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

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

There are 151419 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.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113622 Apr 7, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I am referring to post-flood increased land peak elevations above sea level of many thousands of feet, and much greater average ocean depths.

Biblical reference please.

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Level 3

Since: Feb 08

Planet Earth

#113623 Apr 7, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Information has existed since the "beginning" of time.
Time is not an absolute truth eternity is because information has no beginning or ending!

Applying the “the law of non-contradiction” to the immaterial (information) states does information exist or don’t! Observation shows us information (immaterial evidence)) exists and we discover it! So if it “exists now” and you are saying it “didn’t exist” until the beginning of time this is a violation of the law of non-contradiction!

A. Information “do exist”
B. Information “did not exist” until time begin

Apply the law of non-contradiction and you are in violation of it because you have two “OPPOSITE” answers and claiming it to be the “SAME”. YOU CAN’T DO THIS! IT MUST BE EITHER/OR AND IF YOU PICK BOTH OPPOSITE ANSWERS YOU CONTRADICT YOURSELF AND VIOLATE THE LAW OF NON-CONTRADICTION!
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell me, is a photon a particle or a wave? Can an electron both exist and not exist in 2 places simultaneously?
Rather a photon is a particle or wave is irrelevant when it comes to existence because we know it is physical evidence (photon) that we observe thus proving its EXISTENCE!

To say a photon DO EXIST AND DOES NOT EXIST is choosing OPPOSITE answers (THE VIOLATION OF THE LAW OF NON-CONTRADICTION) and concluding they are the same! My final point is that a photon exists and has a unique behavior when observing it!

The law of non-contradiction is an absolute truth observed in nature because nature does not contradict its self and it governs information!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113624 Apr 7, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Given that you have been watching me, which has involved considerable interaction between myself and Dogen, it is quite reasonable to expect you would have observations to address to him, as you have to me. There is, of course, no obligation to do so. I just thought you might want to help him as you do me.

He has. We are currently discussion your "debating skill" and he has helped me to think about the types and functions of the lies you tell.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113625 Apr 7, 2013
TheEvolutionaryDouche wrote:
<quoted text>
As a geologist, I studied and have a great understanding of evolution. My suggestion would be to stop getting "just enough understanding" of a subject before debating it because you clearly know absolutely nothing about evolution at all. The bible isn't and has never claimed to be a scientific text.

I have been after him to learn about evolution for some time. He always claims to know about it, but backs that up with basic errors and misunderstanding.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113626 Apr 7, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
Time is not an absolute truth eternity is because information has no beginning or ending!

This appears to be an unsupportable assertion. If you have any evidence of this then please present it.
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text> Applying the “the law of non-contradiction” to the immaterial (information) states does information exist or don’t! Observation shows us information (immaterial evidence)) exists and we discover it! So if it “exists now” and you are saying it “didn’t exist” until the beginning of time this is a violation of the law of non-contradiction!
A. Information “do exist”
B. Information “did not exist” until time begin

We actually don't know what, if any, information existed when time began.
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text> Apply the law of non-contradiction and you are in violation of it because you have two “OPPOSITE” answers and claiming it to be the “SAME”. YOU CAN’T DO THIS! IT MUST BE EITHER/OR AND IF YOU PICK BOTH OPPOSITE ANSWERS YOU CONTRADICT YOURSELF AND VIOLATE THE LAW OF NON-CONTRADICTION!
<quoted text>
Rather a photon is a particle or wave is irrelevant when it comes to existence because we know it is physical evidence (photon) that we observe thus proving its EXISTENCE!
To say a photon DO EXIST AND DOES NOT EXIST is choosing OPPOSITE answers (THE VIOLATION OF THE LAW OF NON-CONTRADICTION) and concluding they are the same! My final point is that a photon exists and has a unique behavior when observing it!
The law of non-contradiction is an absolute truth observed in nature because nature does not contradict its self and it governs information!

Nature, it would appear, "contridicts" itself all the time and in many ways.

If a law is demonstrated untrue then it is no longer a law.

