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

#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

Lowell, MA

#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

#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

Lowell, MA

#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

#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

#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

#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

#112145 Mar 14, 2013
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

#112146 Mar 14, 2013
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.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Twin Cities

#112147 Mar 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I only have a demonstrated reliable source which documents it and lack of confirmation it happened otherwise.
Are you saying that the Genesis chapter of the Old Testament is reliable?

The same book that says our universe, our world, everything in it, and Adam and Eve were created about 6,000+- years ago?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112148 Mar 15, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
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?

In other words you don't remember and want me to do the work for you.

Fine. Read this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bottl...

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112149 Mar 15, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
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.

Probability is determined by observation or (in the case of purely randoms events) by math.

Since we don't know all the variables (or even most of them) or even know that all the variables might be then we cannot use probability to determine a solution (2 semesters of graduate level probability and statistics here).

In other words you have it backward, observed outcome determines the probability, not the other way around.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#112150 Mar 15, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
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).
I've carefully read what the thing actually says, and without ANYONE telling me what it really meant to say.

The deity obviously didn't know what he was doing.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#112151 Mar 15, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I only have a demonstrated reliable source which documents it and lack of confirmation it happened otherwise.
That's a big claim.

Show me.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112152 Mar 15, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>That's a big claim.
Show me.

He's got nothin'.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#112153 Mar 15, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
It's not clear to me from your post if you think the NWT uses the word "birds" in Gen. 1:20. If you do, you are mistaken.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#112154 Mar 15, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
<quoted text>
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.
What you outline is one way of understanding the statements in Genesis, but since it's at odds with available physical data, why go there when it isn't necessary? Is it to make the Bible appear to be in error? Since there is a legitimate alternative understanding which harmonizes with the physical data, why not adopt it?
KAB

Oxford, NC

#112155 Mar 15, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
No such implication, just an observation of fact that abiogenesis has not been observed occurring thru any means. The same as observing that before heavier than air flight by man occurred, it hadn't.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#112156 Mar 15, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
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."
Ecclesiastes 3:20, more of a hint than a definition. BTW, have you ever noticed how the dash in your car gets more vibrant, softer, and more pliable over time? Me neither. Do you know why that is?
KAB

Oxford, NC

#112157 Mar 15, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you saying that the Genesis chapter of the Old Testament is reliable?
The same book that says our universe, our world, everything in it, and Adam and Eve were created about 6,000+- years ago?
Yes I am, and a 6,000 year old creation is apparently the way you choose to understand it. The original language does not require that understanding.

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) 30 min cody 141,582
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr Kong_ 14,372
Ten Reason Why Evolution Is a Lie (Jul '09) 3 hr CallumJenner 1,953
Why Are There No Transitional Animals Today? (Mar '09) 16 hr TurkanaBoy 763
The conditions necessary for homo sapiens to sp... Fri Gillette 2
Last ditch bid to ban creationism in Scottish c... Jan 22 TurkanaBoy 2
Exposing the impotence of the Neo-Darwinian theory Jan 21 jogos friv 2 10
More from around the web