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

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

There are 168859 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 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#112076 Mar 12, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The following is a snippet from talkorigins.org FAQs,
Q: The odds against a simple cell coming into being without divine intervention are staggering.
A: And irrelevant.
Is it your scientific/mathematical understanding that the probability of something happening is irrelevant with regard to whether it happened or not?
No, it raises two issues.

1. If it did happen, it must have happened in smaller steps. NO BIOLOGIST believes that a simple cell could just poof into existence in one massively unlikely step. However, the building blocks of a simple cell - RNA, lipid mirospheres, amino acids and polypeptide chains, etc, have been shown to emerge naturally under the right conditions.

2. If you proved natural Abiogenesis to be impossible tomorrow Evolution would still stand. That is why its nothing more than a big fat red herring. As the site says: irrelevant.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#112077 Mar 12, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
But it is not completely impossible that a quick flood jumped in there and drowned everyone then the survivors repopulated the earth in the next year, in turn those millions of children made their way back to where everyone had been living and pick up their cultures where they had left of.... AND had sudden and magical genetic non-uniformity that one would expect of long term genetic evolution.....
The odds are not more than say 10^100^100, or so.
Okay 10^100^100^1000000
Yep. A bunch of middle eastern goat-herders' offspring wandered back into the Americas and faithfully reproduced the pre-existing heathen Clovis culture, wandered back to New Guinea and Australia and reproduced their heathen cultures as well - right after supposedly knowing about the big Flood event that had just wiped out everyone and their pet Tyrannosaurs for being so naughty.

Just beggars belief that adults can buy this stuff.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#112078 Mar 12, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
They didn't.
You must have your own very special version of Genesis then.

Here is another one.

Why would a God who knows the future before it happens, wipe out every living thing with the Flood...knowing that as soon as the Earth was repopulated, everyone would just get back to doing the same old sinful stupid junk they did before?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#112079 Mar 12, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you accept every point on talkorigins.org valid?
No. I haven't checked every point on talkorigins.

Science is a culture of doubt, not of belief or wholesale acceptance, ever. This is a whole approach to knowledge that seems to get lost on you literal biblical types.

Even the points I agree with, I had to consider whether they stacked up with other points I was already aware of, and with each other. Scientists are doing this all the time.

You on the other hand have bought into a culture of Faith, in which the opposite "virtue" reigns. You try to overcome doubt, you try to gloss over the evidential and rational shortcomings of your scripture and beliefs, and call it victory if you can maintain belief despite the abundance of inconsistencies that you label "Mysteries" and shove into a corner.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#112080 Mar 13, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh McDogen, you've done it yet again! From Talkorigins we have,
"Talk.origins is a Usenet newsgroup devoted to the discussion and debate of biological and physical origins. Most discussions in the newsgroup center on the creation/evolution controversy, but other topics of discussion include the origin of life, geology, biology, catastrophism, cosmology and theology."

So you are saying what I just said. I did word my response poorly and should have disclaimed that there is abiogenesis, etc information on the site. But they center on the evolution/creation "controversy".
KAB wrote:
<quoted text> What is the reasoning called which assumes a result in order to use it to explain how the result was obtained?

Creationism.
KAB wrote:
<quoted text> You assumed natural emergence of life in order to declare the chances of it happening were 100%.

Not at all. Abiogenesis could have been done by God. However, in examining how the natural world operates that is not my personal belief. However it is possible. It is a fact that whatever happened to me yesterday has a 100% chance of having happened when viewed from today.
KAB wrote:
<quoted text> BTW, I don't know what he's thinking, but Bob is sitting here drawing a circle in his notebook. Do you think that means something Doc?

His estimate of your I.Q. Rounded to the nearest hundred, of course.





Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. Any event in the past that occurred has a 100% chance of having occurred.
Any event the past that did not occur has a 0% chance of having occurred.
It is also actually impossible (at least at this time) to know what the odds actually should have been prior to the abiogenesis event.
Furthermore, and perhaps this is the most important issue, talkorigins deals with issues concerning evolution, not abiogenesis. So for the purposes of evolution it really does not matter if the first cell was poofed into existence by god. They are only concerned with what happened after that first cell appeared.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#112081 Mar 13, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You haven't overburdened me at all. You provided no data.

Why would I provide data when asking questions?


That is not the example YOU set.