Thus so the LAW OF NON-CONTRADICTION must pass into oblivion.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#113627 Apr 7, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Is that what you have found from your study of Jehovah's Witnesses and the Bible? If not, what is one point of conflict between them?
Hey KAB, I have no real conflict with you....in fact I kinda like you.

All the stuff we go through on this forum is just friendly debate. You drive me crazy sometimes as I'm sure I do to you, but at the end of the day I'd go have a beer with you.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113628 Apr 7, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Is that what you have found from your study of Jehovah's Witnesses and the Bible? If not, what is one point of conflict between them?

Leviticus 6:1-4

Does your cult endorse your lying or is that what you do on your own?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113629 Apr 7, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey KAB, I have no real conflict with you....in fact I kinda like you.
All the stuff we go through on this forum is just friendly debate. You drive me crazy sometimes as I'm sure I do to you, but at the end of the day I'd go have a beer with you.

But KAB could not go have a beer with you as he is not allowed to go into a bar nor associate with apostates or other non believers unless trying to convert them.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#113630 Apr 7, 2013
TheEvolutionaryDouche wrote:
<quoted text>
As a geologist, I studied and have a great understanding of evolution. My suggestion would be to stop getting "just enough understanding" of a subject before debating it because you clearly know absolutely nothing about evolution at all. The bible isn't and has never claimed to be a scientific text.
Please share some great understanding with us along with confirming data. I only expound on what I know and can provide data to confirm, and you are correct about the Bible not being a scientific text. It is also not in conflict with what has been confirmed by science.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#113631 Apr 7, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey KAB, I have no real conflict with you....in fact I kinda like you.
All the stuff we go through on this forum is just friendly debate. You drive me crazy sometimes as I'm sure I do to you, but at the end of the day I'd go have a beer with you.
Same here. I am, however, serious about the info (John 17:3,17), but not hostile.

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Level 3

Since: Feb 08

Planet Earth

#113632 Apr 7, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
First of all, you are misrepresenting evolution as mutation is only one of mechanisms of evolution.
Claiming opposite biological reproductive species was the same LUCA (LAST UNIVERSAL COMMON ANSCESTOR) from generation to generation over billions of years in changing to OPPOSITE biological reproductive species violates the law of non-contradiction over a million times!

“Biological / reproductive species - Two organisms that are able to reproduce naturally to produce fertile offspring of both sexes. Organisms that can reproduce but almost always make infertile hybrids of at least one sex, such as a mule, hinny or F1 male cattalo are not considered to be the same species”.

>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

Empirical evidence: Human being is the opposite of a shark as a biological reproductive species!

Claiming a biological reproductive species creates an OPPOSITE biological reproductive species over “time”“DESCENT WITH MODIFICATION” violates the law of non-contradiction because time does not apply to the law of non-contradiction because it is either/or and it NEVER changes.

You CANNOT choose OPPOSITE biological reproductive species and claim they were the same biological reproductive species and diversified billions of years ago from generation to generation to millions of “opposite” biological reproductive species we observe today! To claim the theory of evolution in the origin of species as a non-fixed biological reproductive species is wrong and it violates the law of non-contradiction.

The law of non-contradiction states it’s either/or you can’t choose opposites and EVER claim them as the same, and this excludes “time” as a factor because the law of non-contradictory “do and do not” change over time because nature do not contradict its self!

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Level 3

Since: Feb 08

Planet Earth

#113633 Apr 7, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
The reality of nature is that some is necessary, but to much or to little is damaging.
Then is even true of things like water. So lets look at your formulation with water.
A. Water “is” beneficial
B. Water “is not” beneficial
Choose only one for all situations. I bet you can't!
Sure I can because absolute truths are universal concepts (all situations) which means it applies to all because nature governs all! So observing water on a universal scale I must ask WHOM IS THE WATER BENEFICIAL TO!

So I will choose humans as the whom and when I apply the law of non-contradiction the answer must never change to the OPPOSITE answer so it’s either A or B for ETERNITY!

A. Water “is” beneficial to humans
B. Water “is not” beneficial to humans

The law of non-contradiction states I can NEVER change my answer to B in the same given situation.
Because if I do I would violate the law of non-contradiction when it applies to water as beneficial to humans!

