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

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

There are 151388 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

United States

#113199 Apr 1, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
I suspect that voice in your head quotes the Watchtower. A lot. so is it truly "your" voice?
Bluntly, no. I don't think you ever have said the voice in your head is your own and I'm certainly not sure you believe it or would tell the truth either way.
How many unsolicited Watchtower quotes have I provided in over two years?
KAB

United States

#113200 Apr 1, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
"...before da flud?"
Have you considered the MASSIVE erosion that would have occurred as a minimum of 10,000 feet of water drained from the mainlands?
Have you CONSIDERED ANYTHING AT ALL?
I've considered it all, apparently more carefully than you have since you provided no data to justify your incredulity.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#113201 Apr 1, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for the extra clarifying and further defining detail. The situation now appears to be like science, where relatively little is confirmed, and we just have to weigh the evidence we have and draw conclusions from it, all of which may be incorrect, and any of which may be correct. I can live with that, can you?
You didn't answer my question. Try again. HINT: your response should be spelled "Y-E-S" or "N-O." Which is it? Answer the question.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#113202 Apr 1, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It is logical to conclude that the archangel Michael is the same entity as Jesus Christ.
So, they have concluded that Jesus and the archangel Michael are the same entity. Is that correct?

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#113203 Apr 1, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I've considered it all, apparently more carefully than you have since you provided no data to justify your incredulity.
Oh, but I have and so have others - yourself included. It appears to be a recurrent theme in this thread. You provide no data that the Bible is accurate in this story (and others) and others agree and take it that extra step forward. There EXISTS no data that the Bible is accurate in this story (and others).
Just as 'inaction is a form of action," lack of data is data in itself. I do not contend incredulity of evidence, you do.
KAB

United States

#113204 Apr 1, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
You didn't answer my question. Try again. HINT: your response should be spelled "Y-E-S" or "N-O." Which is it? Answer the question.
No
KAB

United States

#113205 Apr 1, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
So, they have concluded that Jesus and the archangel Michael are the same entity. Is that correct?
Yes
KAB

United States

#113206 Apr 1, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, but I have and so have others - yourself included. It appears to be a recurrent theme in this thread. You provide no data that the Bible is accurate in this story (and others) and others agree and take it that extra step forward. There EXISTS no data that the Bible is accurate in this story (and others).
Just as 'inaction is a form of action," lack of data is data in itself. I do not contend incredulity of evidence, you do.
You don't think that 10,000 ft of water could drain from the mainlands without massive erosion. That, unaccompanied by confirmation, is by definition, incredulity. Don't forget the record preserved in the global flood gauge.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#113207 Apr 1, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Oh yeah, It was claimed about 3 years ago. And even worse, you guys claimed we are kin to "Nanners"!!! Don't believe me?
#5263
May 21, 2009
marksman11 wrote:
Careful Pakman, they will tell you we are related to the banana. I'm being serious. I've been told that in other forums over the years.
==========
Both humans and bananas are eukaryotes. Our common ancestor was a eukaryote. It's just eukaryotes evolving into eukaryotes. All the same kind. That's microevolution, right?
==========
SEE! I told you!
post #5263
This is your team, not mine!!!!
OK Marksman. I try not to be rude to you, but this is beyond stupid.

Are you actually too stupid to know the difference between "evolved from a banana" and "are related to a banana by a common ancestor"?

Is this some kinda hillbilly stoopid where you aren't sure if your wife is your first cousin or your niece?

Or are you just playing stoopid and therefore deliberately lying?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#113208 Apr 1, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I dispute your assertion that the Flood is incompatible with any geological evidence, and you didn't provide any confirming data to the contrary. So, we are data even.
OK, here we go again - its incompatible with ALL the geological evidence...

The following merely scratches the surface of this huge and detailed account of Geologic Column that you think you can run away from with a hand wave. And bear in mind the continually changing fossil record (in a pattern consistent with evolution) runs right THROUGH it from the Cambrian forward. So let me know which bit is "the Flood"

Is it the 1300 feet of Ordovician limestone deposit that if deposited in one year would emit 278x the energy received from the sun over the period (chemical reaction as it sets).

Shales, forming 46% of the column i.e. several thousand feet, the very fine particles requiring long periods of tranquil waters for deposition. Chalks the same – as it takes a typical 2micron chalk particle 80 days to fall through 100 feet of dead still water and there are hundreds of feet of chalk as well as thousands of feet of slow deposition shales not to mention even slower deposition (in water) volcanic ash if its possible at all to get a coherent layer of that in water…

Or, the monstrous Deccan and Siberian Traps, continent wide monsters many feet deep of heightened vulcanism of several hundred thousand years each!. If they happened in a year, the atmophere would be so choked that even 4000 years later it would be unbreathable.

Many interspersed layers of salt beds requiring long periods of DRYING conditions to form. At least eleven in one place, for example, occurring throughout the geologic record.

Oncolites – spherically concentric carbonate depositions caused by algae, again taking time…

Eroded limestone horizons of a pattern that cannot be created under water…along with land fossils of course interspersed with up to 11 marine layers.

