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

Full story: Asheville Citizen-Times

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 ...

Comments (Page 5,495)

Showing posts 109,881 - 109,900 of132,922
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#111954
Mar 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#111956
Mar 10, 2013
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand that the assertion came from you, not from science.

No, that is the position of science and the scientific method.

Sorry, your ignorance is showing, again.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#111957
Mar 10, 2013
 
thewordofme wrote:
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...

Cool article.

Here is another one that is pretty interesting

Light Shed On Ancient Origin of Life
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/...

Here is a sample from the article.

"DNA by itself is a rock," Whitman said. "You need all these other systems to make the DNA become a living cell."

Because DNA is so fundamental to the modern cell, DNA synthesis has long been thought to be one of the most conserved processes in living organisms.

"It was a surprise when this study found that the system for making DNA was unique to the archaea," Whitman said. "Learning that it can change in the archaea suggest that ability to make DNA formed late in the evolution of life. Possibly, there may be unrecognized differences in DNA biosynthesis the eukaryotes or bacteria as well."

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#111958
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.

Your criterion is not the criterion of science.Nothing is assumed to exist without positive evidence for it.

No evidence
no flood.


Sorry.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#111959
Mar 10, 2013
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I already made my case. There's a hole in the bottom.

Water only moves from the higher lake to the lower on.

So,.... what else you got?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#111960
Mar 10, 2013
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Then why did you mention glacial over-topping when it was all prior to 4500 years ago?

Because sediments are deposited by glaciation.

Are ...... you......... really........this..........s l o w ?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#111961
Mar 10, 2013
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
How many times do I have to state that I know of no physical data confirming the global flood before your side stops acting as if I have asserted otherwise?

You asserting this does little good when you continue to back away from it.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#111962
Mar 10, 2013
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Then why did you mention glacial over-topping when it was all prior to 4500 years ago?

Because of post #111928

You assert there is something special about the lake but admitted that you have no physical evidence for the flood.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#111963
Mar 10, 2013
 
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>

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.
Epic fail. In your mode of thinking everything is prejudged as supernatural until it is observed, understood, described, and replicated - then it can (but not necessarily) be reclassified from divine to natural process.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 109,881 - 109,900 of132,922
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

19 Users are viewing the Evolution Debate Forum right now

Search the Evolution Debate Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Ann Coulter: Idiot (Sep '11) 11 min Chilli J 356
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 21 min Biggie 111,611
When Will Evolutionists Confess Their Atheistic... 32 min polymath257 1,180
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 2 hr MikeF 171,198
Science News (Sep '13) Jul 7 positronium 2,820
Plan your Relocation needs with Packers and Mov... Jul 7 shashi12 1
Why Limit Science To Natural Causes? And Who Sa... Jul 7 Chimney1 65
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••