don't refer to your laundry list of assertions again. Assertions are not the data.

EVERYTHING contradicts the flood.

The fact that all the early Genesis stories are borrowed (and are overdue) from the local cultural library of that region is not at all helpful.
KAB

United States

#111790 Mar 7, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Two does not comprise "an exhaustive list."
I would be open to consider that maelstrom rains caused the sedimentary layer if it did better explain the data, but it doesn't. If I'm reading the abstract correctly, the sediment layer is the result of a slough - and as with sink holes, that was probably caused either by seismic activity or by the removal of water, not the addition of it. If there was a flood event that over-topped the rim (as there has been during post glaciation) and contributed material to the lake bottom one should expect foreign detritus to be mingled with that deposition.
Since you state that there has been overtopping, is there foreign detritus mingled with that deposition?

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#111791 Mar 7, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
In ballpark terms, how many demonstrated true statements does it have in it, and what is the proportion of demonstrated true to total content? Finally, there's the other parametrics of the book, how many contributors over what period of time, and what is the nature of the overall content? Does it in any way indicate or acknowledge that some portion of it is not known to be true? Again, in ballpark terms do you propose that all these elements would be comparable to the Bible?

Can you disprove the Tao Te Ching?

How many demonstrated false statements does it contain?

It only has one known contributor.

It was written in the same language and dialect throughout.

Doesn't this mean that Taoism is a more factual religion than any based on the bible?

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#111792 Mar 7, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
Here is why atheists and human from non-human evolutionists are illogical. You want to think and claim that your philosophy is supported by science. If you are an atheist, your philosophy can not be supported by science until you have obsevable evidence of the violation of the Law of Biogenesis and can prove that naturalistic means brought about the origin of life.. Atheists can not get around this, and currently they have no observable evidence for the origin of life. Evolutionists are inconsistent because they say "Even if GOD did cause the origin of life, it is meaningless because the origin of life and human from non-human evolution are not related subjects". But they are related subjects because like atheists, human from non-human evolutionists have no idea how life originated, and if it was the product of an intelligent designer, then they also have no scientific evidence. In Order for the human from non-human evolutionists to have a valid logical philosophy, they are going to have to trash naturalism and give way to the possibility of the supernatural being the cause for the origin of life, and if naturalism is trashed, as it should be, then there is no need for a naturalistic explanation on human evolution. THen science is not barring itself from the possibility of the supernatural, and the creation of life by an intelligent designer. Atheists and human from non-human evolutionists have the right to believe anyhing they want to. THey don't have the right to claim that their philosophis are rooted in science. Not an retain any kind of intellectual honesty.

BRIEF REFUTATION:

Evolution is an observable fact of nature.

What is the origin of gravity? If we can't find one is gravity refuted?

Done!

I love Marksmans, data free, ignorant, little rants.

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
Post your Bible Science Verses that show Evolut... 29 min Science 61
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Science 83,066
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 1 hr Science 2,558
The worst enemies of Creationism are "religioni... 23 hr Science 19
Evolution is a racist doctrine Thu Science 51
Golden Section in our DNA again proves DESIGN Thu Science 15
Science News (Sep '13) Thu Ricky F 4,008
More from around the web