Burrowing patterns through may layers of the shale rocks at different levels, in one case 15,000 layers interleaved with non-burrowed sandstone layers, requiring, according to flood geology, 157 layerings per day to occur. Slow depositing shale again, remember.

Fragments of dead crinoid plates between 500 and 2,000 feet THICK, fossils making up the limestone of the Mississipian epoch. If they all died during a flood, or even in the period before the flood, there would not be enough room in all the oceans to accommodate them, along with everything else supposedly alive at the same time. This is the work of millions of years of living organisms dying and being deposited…and we haven’t even got to the age of the dinosaurs yet.

Next comes the Triassic and Jurassic formations and then we have interspersed marine and evaporitic rocks, then rcoks requiring algal deposition, then more bloody slow depositing shale, Then beds full of dinos, mammals, and plants, the latter two being unlike any alive today…

More shale…more limestone, volcanic ash beds, then more coccoliths, etc, more shale, and then…the famous KT boundary with Iridium…then more sea, more dry land stuff, and even glacial (ICE) periods showing up…

All through this, the gradually changing fossil record consistent with evolution’s nested hierarchy and no other pattern. Not size, not speed, not typical environment, no “creationist” scheme come close to the actual fossil record patterns.

So where in all that do you fit your Flood?

And that is not counting all the other evidence of haplotypes, non-bottlenecks, and cultural continuity you have been given....

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#113209 Apr 1, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I was asked a trivial question formulated by a representative from your side, and I answered it. Given that it was trivial, perhaps I shouldn't have answered.
As to your critical concern, have you considered the possibility that all you outlined took place before the flood?
Yes, well that is where you creationists fall down, throwing up mutually incompatible "alternate stories" to battle against a total picture from empirical science that is mutually consistent and independently "cross-confirming", as science demands it has to be.

E.G. we point out the gradual change in the fossil record happening right through the geologic column, and creationists claim that they were the creatures that died out in THE FLOOD, and their layering consistent with evolution is just coincidence.

THEN when challenged by the immense time required for the formation of many of the layers creationists want to call part of the flood (to explain the fossils, remember?), now you want to suggest this geology all happened BEFORE the Flood.

AND, we see obviously carnivorous creatures all the way back to the Cambrian, meaning, according to literal Genesis pundits, that the FALL had to occur before any of them. Meaning ADAM was born in the early Cambrian, and though he lived only 930 years, and we have an estimated geneology from his descendant to the FLOOD which you now claim happened AFTER all this rock formation...means the entire record from the Cambrian to the Flood (which is nowhere to be seen) all happened in a couple of thousand years at most. Simply impossible.

Your special pleading in each case is inconsistent with your special pleading in each other case. Science, on the other hand, does not allow this mutual inconsistency to stand. It tells us there is something wrong with your theory, somewhere. In fact everywhere.

But you guys just let it all pile up, hoping nobody notices that your special pleading in each instance is not compared to your special pleading in each OTHER instance!

Why don't you think science can take you seriously??? THIS is the reason.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113210 Apr 1, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't realize I was required to use exactly the same words. Remember, I focus on content. In my own words I stated that it is logical to conclude that Michael is Jesus Christ.

So the bible does not give this relationship as data, but such a contention is based on unrelated passages.

In other words it is a logical deduction. Correct?


There is an old Wall Street adage that goes:
Bulls make money,
Bears make money,
but Pigs and sheep are slaughtered.

Only time will tell if this quote has any relevance to the current discussion.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113211 Apr 1, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Oh yeah, It was claimed about 3 years ago. And even worse, you guys claimed we are kin to "Nanners"!!! Don't believe me?
#5263
May 21, 2009
marksman11 wrote:
Careful Pakman, they will tell you we are related to the banana. I'm being serious. I've been told that in other forums over the years.
==========
Both humans and bananas are eukaryotes. Our common ancestor was a eukaryote. It's just eukaryotes evolving into eukaryotes. All the same kind. That's microevolution, right?
==========
SEE! I told you!
post #5263
This is your team, not mine!!!!


But, as those statements are true, you lose.

We are kin to every eukaryote on earth, and likely to all life forms, period.


“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113212 Apr 1, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It's also true that thru that whole succession of improved understanding, it's been consistently understood that Earth is not cubic.

And that understanding remains. But it is not absolutely certain as it is not something that we can be absolutely certain about.

I accept it as reasonable that the earth is not cubic. Nor is it a 'disk' or 'circle' as claimed in the bible. As the Hebrews had a word for ball or sphere using the word for disk. It is also not resting on pillars (Job 9:6).


KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
If expected evidence consistently fails to materialize, should not the expectations be on the list of things to be questioned?

Which is why the flood has been ruled out.


KAB wrote:
<quoted text> If the falsification evidence is inconclusive and there is evidence which harmonizes with the possibility of a Worldwide Flood, what do you do?
We will jump off that bridge if it ever happens. Since we have no evidence of a global flood and evidence that it never happened it is a moot point at this juncture.


