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

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 ... Full Story

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#113664 Apr 8, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
If you'll recall, I'm just following your lead,
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TFA...
Do you not believe yourself?
I'll admit my numbers were off. A column of water 30,000 feet in depth would result in almost 1,000 atmospheres of pressure, not 2,000. As for the rest, it does not require self-aggrandizement to deduce cause and effect.
Where are your numbers, KAB? On what do you base a claim that mountains suddenly rose by tens of thousands of feet? What mechanism(s) do you propose for hundreds of millions of cubic miles of water to upwell and precipitate over the entire planet?
On what evidence or observation do you base the argument that mountains were lower pre-flood and that "post-flood increased land peak elevations above sea level of many thousands of feet, and much greater average ocean depths?" Were apologists making any such claims before the heights of mountains were known?
KAB

United States

#113665 Apr 8, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Prove it, Mr Data.
It's based on the Bible record. Do you accept that as valid data? If so, I will present it.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#113666 Apr 8, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>It's distressing to realize that this person can probably operate a motor vehicle. And vote.
No doubt a lane hog. 55 mph in the left lane with cars backed up a half mile, because 55 mph is the absolute value of the road sign and they CHOSE the left lane (A) to drive on. The concept of a variable speed transmission must seem utterly paradoxical...
...and applying the "Law of non-contradiction" to a politician's speech?
KAB

United States

#113667 Apr 8, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Easter has nothing to do with Ishtar. You don't even understand the history of Christian religious holidays, and their pagan roots.
Do you adhere to the Bible as the divinely inspired word of God and history of the world and believe Jesus of Nazareth to be the messiah? If so, you profess yourself to be Christian.
Yes I do, and you are correct, "adhere" being a critical qualifier in your characterization. Regarding words, explain how the name "Easter" derives from the Bible and adherence to it.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#113668 Apr 8, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>THen why am I the only one in here applying the demands of the scientific method?
You're not. You never have.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113669 Apr 8, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
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!
<quoted text>
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!

It seems you have mistaken ideas about both science and philosophy.

Science can study anything in nature that is known to exist.

Nature itself cannot be falsified, but any theory about nature can be falsified.

Nothing is assumed true without evidence.

As to time there is disagreement as to when it began or even if it has meaning without the passage of events.

As to Absolute Truths, as I have already expressed, there are only 2.
1. Cogito ergo sum
2. 1st person reports.

We cannot know anything beyond those things for 100% absolute certain. That does not mean there are not absolute truths, only that we can never be certain of them beyond a point.

As to your notion of a "law of non-contradiction" I await further evidence of its existence and have already pointed out some contradictions in the "law of non-contradiction". If the viewpoint of one species is taken over another then you do not have a universal rule that can be applied uniformly.

Nothing is a "Law" unless it describes the relationship of variables in the manor that is intended. Your "Law" seems falsified by many things.


“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Level 3

Since: Feb 08

Planet Earth

#113670 Apr 8, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
"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!"
YES! It “exist now” and it “didn’t exist” must be applied to TIME and must not violate the law of non-contradiction found in nature as an absolute truth! I think and speak in universal terms (absolute truths) and the way you people are defining time by the observation of nature is flawed! I discovered Time as an absolute truth (universal law) observed in nature which its self is an absolute truth and you and the rest of the people who think like you, including your flawed scientific method used to falsifiably validate the origin of species as a non-fixed biological reproductive species! Anyways, this conversation is about time so let’s keep it to what is time on a universal scale!

I know time is a universal concept which makes it ETERNAL (good bye to thinking time travel is possible) because time having no beginning or ending, what numbers are you going to put on the “date” to travel to when an absolute current date on the universal scale has no beginning or ending?!
Anyways, what is your universal definition for time?! Once again, you must think on the universal scale.
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
You are saying that information "existed" "before" time. No matter what box of Cracker Jacks you got that idea out of, you are not logical. Obviously you "discovered" the laws of classical thought (probably from an apologists blog) and it rocked your world. Tsk, tsk.
I ALWAYS thought like this naturally. I just discovered the tool to explain how I think from Aristotle called the law of non-contradiction! You can’t even speak about reality (absolute truths) because you reject it when I speak in absolute truths because you cherry pick to speak ONLY about the absolute truths you like and you reject the absolute truths you dis-like and this validates your way of thinking violates the law of non-contradiction!