So now, do you have any DATA to ANSWER my questions. Or are you just one big fake?[Evidence - your last 5,000 posts]

Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you notice that you are disingenuous in the absolute extreme?
Did you notice that DNA has been sequenced for many species now and they don't all show a 4,200 (or whatever) year bottleneck? For your story to be true 100% of all existing species should show a bottleneck at the exact same time 4,000+ years ago.
Did you also notice that civilizations did not stop suddenly at any time in the last 6,000 years? Not even for the CREATION event!!!
Did you notice you accept the flood as literal (putz) and not the 6,000 year old universe even though they are in the same book (though not by the same original authors).
I can go on and on, but you cannot respond to more than one issue at a time and I have already triple overburdened you.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#112082 Mar 13, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
They didn't.

No data
No consideration for your assertion.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#112083 Mar 13, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Data has already been provided repeatedly. This little gimmick of yours is getting tired - do you think you are fooling anyone but yourself?
There is data that should be there if there was NO FLOOD such as:
Haplotype diversity ruling out a human population bottleneck 5000 years ago. You have already been given sites for that.
The ice core data is easy enough for you to look up e.g.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore.html
I suggest you click and take a look. It won't hurt, promise.
Then there is data that should be there if there WAS A FLOOD such as:
Global sedimentary deposits. Geologists can identify a single Asteroid event 65 MILLION YEARS AGO by the existence ALL OVER THE WORLD of an iridium rich layer only a centimetre or two thick. So what do you think a global flood inundating the whole Earth less than 5000 years ago would have left behind????
Universal genetic bottlenecks. Not for a couple of species like a cheetah, but for every species, consistently. Why would cheetahs have a bottleneck but not the antelope right beside them??
You keep prattling about data, but are afraid to actually look at the data. You have already admitted you cannot offer supporting data. Therefore - No Flood, or the God Hid the Evidence Hypothesis.
Is that what you are going for?
God is out to deceive us?

But the verified reliable bible (sic) say it true.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#112084 Mar 13, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The following is a snippet from talkorigins.org FAQs,
Q: The odds against a simple cell coming into being without divine intervention are staggering.
A: And irrelevant.
Is it your scientific/mathematical understanding that the probability of something happening is irrelevant with regard to whether it happened or not?
If it has happened, it is irrelevant.
KAB

United States

#112085 Mar 13, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
What are the odds of winning the lottery?
What are the odds of being struck by lightning?
What are the odds of being eaten by a shark?
Luckily, those things NEVER happen, because the odds are so outrageously bad.
What are the odds of winning the lottery assuming you have infinite opportunities to play one ticket weekly and the lottery runs infinitely long?
The issue is not what a particular probability or its consequences are. It's the notion that probability is irrelevant to whether something takes place. How mathematically scientific is that?
KAB

United States

#112086 Mar 13, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
MAY not or MUST not?
What I stated.
KAB

United States

#112087 Mar 13, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Because there IS none.
No non-evidence for a non-flood.
Chimmney, Dogen, myself (and possibly others) have implored you several times to provide data for the SIMULTANEOUS DNA bottleneck of a number of species to suggest a global flood.
Keep in mind, ONE exception to this bottleneck wipe-out would negate your GLOBAL DECIMATION.
Your turn. It is YOUR TURN, YOUR ARGUMENT to provide data for a global flood.
Have at it.
In the past you have implored me to provide bottleneck data for all species, an unrealistic task. Now that your showing a possibility of reasonableness what's the new number short of all, and do I get to pick which ones to provide?

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#112088 Mar 13, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
They didn't.
So there is the first error for the list.

How is it that according to Genesis, birds appeared before land animals, when the fossil record indicates it was the other way around?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#112089 Mar 13, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The issue is not what a particular probability or its consequences are. It's the notion that probability is irrelevant to whether something takes place. How mathematically scientific is that?
Like I said, if you had INFINITE opportunities to play the lottery, one ticket a week, and the game went infinitely long, what are the odds that eventually you'd hit the jackpot, even if the odds were 1:1,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000? Please feel free to round up to the nearest whole integer.

And, the fact is, the argument is a canard, as nobody proposes a cell formed instantly. Well, except creationists. So, I agree, creationists are wrong.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#112090 Mar 13, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The issue is not what a particular probability or its consequences are. It's the notion that probability is irrelevant to whether something takes place. How mathematically scientific is that?