KAB wrote:
<quoted text> I dispute your assertion that the Flood is incompatible with any geological evidence, and you didn't provide any confirming data to the contrary. So, we are data even.
You fail to make a point and you fail to provide data. You can make a point with known and established data without quoting it every post. We do this EVERY POST by the assumptive data of the English language. We do not have to define English, all the words we will use, the grammar,..... at the beginning of each post. I don't even know how we could accomplish such a thing!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113213 Apr 1, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I was asked a trivial question formulated by a representative from your side, and I answered it. Given that it was trivial, perhaps I shouldn't have answered.
As to your critical concern, have you considered the possibility that all you outlined took place before the flood?
You don't actually answer questions. You dodge them. Your batting average for actually providing an actual answer to a question is about 10%. Not exactly major league.

There has been no global flood recorded in all of geological history. That includes precambrian eras more than 500,000,000 years ago.


Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Good Lord, much ado about nothing. Here is something...
A brief sample of the Geologic Column that you think you can run away from with a hand wave - and is not compatible with the Flood story in any way...
1300 feet of Ordovician limestone deposit that if deposited in one year would emit 278x the energy received from the sun over the period.
Shales, forming 46% of the column i.e. several thousand feet, requiring long periods of tranquil waters to deposit. Chalks the same – as it takes a typical 2micron chalk particle 80 days to fall through 100 feet of dead still water and there are hundreds of feet of chalk as well as thousands of feet of slow deposition shales not and even slower deposition (in water) for volcanic ash if its possible at all to get a coherent layer of that in water
The monstrous Deccan and Siberian Traps, continent wide monsters of heightened vulcanism requiring of several hundred thousand years each!
Many interspersed layers of salt beds through the layers requiring long periods of drying conditions to form. Some particular anhydtrate layers forming specific patterns of drying and formation only found today around the Persian Gulf as mineral rich water dries at 35+ degrees .
Oncolites – spherically concentric carbonate depositions caused by algae, again taking time…
Eroded limestone horizons of a pattern that cannot be created under water…along with land fossils of course interspersed with up to 11 marine layers.
Burrowing patterns through may layers of the rocks at different levels, 15,000 layers interleaved with non-burrowed sandstone layers, requiring, according to flood geology, 157 layerings per day if you believe flood mythology.
The dead crinoids…fragments of dead crinoids plates between 500 and 2,000 feet THICK. Making up the limestone of the Mississipian epoch. If they all died during a flood, or even in the period before the flood, there would not be enough room in all the oceans to accommodate them. This is the work of millions of years of living organisms dying and being deposited…and we haven’t even got to the age of the dinosaurs yet.
Next comes the Triassic and Jurassic formations and then we have interspersed marine and evaporitic rocks, then rcoks requiring algal deposition, then more bloody slow depositing shale, Then beds full of dinos, mammals, and plants, the latter two being unlike any alive today…
Then more fine shale…more limestone, more volcanic ash beds Then more coccoliths, etc, more shale, and then…the famous KT boundary with Iridium…then more sea, more dry land stuff, even glacial periods showing up…how do water, desert, glacial periods interleaving fit a Flood?
ALL THROUGH THIS, the gradually changing fossil record consistent with evolution’s nested hierarchy and no other pattern. Not size, not speed, not typical environment, no “creationist” scheme come close to the actual fossil record patterns.
----------
Perhaps the Archangel can explain it to you, because no Creationist ever can.



“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113214 Apr 1, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The key is to confirm with data a single error in the Bible as best it can be known.

Done.

Still waiting for your defense.

Maybe you are not really a JW. Maybe you actually hate them so much you are trying to make them look like asinine morons.

That is only a hypothesis. I am just trying to explain the observed facts.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113215 Apr 1, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for the extra clarifying and further defining detail. The situation now appears to be like science, where relatively little is confirmed, and we just have to weigh the evidence we have and draw conclusions from it, all of which may be incorrect, and any of which may be correct. I can live with that, can you?

Straw-man fallacy.

Is it in your nature to misrepresent things? Isn't that a lot like lying?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113216 Apr 1, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It is logical to conclude that the archangel Michael is the same entity as Jesus Christ.

That is an interesting deduction.

Can you support that with biblical verses?

Yes, I do already have the list the JWs use to support this silly notion. I just want you to look at them again for the first time.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113217 Apr 1, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
How many unsolicited Watchtower quotes have I provided in over two years?

Quotes?

Or phrased in your own words?

The difference between the two is an astronomical sum.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113218 Apr 1, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I've considered it all, apparently more carefully than you have since you provided no data to justify your incredulity.

There was not flood, so there is no data to provide.

We only have no-flood data.

At some point absence of evidence becomes evidence of absence. See Michaelson-Morley 1887 for clarification.

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) 6 min DanFromSmithville 35,674
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 16 min Don Barros Serrano 199,550
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Richardfs 15,028
Complex Systems May Evolve More Slowly - Calcul... 21 hr Creationtruth 3
Evolution is merely a subroutine 21 hr Creationtruth 1
My Story Part 1 23 hr Regolith Based Li... 3
the dinosaurs of the lega-warega people: racial... Thu MIDutch 2
More from around the web