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

There are 141337 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

Oxford, NC

#112168 Mar 15, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Then relate your rendering, point-by-point to all the relevant passages of what the thing actually says. Make it easy on yourself. Just do one point to get started.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#112169 Mar 15, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You changed horses midstream. Observation and observed outcome are not the same. As you note, probability of a given outcome may be determined by observation. Once the probabilities are determined, they tell us what the relative likelihood is of each possible cause being responsible for that observed outcome.
And what is the statistical likelihood of God being the cause of, or explanation for, anything? Round to the nearest thousand, if necessary.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#112170 Mar 15, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>That's a big claim.
Show me.
As for the lack of confirmation, I can't show you what I don't have, can I? As to the demonstrated reliable source, I don't have any data convicting it of error. That's all I have to show.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#112171 Mar 15, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, the NWT makes for semi-literate fiction. You might want to consider a real bible that was translated by experts who did their homework and not by a bunch of hicks that could not tell Hebrew from Latin to save their own lives.
So you have no data?
KAB

Oxford, NC

#112172 Mar 15, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean your little fairy tale? You know you can rationalize ANYTHING with that sort of "logic".
But you real problems with Gen 1 is:
1. It conflicts with Gen 2
2. It defines day.
3. It is incorrect vs. scientific facts. Oh yea, that is what this is about.
I notice you didn't provide data for any one of your assertions. Why is that do you think?
KAB

Oxford, NC

#112173 Mar 15, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
But heavier than air flight has occurred.
Evidence:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =yrI9ylHJN0YXX
And abiogenesis has occurred.
Evidence:
Look in your mirror
If abiogenesis has not occurred then how do you explain yourself in the mirror?
You get lost so easily. Have you been taking lessons from Kitten? The question under consideration is how abiogenesis occurred.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#112174 Mar 15, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
As for the lack of confirmation, I can't show you what I don't have, can I? As to the demonstrated reliable source, I don't have any data convicting it of error. That's all I have to show.
Failure to disprove is not adequate. Confirmation is what is needed. You have not confirmed its reliability. Your repeated claims that every failure to disprove it actually proves it is horseshit. That's not how logic works. You don't get to make up your own version of reality where delusions and logical fallacies win out over empirical evidence and reason.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#112175 Mar 15, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
You are really starting to master the non-sequitur fallacy.
I'm not purporting to prove anything. I'm just trying to stimulate powers of observation and attentiveness to the realities of the physical world around us.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#112176 Mar 15, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
You write:
"and a 6,000 year old creation is apparently the way you choose to understand it."

How do YOU understand it??

Does 200,000 years ago fit into your book and your understanding??
KAB

Oxford, NC

#112177 Mar 15, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
So why are you agreeing? The original language is something you would know little about. But that little is still more than most of the NWT "translators" (falsely so called) knew.
Since they were frauds, does that not make their "translation" (actually stolen and altered work of others) fraudulent?
Or do you have a rationalization about the NWT translators as well.
A modern day miracle, perhaps?
Thanks for the non-sequitur example.
Preferring the objective scientific approach, I evaluate the results on their own merits.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#112178 Mar 15, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
The only problem is that us having never observed something that didn't require us to occur (as man creating a flying machine that was heavier than air would have) is in no way evidence that it never occurred. We never observed an asteroid as big as the KT asteroid hitting the Earth. We don't assume, because of that, that it never happened. But, beyond that, we know that life exists on Earth. We know that at some point in the past life did not exist on Earth. Life began at some point on Earth. There is no evidence of anything "supernatural," which is why it is not used as an explanation. Therefore, life is presumed to have begun via naturalistic means. As life is nothing more than a particular series of chemical reactions, naturalistic abiogenesis is necessarily understood to have been a chemical process. That chemicals combine is understood to be true. All of the components of self-replicating RNA can occur naturally without a cell to produce them. If self-replicating RNA can occur naturally outside a cell, and that RNA becomes enveloped in a phospholipid layer (phospholipids are known to envelope things), we have the precursor to cellular life. Which of these things is impossible? Which of these things, given the chemical resources on Earth 3 billion years ago, could not occur? If it's statistically improbable for life to occur, with how many possible attempts does the statistically improbable become statistically inevitable? What would prevent Earth from having that many possible attempts?
When you answer those questions, you will begin to have a point. Or, you will begin to leave creationism behind. As both of those are against your religious beliefs (beyond the "point" being to merely jack yourself off), I expect you will not answer them.
Now factor in the overwhelming probability of natural processes to tear down.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#112179 Mar 15, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Science doesn't use hints. Science uses definitions. Either define the term "breaking down" or admit you have no idea what you're referring to and are simply using intentionally ambiguous loaded language to get other people to say things that you can try to deny.
To "break down" is to render into a lower state of complexity, decompose. Like what naturally happens to your car's dash.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#112180 Mar 15, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
And what is the statistical likelihood of God being the cause of, or explanation for, anything? Round to the nearest thousand, if necessary.
Certainty is 100%(i.e., doesn't go into the thousands). However, as a technicality it would be zero if rounded to the nearest thousand.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#112181 Mar 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Then relate your rendering, point-by-point to all the relevant passages of what the thing actually says. Make it easy on yourself. Just do one point to get started.
WTF are you failing to say?

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#112182 Mar 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
As for the lack of confirmation, I can't show you what I don't have, can I? As to the demonstrated reliable source, I don't have any data convicting it of error. That's all I have to show.
Wrong.

You don't have any data demonstrating its reliability - and that's what you in fact need.

There's plenty of evidence to the contrary.

Or do you still think that sprinkling avian blood about the place will somehow cure leprosy?

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#112183 Mar 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
As for the lack of confirmation, I can't show you what I don't have, can I? As to the demonstrated reliable source, I don't have any data convicting it of error. That's all I have to show.
So when your deity went looking for Adam and Eve in the Garden, he was lying about not knowing where they were?

Or he really didn't know?

Come on. Your deity's an obvious fraud.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#112184 Mar 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
So you have no data?
You claim a supernatural origin for the Universe.

Data, please.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#112185 Mar 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You get lost so easily. Have you been taking lessons from Kitten? The question under consideration is how abiogenesis occurred.
Beats the sh!t outta me.

Whadda you got?

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#112186 Mar 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
To "break down" is to render into a lower state of complexity, decompose. Like what naturally happens to your car's dash.
I think you misunderstand "entropy".

It's kinda on the upswing.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112187 Mar 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
This is a logical reasoning test. What's wrong with the following statement from your reference?
"Research on many genes finds different coalescence points from 2 million years ago to 60,000 years ago when different genes are considered, thus disproving the existence of more recent extreme bottlenecks (i.e., a single breeding pair)."

There is nothing wrong with the quote.

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) 38 min UncommonSense2015 163,815
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 1 hr UncommonSense2015 178,616
has science finally debunked the 'god' myth? 10 hr UncommonSense2015 10
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) Sun Chimney1 1,871
How can we prove God exists, or does not? Sat Kong_ 80
News British Ban Teaching Creationism As Science, Sh... (Jul '14) Sat Swedenforever 159
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) May 19 Kathleen 19,031
More from around the web