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 5,504)

Showing posts 110,061 - 110,080 of133,995
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
KAB

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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?
KAB

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#112131
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.
Have you noticed that we haven't even generated life intelligently yet? Do you think we dare demonstrate that life can be intelligently generated? That'a a scary thought isn't it?

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#112132
Mar 14, 2013
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The sun was created "In the beginning" before plants (Gen. 1:1).
Not according to your NWT.
Light was created Gen 1:3
Day was created Gen 1:4
Plants were created Gen 1:11
The sun wasn't created until Gen 1:16
Plus, one can extrapolate that the moon, stars, other planets, galaxies, etc. were also created at that same time.

CM wrote:
How is it that plants (Devonian, no less) appeared before the sun was created?
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>They didn't.
You already admitted a strike on that pitch, KAB. No mulligans, no backsies. Obviously plants would not appear before the sun did - in a demonstrably reliable source.
KAB

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#112133
Mar 14, 2013
 
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
For example God, needing to protect man from god, gets born as a man so he can kill himself as a sacrifice to god to atone for mans sins against god.
Believable and confirmed,.... right?
OR, here is another believable and confirmed story.
God, having nothing better to do, decides to poof a universe into existence, but,... and get this, he poofs one little speck into existence and that takes him a day. Poofing the star for that to revolve around takes a day. It takes him several more days to poof life forms into existence. Then, in one day he poofs the rest of the universe into existence.
Then.... THE FLOOD!
Sorry, the bible as literalism is one of the stupidest ideas in the history of mankind, exceeded in dumbness only by the idea of global thermonuclear war.
Your stories, not the Bible's.
KAB

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#112134
Mar 14, 2013
 
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Regarding bait and switch, who just dropped "natural" out of their challenge?
KAB

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#112135
Mar 14, 2013
 
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Which brings us back to my original point that you provided no data, so I am unburdened.
KAB

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#112136
Mar 14, 2013
 
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
That was not the issue we were discussing. This is still moving the goal posts.
I could be wrong, but here's where I think this is headed.
I ask what we were discussing, indeed what? You will give an answer. Then I will go back and get the post (data) confirming the correct answer. Deja Vu all over again!
KAB

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#112137
Mar 14, 2013
 
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
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).
What is the full range of possible meaning of the original Hebrew, and which of your 3 chosen versions captures it?
KAB

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#112138
Mar 14, 2013
 
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
The tendency to break down is also certain. Have you noticed how even living things struggle to keep living?
LowellGuy

Lawrence, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#112139
Mar 14, 2013
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you noticed that we haven't even generated life intelligently yet? Do you think we dare demonstrate that life can be intelligently generated? That'a a scary thought isn't it?
The implication, of course, being that if we have not done X by now, X is impossible, therefore God did it with magic.

The same argument was posited against heavier-than-air flight by man until it was achieved. Excuse us all if we don't prostrate ourselves at the altar of your logical fallacies.
KAB

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#112140
Mar 14, 2013
 
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
You don't seem to know where this began. The issue was the reliability of Talkorigins. They were shown incorrect in their position on the relevance of probability to the natural generation of life.
LowellGuy

Lawrence, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#112141
Mar 14, 2013
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The tendency to break down is also certain. Have you noticed how even living things struggle to keep living?
Chemicals combine, though. Even the death process is nothing more than chemical reactions. Chemicals combining in various ways. Perhaps you need to define "break down."
KAB

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#112142
Mar 14, 2013
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
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."
Appropriate elements of the earth were brought together in appropriate proportions, combined physically and chemically, and jump started.
KAB

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#112143
Mar 14, 2013
 
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Not quite.
Tell, me what has religion identified, understood or managed about how your deity did it?
Apart from "He said 'POOF!'", I mean.
I don't defend religion unless you're referring directly to the Bible. Hey, even the Bible condemns religion as it is generally known/practiced (Revelation 18:4-8). The Bible only condones religion fully in harmony with truth.
KAB

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#112144
Mar 14, 2013
 
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>So, he screwed up from the outset, and took a Mulligan.
How come he didn't see that coming?
If you read the book carefully enough and without religion telling you what to think as you did so, you would understand and wouldn't be asking the question. Let me know when you're ready to undertake that effort, and I can provide any assistance you may need (Acts 8:26-31).
KAB

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#112145
Mar 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>You maintain a supernatural cause of abiogenesis.
I request data.
I only have a demonstrated reliable source which documents it and lack of confirmation it happened otherwise.
KAB

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#112146
Mar 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>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?
You apparently missed the earlier lessons. "Made" of 1:16 is not the same as "created" of 1:1. The answer to 1:3 stems from recognizing what the focus of the activity of Genesis one is after the first verse.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 110,061 - 110,080 of133,995
|
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.

•••
•••