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Level 3

Since: Feb 08

Planet Earth

#113634 Apr 7, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Choose only one for all situations. I bet you can't!
Again with Oxygen
A. Oxygen “is” beneficial
B. Oxygen “is not” beneficial
To WHOM is oxygen beneficial to is the statement you apply the law of non-contradiction to and pick a A or B.

Let’s pick cows for the WHOM the oxygen is beneficial to and the answer is A and it will NEVER change to B because this would be an OPPOSITE answer and violate the law of non-contradiction!
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
The same for food. I have gotten a bit to much food over the course of my life. A bit less would have been closer to ideal. About 40 pounds less would be idea!
So I propose a new universal truth: Nature says that some may be good, but to much is usually bad.
Natural food good or natural food bad or OPPOSITES and natural food is not BAD JUST BECAUSE “YOU CHOSE” TO CONSUME TOO MUCH! YOU ARE USING TWO OPPSITE ANSWERS AND CLAIMING IT AS THE SAME!

Conclusion, natural food is ALWAYS good to say it is not in any given time would violate the law of non-contradiction because you must pick either/or!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113635 Apr 7, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Please share some great understanding with us along with confirming data.
You are not interested in such. You are just looking for low hanging fruit. You are exposed again.


KAB wrote:
<quoted text> I only expound on what I know and can provide data to confirm,
This is an outright lie as have been demonstrated over and over again.


KAB wrote:
<quoted text> and you are correct about the Bible not being a scientific text. It is also not in conflict with what has been confirmed by science.
Really?
Science confirms no flood.
Science confirms flood not possible.
Science confirms no interruption in civilization.
Science confirms no evidence for flood.
Science confirms evidence for flood never happening.
Science confirms mountains have not changed radically in height in last 10,000 years.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113636 Apr 7, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I am, however, serious about the info

Again a lie. You reject info that does not conform to your belief system a priori.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113637 Apr 7, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
Claiming opposite biological reproductive species was the same LUCA (LAST UNIVERSAL COMMON ANSCESTOR) from generation to generation over billions of years in changing to OPPOSITE biological reproductive species violates the law of non-contradiction over a million times!
As we have refuted the so called "Law of Non-Contradiction" that point is moot.

As you have never operationalized your law it would be moot even if we had not done so.

To be even more clear, do you remember the definition of a scientific law?


Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text> “Biological / reproductive species - Two organisms that are able to reproduce naturally to produce fertile offspring of both sexes. Organisms that can reproduce but almost always make infertile hybrids of at least one sex, such as a mule, hinny or F1 male cattalo are not considered to be the same species”.
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
Empirical evidence: Human being is the opposite of a shark as a biological reproductive species!
Claiming a biological reproductive species creates an OPPOSITE biological reproductive species over “time”“DESCENT WITH MODIFICATION” violates the law of non-contradiction because time does not apply to the law of non-contradiction because it is either/or and it NEVER changes.
Just so, this is not an issue. You are using a false definition of evolution. Evolution is the change in a POPULATION over time. No species needs to mate with a non species member for this to occur.


Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text> You CANNOT choose OPPOSITE biological reproductive species and claim they were the same biological reproductive species and diversified billions of years ago from generation to generation to millions of “opposite” biological reproductive species we observe today!
The word "opposite" is out of context here. There is no such thing as an "opposite" biological organism (unless we have anti-matter doppelgangers ;)...).


Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text> To claim the theory of evolution in the origin of species as a non-fixed biological reproductive species is wrong and it violates the law of non-contradiction.
A law, again, that neither seems to be a 'Law' in the formal scientific sense, nor even exist at all.


Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text> The law of non-contradiction states it’s either/or you can’t choose opposites and EVER claim them as the same, and this excludes “time” as a factor because the law of non-contradictory “do and do not” change over time because nature do not contradict its self!

At this point your conjecture has just become double talk.

If you come up with an operational definition of your law and show that it holds we can look at it again.