From the standpoint of evolution it is exactly irrelevant.

We know (for a fact) life exists.

We know (for a fact) that life evolves (changes over time).

So, regardless what the odds of life forming are..... for evolution they are moot.

Now, for natural abiogenesis it is more of an issue. Not as much as you might think, but a legitimate issue.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#112091 Mar 13, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
In the past you have implored me to provide bottleneck data for all species, an unrealistic task.


REALLY?! So when YOU are on the hook that task is unrealistic.

Let me jot that down and the post number.

Okay, got it.


[QUOTE who="KAB"]<quoted text> Now that your showing a possibility of reasonableness what's the new number short of all, and do I get to pick which ones to provide?

So, how about just showing a genetic bottleneck for humans. Just one species. Plenty of data available.

And GOOD NEWS. There IS a human bottleneck. More than one, in fact.

All you have to do is squirm around to make the data of about 70,000 years ago AND a resultant bottleneck of about 10,000 individuals fit into your schema of 4,300 and 6 individuals.


“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#112092 Mar 13, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Like I said, if you had INFINITE opportunities to play the lottery, one ticket a week, and the game went infinitely long, what are the odds that eventually you'd hit the jackpot, even if the odds were 1:1,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000? Please feel free to round up to the nearest whole integer.
And, the fact is, the argument is a canard, as nobody proposes a cell formed instantly. Well, except creationists. So, I agree, creationists are wrong.

And only the lottery winners are going to be having the discussion of what the odds are. The other 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9 losers will still be inert matter.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#112093 Mar 13, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The issue is not what a particular probability or its consequences are. It's the notion that probability is irrelevant to whether something takes place. How mathematically scientific is that?
That is the only scientifically acceptable approach, probability is not a factor in if something happened, it's only a factor in if something could happen ... you know ... like in the future.
KAB

United States

#112094 Mar 14, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Data has already been provided repeatedly. This little gimmick of yours is getting tired - do you think you are fooling anyone but yourself?
There is data that should be there if there was NO FLOOD such as:
Haplotype diversity ruling out a human population bottleneck 5000 years ago. You have already been given sites for that.
The ice core data is easy enough for you to look up e.g.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore.html
I suggest you click and take a look. It won't hurt, promise.
Then there is data that should be there if there WAS A FLOOD such as:
Global sedimentary deposits. Geologists can identify a single Asteroid event 65 MILLION YEARS AGO by the existence ALL OVER THE WORLD of an iridium rich layer only a centimetre or two thick. So what do you think a global flood inundating the whole Earth less than 5000 years ago would have left behind????
Universal genetic bottlenecks. Not for a couple of species like a cheetah, but for every species, consistently. Why would cheetahs have a bottleneck but not the antelope right beside them??
You keep prattling about data, but are afraid to actually look at the data. You have already admitted you cannot offer supporting data. Therefore - No Flood, or the God Hid the Evidence Hypothesis.
Is that what you are going for?
God is out to deceive us?
It may just be that we're deceiving ourselves. Note the obvious layering within yearly intervals in this thesis,

http://thesis.library.caltech.edu/1068/1/Bens...
KAB

United States

#112095 Mar 14, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it raises two issues.
1. If it did happen, it must have happened in smaller steps. NO BIOLOGIST believes that a simple cell could just poof into existence in one massively unlikely step. However, the building blocks of a simple cell - RNA, lipid mirospheres, amino acids and polypeptide chains, etc, have been shown to emerge naturally under the right conditions.
2. If you proved natural Abiogenesis to be impossible tomorrow Evolution would still stand. That is why its nothing more than a big fat red herring. As the site says: irrelevant.
The building blocks have been identified/understood, and natural processes can generate life but man's intelligent processes haven't managed it yet?

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
Beauty is the Lord's Golden Section 1 hr Rose_NoHo 7
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 hr Samuel Patre 94,391
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 4 hr Prince of Darkness 6,001
Why the Big Bang is ALL WRONG. 5 hr Rose_NoHo 305
Altruistic Behaviour negates the theory of Evol... Fri 15th Dalai Lama 29
Evolutionists are now called.. 'BUBBLE PEOPLE' Fri Rose_NoHo 44
Evolution is an ANCIENT RELIGION Fri Davidjayjordan 5