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

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

There are 151492 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

Wilson, NC

#112249 Mar 16, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, there's your argument in a nutshell, isn't it? When Genesis is at odds with the available physical data, why go there? You prefer to simply fall back on Heb 11:1 and make it unseen - and that way the Bible only "appears" to be in error...?
MIND YOUR 9TH COMMANDMENT, KAB.
Your argument, not mine. Genesis is not at odds with physical data. Poor choice of translation makes it appear to be at odds.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#112250 Mar 16, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
So....it seems we have established that mankind first showed up on earth around 200,000 years ago thereby totally destroying the Biblical story of Adam and Eve as written in the Bible.
Any nays to record here???
What was the confirming data for that? Short of that I must respectfully remain a nay.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#112251 Mar 16, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Depends on what you are comparing the complexity to, as well as what you are defining as "complex." You do know that complex is a relative and subjective term, correct?
Which is more complex? The iPhone or the desktop IBM clone computer?
Dare you to try to answer that.
Yes I do know complexity is relative. Therefore, relative to the relative complexity of the two products, relative to what?
KAB

Wilson, NC

#112252 Mar 16, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Not really. Your failures have never been disproved.
Anyhoot, a confirmed reliable source should not be self contradictory, for example it should not retell the same story in two consecutive chapters and have them conflict.
A confirmed reliable source should not disagree with science.
A confirmed reliable source should match known history.
A confirmed reliable source should not have simple math errors.
A confirmed reliable source should be verifiable.
A confirmed reliable source should be testable.
A confirmed reliable source should be CONFIRMED TO BE RELIABLE.
A confirmed reliable source should be translated by the best trained professionals and re-verified to be confirmed reliable in the new language.
A confirmed reliable source should not be hacked from stolen sources by a bunch of guys who don't even know the source languages and have an agenda they are trying to support.
Copies of a confirmed reliable source should be verified against the original.
Ideally a confirmed reliable source should have known authorship.
A confirmed reliable source should be source to objectivity not opinion and bias.
Good luck finding one.
Why aren't you providing specific points of confirmed conflict between the two chapters? Such failure to perform is indicative of inability.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#112253 Mar 16, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
You were the one who just quoted the 6000 figure.
But researchers (plural) have looked at a, admittedly unconfirmed and unreliable, source and calculated that the universe came into being in around 4,000 b.c.
Based on that, admittedly unconfirmed and unreliable, source
The following appears to be the quote to which you refer,

"and a 6,000 year old creation is apparently the way you choose to understand it."

Note it is me making a statement about someone else's position regarding a 6,000 year old creation. It is not a statement of my position.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#112254 Mar 16, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
That it's authors are who the document claims they are.
That it was written at the time the document says it was written.
That the document was written by objective persons who witnessed the events they describe.
That the document be internally consistent (internal validity).
That the document be externally consistent (external validity).
That the document be measured or calibrate against a known standard or against itself (Criterion validity).
That the document be consistent with other sources documenting the same events (Concurrent validity).
That the document make accurate predictions (predictive validity).
That the document be logical or rational (Content validity).
That the document measure up to its claims (Construct validity).
That things the document claims are related are actually related (Convergent validity).
That things that the document claims are unrelated are actually unrelated (Discriminant validity).
That is a start. After that we can check for:
Face Validity
Definition of Reliability
Test–Retest Reliability
Reproducibility
Replication Study
Interrater Reliability
Internal Consistency Reliability
Where shall we begin?

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#112255 Mar 16, 2013
“(Barbara Bradley )Hagerty (of NPR) asked Dennis Venema, a professor of biology at Trinity Western University, if all humans descended from Adam and Eve.“That would be against all the genomics evidence that we’ve assembled over the last 20 years, so not likely at all,” Venema said. He explained that there is simply too much genetic diversity among human beings than would be possible with an original reproducing pair. Venema affirmed the standard evolutionary line of argument and explained that, in Hagerty’s words,“modern humans emerged from other primates as a large population - long before the Genesis time frame of a few thousand years ago.”
http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm...

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#112256 Mar 17, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
An ever growing list of failures to disprove is very helpful, don't you think? How do you propose confirming that a document is reliable? I for one am hoping evidence and reason win!
You demonstrate accuracy by presenting positive evidence. We don't convict someone based on their inability to prove themselves innocent, yet your logic would require exactly that. You begin with a premise (the Bible is important and true), look for reasons to accept it (some stuff in the Bible has been proven true), and then dismiss all reasons to not accept it (if it appears contradictory, we just don't know well enough to accept that contradiction as conclusive). Then, you try to suppose that as long as nobody can prove anything in it wrong (by your own unrealistic and intellectually dishonest standards), that demonstrates that it's true. Well, that's not how it works.

I make claim X. If you can't disprove it, and nobody can disprove it, does that make it true? What if someone has determined me, using your ADMITTEDLY SUBJECTIVE STANDARD, to be a reliable source, and I make claim X? If you can't disprove it, and nobody can disprove it, is it true then? No. That doesn't demonstrate that it's true, either.

