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
KAB

Oxford, NC

#111936 Mar 9, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Being proven false isn't necessary, because we're not out to prove the Bible UNRELIABLE; we're out to prove the Bible RELIABLE. Therefore, until the Noah's flood claim is proven true, there is a testable claim that has been tested that has not been proven true (all testable claims that have been tested must be proven true according to YOUR standard), thus the Bible cannot be deemed reliable, therefore you cannot cite it as a reliable source.
Remember when I told you logic was not your friend, and that answering questions would only lead to the undoing of all your arguments? Remember that? This is that. Right now.
And, rather than argue the merits of the logic, all you're going to do is demand quotes, even though you know that's a dishonest tactic to divert attention (everyone's, including your own) from the fact that I have you dead to rights.
Your standard, REAL logic, TOUGH SHIT.
Your words, not mine. Quoting me is the only way to prove otherwise, and you've made it quite clear that can't be done.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#111937 Mar 9, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You did not read a single word of my post.
You are correct. I did not read a single word of your post. I read every word.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#111938 Mar 9, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Right. And Noah's flood is testable. It is a claim that can be determined true or false. Has it been confirmed true? Remember, it doesn't matter if it has or hasn't been proven false, only whether it's been proven true or not. Has it been proven true?
What part of testable to one of two conclusions do you not understand? Imagine yourself testing something. You are unable to confirm that it is true, and you are unable to confirm that it is false. You (well not you but anyone else) comes to the realization that you are unable to test to either one of the two conclusions. Therefore, the item does not meet the above criterion. Now that's an elaboration on MY standard.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#111939 Mar 9, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. If it's been scientifically confirmed, it is still tentative. ALL science is tentative, even the stuff we think we completely understand. ALWAYS TENTATIVE. NEVER 100%. EVER. Read a science book for a change.
<quoted text>
What part of "ALWAYS TENTATIVE" don't you understand? Is it the "ALWAYS" or the "TENTATIVE?"
I understand that the assertion came from you, not from science.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Tempe, AZ.

#111940 Mar 9, 2013
Researchers have just recently found chemical precursors to RNA and DNA in space. We already know that oxygen and water are found all over space.

Now NASA funded researchers have found DNA in space. There….components of life floating around in space….maybe just waiting for a planet to ‘colonize’

Our telescopes and other instruments in space have found over 2700 planets circling other stars nearby. Our galaxy is said to have 250 billion stars in it. Our universe is said to have 250 billion galaxies in it.

“wonder how many planets there are that can support life as we kinda’ know it??

You know….I think life is everywhere in our universe.

From the NASA website:

“NASA-funded researchers have evidence that some building blocks of DNA, the molecule that carries the genetic instructions for life, found in meteorites were likely created in space. The research gives support to the theory that a "kit" of ready-made parts created in space and delivered to Earth by meteorite and comet impacts assisted the origin of life.

"People have been discovering components of DNA in meteorites since the 1960's, but researchers were unsure whether they were really created in space or if instead they came from contamination by terrestrial life," said Dr. Michael Callahan of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. "For the first time, we have three lines of evidence that together give us confidence these DNA building blocks actually were created in space." Callahan is lead author of a paper on the discovery appearing in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.”

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/featur...

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111941 Mar 9, 2013
Oscar Wilde_ wrote:
<quoted text>NO, science is 100% not based on proof, since science does not deal in proof. You simpletons just hate that, so you have to lie about proof, which is math, not science.

Why are you agreeing with me and dissing my colloquial use of the word proof?

BTW, proof also exists in logic. At least in theory.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111942 Mar 9, 2013
Oscar Wilde_ wrote:
<quoted text>Obviously, it is you who does not care about science. Are you claiming to be 99% alive or 100%? Is your mom 99% human and 1% dog or 100%? Is your dad 90% a pedophile and 10% not? Are you 90% a rapist and 10% not? No, your claim to science is junk science. You claim that the universe evolved some 11 to 14.5 billion years ago, so is 1+1 some 1 to 10,000 number or 2? You ue biology, so is a fish a donkey and a donkey a rat, or are humans of the bird species or mammal or something of scientific delusion.

Your post did not make much sense. Maybe try again when you are sober.

Real science is peer review, largely academic, science. Cosmology, geology, biology, physics, and all the other things you seem to be disagreeing with ARE science.

Read this again when you are sober.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111943 Mar 9, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Best sources available works for me.

Great. So we can put that whole nasty flood business behind us.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111944 Mar 9, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I wouldn't bother with the gnome cities. They're not attested by a demonstrated reliable source.

Neither is anything else.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111945 Mar 9, 2013
The Dude wrote:
Guys, just to let you know about Oscar - he's been claiming evolution is wrong because Big Bang. Just thought I'd let everyone know with what level of education they were dealing with,

Has he discovered spin gravity yet?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111946 Mar 9, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not the one building a case regarding what happens to salt in a lake. I posed a scenario for the presenter to address. I don't want to steal his thunder, but if he wants to plead he's reached the limit of his knowledge of the topic, I am willing to finish the analysis for him. I would likely provide data for that. Are you and he sure you want to risk me going on the record with data which could come back to haunt you again the next time you foolishly assert that I provide no data?
Bob says you'll risk the further humiliation. That's just the way you are.

Science always puts itself on the line. Another bit of evidence that you are unaware of science.

As I remember my own comments on your dearth of data it is usually with a statement like "once in a blue moon" or seldom ever. Or maybe never provides any RELEVANT data that withstands scrutiny.

