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 5,506)

Showing posts 110,101 - 110,120 of127,192
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#112152
Mar 15, 2013
 
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>That's a big claim.
Show me.

He's got nothin'.
KAB

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#112158
Mar 15, 2013
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
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.

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.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#112159
Mar 15, 2013
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
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?

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 am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#112160
Mar 15, 2013
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
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.

But heavier than air flight has occurred.
Evidence:
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

And abiogenesis has occurred.
Evidence:
Look in your mirror

If abiogenesis has not occurred then how do you explain yourself in the mirror?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#112161
Mar 15, 2013
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
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?

You are really starting to master the non-sequitur fallacy.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#112162
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.

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?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#112163
Mar 15, 2013
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
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.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#112164
Mar 15, 2013
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
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.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#112165
Mar 15, 2013
 
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
He's got nothin'.
I know.

Hehehe.
KAB

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#112166
Mar 15, 2013
 
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
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...
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)."
KAB

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#112167
Mar 15, 2013
 
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
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.
KAB

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 110,101 - 110,120 of127,192
|
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.

7 Users are viewing the Evolution Debate Forum right now

Search the Evolution Debate Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 5 min Chimney1 168,599
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 14 min Tinka 106,053
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 6 hr Bob of Quantum-Faith 13,494
Kevin Wingate: ID should be included in science... Apr 17 llDayo 5
Science News (Sep '13) Apr 17 Ricky F 2,671
Science News NOT related to evolution (Jul '09) Apr 16 MikeF 1,236
Posting for Points in the Evolution Forum (Oct '11) Apr 15 ChristineM 13,936
•••
•••
•••
•••