Right now, even if that were done you would have a huge problem. The problem is the fact of evolution seems to violate your fledgling "law". Something cannot violate a law when the law is still being formulated. A new scientific law would have to conform to the existing body of scientific evidence.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113638 Apr 7, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure I can because absolute truths are universal concepts (all situations) which means it applies to all because nature governs all! So observing water on a universal scale I must ask WHOM IS THE WATER BENEFICIAL TO!
So I will choose humans as the whom and when I apply the law of non-contradiction the answer must never change to the OPPOSITE answer so it’s either A or B for ETERNITY!
A. Water “is” beneficial to humans
B. Water “is not” beneficial to humans
The law of non-contradiction states I can NEVER change my answer to B in the same given situation.
Because if I do I would violate the law of non-contradiction when it applies to water as beneficial to humans!

Most of the passengers of the Titanic would not agree with your formulation.

More importantly your "law" does not account for the data. The ONLY requirement for a law is that it account for the interaction of the variables that make up the data. Your does not do that so fails as a law.

Good luck, though. Most people think all the mathematical constants have been discovered, but a friend of mine discovered a new one in 1999.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113639 Apr 7, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
To WHOM is oxygen beneficial to is the statement you apply the law of non-contradiction to and pick a A or B.
Let’s pick cows for the WHOM the oxygen is beneficial to and the answer is A and it will NEVER change to B because this would be an OPPOSITE answer and violate the law of non-contradiction!
<quoted text>
Natural food good or natural food bad or OPPOSITES and natural food is not BAD JUST BECAUSE “YOU CHOSE” TO CONSUME TOO MUCH! YOU ARE USING TWO OPPSITE ANSWERS AND CLAIMING IT AS THE SAME!
Conclusion, natural food is ALWAYS good to say it is not in any given time would violate the law of non-contradiction because you must pick either/or!

Same problem: the actual relationship you are alleging does not actually exist and the concepts you are calling "opposite" are not, in fact, opposite at all.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#113640 Apr 7, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I am referring to post-flood increased land peak elevations above sea level of many thousands of feet, and much greater average ocean depths.
Pure speculation. Where is the data from any Biblical, historic, geologic or oceanographic source to support that supposition?

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Level 3

Since: Feb 08

Planet Earth

#113641 Apr 7, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
This appears to be an unsupportable assertion. If you have any evidence of this then please present it.
Nature is the evidence and the physical reality is explained with information we DISCOVER when learning about nature (physical reality). The physical reality (nature) demonstrates it does not contradict itself. If any information used to explain the physical reality we live in contradicts it’s self this is the violation of the law of non-contradiction found in nature!

1. Time “does” exist!

2. Time “did not” exist until physical universe was formed proposed by scientist violates the law of non-contradiction found in nature!

YOU CAN’T SAY TIME EXITS AND DOES NOT EXIST (OPPOSING TERMS) ON A UNIVERSAL SCALE AND CONCLUDE THAT BOTH OPPOSING ANSWERS IS RIGHT BECAUSE NATURE DOES NOT CONTRADICT ITS SELF AND SO MUST NOT THE INFORMATION WE USE IN NATURE TO EXPLAIN HOW IT WORKS!
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
We actually don't know what, if any, information existed when time began.
Because you and others try to disprove an absolute truth called the law of non-contradiction found in nature! YOU CAN’T DO THIS AND YOU ARE INSANE FOR TRYING! Absolute truths found in nature are dis-provable and un-falsifiable and since nature (absolute truth) is un-falsifiable your scientific method is dis-qualified when it comes to speaking about nature (an un-deniable absolute truth)!

If you can’t accept this YOU DO NOT NEED TO BE TALKING ABOUT NATURE/REALITY BECAUSE IT IS AN ABSOLUTE TRUTH YOU CANNOT DIS-PROVE OR FALSIFY!

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) 12 min Blitzking 201,462
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 19 min Bob of Quantum-Faith 16,171
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 50 min Bob of Quantum-Faith 216
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr One way or another 40,680
Scientists create vast 3-D map of universe, val... 5 hr One way or another 17
The conscious God or the inanimate nature 11 hr THE LONE WORKER 34
News Book aims to prove existence of God (Nov '09) 13 hr ChristineM 96
More from around the web