The only thing that demonstrates that claim X is true is empirical evidence that claim X is true. Not "but SO-AND-SO said it!" That is evidence for children who still think that mom and dad have all the answers and know everything. Maybe you haven't gotten past that intellectual stage, but most of us have. Maybe, someday, you'll graduate to that level. Won't that just be neato? Yeah, it will, if it ever happens. But, you're dead-set against learning or intellectual growth, so I'm not holding my breath for that to happen.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#112257 Mar 17, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's your question,
"And what is the statistical likelihood of God being the cause of, or explanation for, anything? Round to the nearest thousand, if necessary."
Here's my work,
The highest probability for anything is 100%. Since this is only one tenth of 1,000, rounding any likelihood, from zero to 100%, to the nearest thousand will always be zero.
I misunderstood your answer's wording. My point in suggesting you round to the nearest thousand is that you'd present the likelihood as a ratio rather than a percentage. 1:X, not X%. As a percentage OR as a ratio, what is the statistical likelihood that God is the actual cause of, or explanation for, anything?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#112258 Mar 17, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Your argument, not mine. Genesis is not at odds with physical data. Poor choice of translation makes it appear to be at odds.
Flowering plants BEFORE animal life. At odds with physical data.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112259 Mar 17, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I haven't seen any JW statements from you regarding how the NWT was produced. I've cautioned you before that the info you get may not pass the sniff test if you don't go to the horse's mouth.

Who said they were JW statements? They were honest and real quotes by professionals. That would disqualify it from being JW statements.

Why would I quote a cult that is known for being a bunch of chronic liers?

I gave you the references and the links. I am not the one being duped by a cult. It is your responsibility to save yourself.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112260 Mar 17, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I hadn't considered how much more complex Everest gets as it grows, but then I think the Marianas Trench is rather impressive too. On a localized basis near the end of WWII, didn't Hiroshima briefly become a rather significant energy positive system? On the other hand, over a much longer time period and under intelligent influence it had been built up from nothing to a substantial city also as an energy positive system. Energy positive is like a box of chocolates. Knowing the probabilities involved, you only know statistically what you're going to get over the long haul.

You have nothing left except word games? I am feeling pretty good right now.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112261 Mar 17, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Then by that criteria a-lot of the Bible is untrue, and ESPECIALLY the Gospels. Well, I agreed with Dr. Ehrman years ago with his claim that the actual authors of the Gospels were unknown.
Counterfeit Gospels....wow

While Ehrman (et al) are right that the gospels were not written by the people they were named for, the standards back then were different. If you had a message and wanted it to be read you did not title it the gospel according to John Doe.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112262 Mar 17, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's your question,
"And what is the statistical likelihood of God being the cause of, or explanation for, anything? Round to the nearest thousand, if necessary."
Here's my work,
The highest probability for anything is 100%. Since this is only one tenth of 1,000, rounding any likelihood, from zero to 100%, to the nearest thousand will always be zero.

chickenfeces.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112263 Mar 17, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Your argument, not mine. Genesis is not at odds with physical data. Poor choice of translation makes it appear to be at odds.

I am afraid that it is. At every turn, no less.

Not bad for nomadic sheep herders, however.

Not taken literally it is great source of spiritual metaphors. Forced into the box of literalism nothing but the words can fit.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112264 Mar 17, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
What was the confirming data for that? Short of that I must respectfully remain a nay.

Isn't is sad that your cult forces you to be an intentional dolt?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112265 Mar 17, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes I do know complexity is relative. Therefore, relative to the relative complexity of the two products, relative to what?

Enough said.

So you don't believe in "absolute complexity" like the ID'ers and creationists do. That is fine. So if you use the word in the future we can expect you to state what specific items you are relating relative complexity to.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112266 Mar 17, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Why aren't you providing specific points of confirmed conflict between the two chapters? Such failure to perform is indicative of inability.

What are YOU talking about. You did not ask about any two chapters in the post I replied to.




Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Not really. Your failures have never been disproved.
Anyhoot, a confirmed reliable source should not be self contradictory, for example it should not retell the same story in two consecutive chapters and have them conflict.
A confirmed reliable source should not disagree with science.
A confirmed reliable source should match known history.
A confirmed reliable source should not have simple math errors.
A confirmed reliable source should be verifiable.
A confirmed reliable source should be testable.
A confirmed reliable source should be CONFIRMED TO BE RELIABLE.
A confirmed reliable source should be translated by the best trained professionals and re-verified to be confirmed reliable in the new language.
A confirmed reliable source should not be hacked from stolen sources by a bunch of guys who don't even know the source languages and have an agenda they are trying to support.
Copies of a confirmed reliable source should be verified against the original.
Ideally a confirmed reliable source should have known authorship.
A confirmed reliable source should be source to objectivity not opinion and bias.
Good luck finding one.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112267 Mar 17, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The following appears to be the quote to which you refer,
"and a 6,000 year old creation is apparently the way you choose to understand it."
Note it is me making a statement about someone else's position regarding a 6,000 year old creation. It is not a statement of my position.
QUOTE THE ENTIRE POST, COWARD!

FETCH!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112268 Mar 17, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Where shall we begin?



Reply »
|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#112254
8 hrs ago

Wherever you like!

I always begin at the beginning. Force of habit.


Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
That it's authors are who the document claims they are.
That it was written at the time the document says it was written.
That the document was written by objective persons who witnessed the events they describe.
That the document be internally consistent (internal validity).
That the document be externally consistent (external validity).
That the document be measured or calibrate against a known standard or against itself (Criterion validity).
That the document be consistent with other sources documenting the same events (Concurrent validity).
That the document make accurate predictions (predictive validity).
That the document be logical or rational (Content validity).
That the document measure up to its claims (Construct validity).
That things the document claims are related are actually related (Convergent validity).
That things that the document claims are unrelated are actually unrelated (Discriminant validity).
That is a start. After that we can check for:
Face Validity
Definition of Reliability
Test–Retest Reliability
Reproducibility
Replication Study
Interrater Reliability
Internal Consistency Reliability

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 11 min It aint necessari... 43,349
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 18 min Orbit 205,262
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 24 min ChristineM 919
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 28 min ChristineM 18,651
Questions about first life Sun Upright Scientist 18
Carbon and isotopic dating are a lie Sat One way or another 16
evolution is correct. prove me wrong (Jul '15) Sat FallenGeologist 35
More from around the web