Or that you have never provide evidence of a global flood. By which I mean scientific evidence, not fairy tail evidence. Not JW cult programming material.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#111947 Mar 10, 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.
Aside from the particulars refuted many times in this forum, its the whole thrust of this post that is wrong.

You live in a "culture of faith" and apply the idea of faith to every other way of thinking.

Science is a culture of doubt. Its a fundamentally different thing. This is what you do not seem to get.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#111948 Mar 10, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Your words, not mine. Quoting me is the only way to prove otherwise, and you've made it quite clear that can't be done.
Thanks for demonstrating that you won't argue the merits, you'll just hide behind "quote me." You're such a pathetic loser, and I mean that in the most polite way. You know you've been bested, and rather than simply admit it like a man, you have to cower behind your "quote me." Your quote is no more than a page away from your response. You know exactly what you said. You said that all testable claims that can be proven true/false must be proven true for the Bible to be considered reliable. Is the claim of a global year-long flood from 4500 years ago something that can be proven true or false? Yes. Has it been proven true (one of your criteria, all of which must be met, to determine reliability)? No. Have ALL the testable claims which can be proven true/false been proven true? No. If that criterion is not met, your standard says that it cannot be deemed reliable. Notice I didn't say it's UNRELIABLE; merely that you can't deem it reliable, therefore you cannot cite it as a "demonstrated reliable source." It doesn't even meet YOUR standard for reliability.

Now, argue the merits, coward.

Level 1

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#111949 Mar 10, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
marksman11 wrote:
Science has no answer for the origin of life. They've never observed it, and they can't replicate it, and due to even the most simple life forms being complex to the extreme, then there are no natural explanations to the origin of life. A supernatural designer is by far the best explanation.

<chromiuman>
Epic fail.
FOR SCIENCE!!!!

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#111950 Mar 10, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
What part of testable to one of two conclusions do you not understand? Imagine yourself testing something. You are unable to confirm that it is true, and you are unable to confirm that it is false. You (well not you but anyone else) comes to the realization that you are unable to test to either one of the two conclusions. Therefore, the item does not meet the above criterion. Now that's an elaboration on MY standard.
So, if there is evidence that directly contradicts the flood story, and that evidence is found, the claim would be false. If there is evidence that directly indicates the flood story, and can ONLY be explained by the flood story (without resorting to magic, which is EXACTLY what the flood story does, but I digress), then it can be proven true.

Now, KAB...if there is NO evidence that can only be explained by the flood story, and there IS evidence that contradicts it (though you try your damnedest to dismiss all of it, while clinging like a dead parrot's talons to anything that you think supports it), HAS IT BEEN PROVEN TRUE? Need something be proven false for it not to have been proven true? If it has not been proven true or false yet, does that mean it is impossible to do so? Are we at the ultimate apex of what humanity will ever and can ever learn? Unless there is nothing more we could possibly learn, you can't declare it impossible to prove true/false. Therefore, we must rely upon your standard as written, and we must agree that the flood story has NOT been proven true, which means the Bible does not meet your own criteria for reliability.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#111951 Mar 10, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand that the assertion came from you, not from science.
You've already demonstrated that you don't understand science, so why should we act as though you do? You approach claims of natural phenomena in an anti-scientific way, you have your own anti-scientific standards of evidence, and you then fault science for not having caught up to you. Well, your approach hasn't demonstrated itself reliable at anything except duping suckers into handing over their money and teaching them who to hate. That's not science, though. As soon as you demonstrate that you understand science, you'll have a point. Until then, you're just sucking your thumb and rubbing your ear, trying to comfort yourself because of the reality around you that consciously you know contradicts your "faith." You need to be here, and constantly obfuscate and lie, to make yourself feel like a martyr defending the faith in front of the lions, and "quote me" is your comfort, your worry stone. Sad, sad little man. Reality is far more wondrous than the magical stories in your holy book.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#111952 Mar 10, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I wouldn't bother with the gnome cities. They're not attested by a demonstrated reliable source.
Neither is the global flood, by your standard.

Level 1

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#111953 Mar 10, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
You know….I think life is everywhere in our universe.
Not one drop of science in that statement.

Level 1

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#111954 Mar 10, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Aside from the particulars refuted many times in this forum, its the whole thrust of this post that is wrong.
You live in a "culture of faith" and apply the idea of faith to every other way of thinking.
You also live in a culture of faith, but won't admit it. You believe that there was no GOD involved in the origin of life. That is a faith based belief.
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Science is a culture of doubt. Its a fundamentally different thing. This is what you do not seem to get.
What you don't seem to get is that in this forum, science is not presented as a culture of doubt. Faith based beliefs that have no place within science are broadcasted as fact, and if challenged, then the broadcaster belittles those who are challenging them with insults and sarcasim. If their philosophy was so rock solid they could stand on it's solid foundation, yet they dodge the challenges with childish ad hominums. THis is observable.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#111955 Mar 10, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Then why did you mention glacial over-topping when it was all prior to 4500 years ago?
Precisely. I said if there was an over-topping event we should expect to see evidence of it in the sediments. The sediments indicate that there was no such event in the last 6,500 years, and the ones prior to that were from melt waters and not from precipitation. Hence, again and still - no evidence for the Noahic flood.

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) 5 min replaytime 133,648
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 4 hr Kong_ 626
How would creationists explain... 5 hr TurkanaBoy 393
Science News (Sep '13) 6 hr positronium 2,944
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) Dec 22 Chimney1 13,624
Creationism coming to Ohio classrooms? Not with... Dec 20 nobody 7
24 hour dental emergency (Nov '13) Dec 19 Zach 4
More from around the web