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

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

There are 154703 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

United States

#112111 Mar 14, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Talkorigins position was stated with regard to origin of life.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112112 Mar 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You just acknowledged the possibility that life is not the product of natural processes. So. the probability of it arising naturally can't be 100%, even after the fact, can it? Mathematicians and scientists understand this quite well. Even creationist scientists understand it. In the interest of propagating truth, will you join the crowd and acknowledge it?

Ah, the old bait and switch combined with the moving of the goal posts. Sorry buddy, but you don't get off this easy.

If you want to start a new subject you need to acknowledge the possibility of life arising is 100%.

Given that you are honest enough to do that we can move on to the secondary issue of if abiogeneisis is the result of natural means or the result of an activist demurge. Of course an OMNIPOTANT creator could build all this into a universe when he created it. Your sock puppet god seems to be making up things as he goes along. Not exactly the way omnipotantent/omniscient would work, eh?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112113 Mar 14, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
That we have not replicated natural abiogenesis in a mere 200 years of scientific inquiry with limited resources, while nature had (comparatively) infinite resources and time is hardly a surprise. It's remarkable how much we DO understand about it, though, and how the various components of self-replicating RNA could come about without a cell to produce them. We don't pretend that what we know is meaningless because reality is beholden to the strictures laid out in a book of ancient folk tales and legends. Why you do that...well, we know that, too. You won't admit it, but you're far easier to read than you think.

Not to mention we have not specifically TRIED to replicate abiogenesis, yet. At least not that I have heard of.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112114 Mar 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Questions don't necessarily put a burden on me. Data does (my standard for myself). Your questions didn't request any data. My answers are No, No, No, and No.

For No #2, No #3, and No #4 I have to ask "are you living under a cult induced rock"?

The obvious answers are Yes, Yes, and Yes (respectively).

Those are the answers supported by science and history. If you want to continue living in a fantasy you are more than welcome to do so, but you do so sans data (as per typical).



Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
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.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112115 Mar 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The sun was created "In the beginning" before plants (Gen. 1:1).

No data
No consideration for your assertion.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112116 Mar 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
If there's more than one way for something to have happened, then after the fact, it is not irrelevant what the probabilities for each were before the fact.

That was not the issue we were discussing. This is still moving the goal posts.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112117 Mar 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
They didn't. You must be reading that in an overly restrictive English version. Check the word meaning in the original Hebrew.

YLT renders the verses in question as:

20 And God saith,`Let the waters teem with the teeming living creature, and fowl let fly on the earth on the face of the expanse of the heavens.'

21 And God prepareth the great monsters, and every living creature that is creeping, which the waters have teemed with, after their kind, and every fowl with wing, after its kind, and God seeth that [it is] good.

22 And God blesseth them, saying,`Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and the fowl let multiply in the earth:'

The OJB (orthodox Jewish Bible) Gives it as:

20 And Elohim said, Let the waters bring forth an abundance of living creatures, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open raki’a of heaven.

21 And Elohim created great sea creatures, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth in abundance, after their kind, and every winged fowl after its kind; and Elohim saw that it was tov.

22 And Elohim blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

The NASB provides the following
20 Then God said,“Let the waters [ad]teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth [ae]in the open [af]expanse of the heavens.” 21 God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them, saying,“Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.”

And Darby translates

20 And God said, Let the waters swarm with swarms of living souls, and let fowl fly above the earth in the expanse of the heavens.

21 And God created the great sea monsters, and every living soul that moves with which the waters swarm, after their kind, and every winged fowl after its kind. And God saw that it was good.

22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply on the earth.

Those are 3 of the most literal translations available (plus the NASB).

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112118 Mar 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I allowed for a living cell not forming instantly. Are you allowing for the probabilities of negative influences negating/destroying what the probabilities of steps toward life were generating? What does that probability balance do spread over "infinity", or maybe just a billion years or so?

The steps toward life were chemical in nature. True there are things that break down complex biochemicals, but the tendency for molecules to combine is a fairly certain path.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112119 Mar 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Talkorigins position was stated with regard to origin of life.

So?


Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
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.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#112120 Mar 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
If there's more than one way for something to have happened, then after the fact, it is not irrelevant what the probabilities for each were before the fact.
Then explain how you think it happened? Remember, we're looking for scientific explanations, not assertions, and we're looking for the "how," we don't care one bit about the "who."

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#112121 Mar 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The building blocks have been identified/understood, and natural processes can generate life but man's intelligent processes haven't managed it yet?
Not quite.

Tell, me what has religion identified, understood or managed about how your deity did it?

Apart from "He said 'POOF!'", I mean.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#112122 Mar 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
He didn't wipe out every living thing, most significantly humans. He had something to be accomplished (Gen. 3:15), and apparently wanted a relatively clean start. BTW, in case you haven't heard, it's scheduled for another "wipe-out" of sorts as we approach "mission accomplished" (Dan. 2:44).
So, he screwed up from the outset, and took a Mulligan.

How come he didn't see that coming?

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#112123 Mar 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't subscribe to the "Mysteries" approach. I seek "believable story" guided and bounded by what is confirmed (i.e., truth).
ROFL

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#112124 Mar 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Questions don't necessarily put a burden on me. Data does (my standard for myself). Your questions didn't request any data. My answers are No, No, No, and No.
You maintain a supernatural cause of abiogenesis.

I request data.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#112125 Mar 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The sun was created "In the beginning" before plants (Gen. 1:1).
No.

That was Genesis 1:3 "Let there be light."

And it wasn't the Sun - that didn't come along until 1:16:
"And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also."

Or, wait, are you still using some Bootleg Bible?

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#112126 Mar 14, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I love it when funnymentalists mythinterpret the bible.
That's another fine myth they've got themselves into.

Hehehe.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#112127 Mar 14, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I know I've done this before, but you don't seem to remember. Let's start with how the bottleneck timing is determined. Do you know?

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#112128 Mar 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
They didn't. You must be reading that in an overly restrictive English version. Check the word meaning in the original Hebrew.
Oh, Really? Then the NWT is -gasp- not a demonstrable reliable source?! Gen 1:20 day 5. birds, fish, sea monsters, etc. Gen 1:24 day 6. land animals.

Then it counts double. We agree the order is wrong and you contend that the NWT English translation is wrong. Three to nuthin'. Shall we continue? This can go on for a verrry long time.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#112129 Mar 14, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
If you're trying to determine which of multiple possible explanations is responsible for an observed outcome, which we are, then probability is most certainly involved.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#112130 Mar 14, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
First, again, humans have created life, denying it doesn't change that fact. Playing dishonest word games doesn't change that fact.
Second, you are comparing chemical reactions to human intelligence, at least you stopped using the term "created," finally. You need to learn a lot about biology before you could possibly understand why your post is a fallacy.
What? No data for humans creating life?

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) 3 min Aura Mytha 216,739
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 25 min One way or another 48,580
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 8 hr karl44 23,504
Richard Dawkins tells the truth 17 hr Timmee 9
Science News (Sep '13) 23 hr _Susan_ 3,985
Might life have spontaneously have started mill... Sun The Northener 642
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) Dec 3 Aura Mytha 179,707
More from around the web