A. Chromiuman either accepts absolute truths
B. Chromiuman either rejects absolute truths

The law of non-contradiction states if you reject one absolute truth then you must reject ALL absolute truths!

You pick both answers you’re only out for yourself or a group of people who think like you and their own self-centered, biased, want things ONLLY there ways and this is not a universal way of thinking. You are either for all or for yourself!!
MOTIVES DETETECTED BY APPLYING THE LAW OF NON-CONTRADICTION TO INDIVIDUAL THINKING!

I already know your answer but I want to check your integrity level.

Choose either A or B would you please above and let US see if you or out for the good of all or your own selfish, biased and prejudice desires! I AWAIT YOUR ANSWER! ABSOLUTE TRUTHS DON’T COMPROMISE WITH THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO ACCEPTS SOME AND REJECTS OTHER! Because this is why we have people like YOUR-SELF with contradictory thoughts in their heads trying dis-proving absolute truths they dis-like!

OH, DID I TELL YOU I AM ABLE TO READ YOUR OWN MIND TO DETERMINE YOUR BEHAVIOR WITH WHAT YOU POST TO ME AND KNOW IF YOU ARE UP TO GOOD (ACCEPT ONLY ABSOLUTE TRUTHS) OR NO GOOD (REJECTING ABSOLUTE TRUTHS?! Chuckling!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113672 Apr 8, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
NO! You contradict yourself and your scientific method is dis-qualified when talking about absolute truth because this is what nature is!
Science studies nature. The scientific method is the process by which this study is undertaken. The scientific method is not disqualified from the study of nature.



Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text> This is a silly/foolish statement because you can’t disprove nature existence because it is an absolute truth! YOU CAN’T DISPROVE ABSOLUTE TRUTHS SO STOP TRYING!
As your notion is disproven (at least in its current form) by the evidence it is, per se, NOT an absolute truth.



Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text> THE LAW OF NON-CONTRADICTION IS A NON-FLAWED (FLAWLESS) SCIENTIFIC LAW FOUND ON AN UN-DENIABLE ABOLUTE TRUTH CALLED NATURE.
ON THE CONTRARY, YOUR FLAWED WAY OF THINKING HAS DESTINED YOU TO OBLIVION!
NATURE IS NOT FLAWED (CONTRADICT ITS SELF) YOUR THINKING IS!
Perhaps your reasoning leading up to this is not sound. It appears the contradiction is in your thinking and not in nature. Perhaps it would be possible to reformulate your idea to make it work.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#113673 Apr 8, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It's based on the Bible record. Do you accept that as valid data? If so, I will present it.
The bible isn't data. Anecdotal at best.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113674 Apr 8, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
If you'll recall, I'm just following your lead,
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TFA...
Do you not believe yourself?

He gave you a break and you attempt to bite the hand that did so.
KAB

United States

#113675 Apr 8, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
He gave you a break and you attempt to bite the hand that did so.
Where is the break given here?,

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TFA...

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#113676 Apr 8, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
A. Water “is” beneficial to humans
Because they require it to live.
B. Water “is not” beneficial to humans
When they drown.
Your law of non-contradiction is nonsense.
Water is hot because it is not ice and simultaneously it is cold because it is not steam. It is deep because it is over one's head and simultaneously shallow because a ship would run aground.
CARM has hung another of its "proofs" that the Bible in non-self contradictory on this "classic logic." Their use of the "law" is simplistic at best and their application of it is both manipulative and fatally flawed - as it can as easily defeat their own claims. CARM states a chair cannot be made of wood and not made of wood at the same time.(A chair made of MDF made of wood fibers derived from wood is a chair made of wood and is not a chair made of wood.) Another example they propose is 'Judas hung himself. Judas fell.' Not mutually exclusive in their eyes. Judas could have hung himself AND fell. Using their own adherence to the law however, there could only be one cause of death - so it actually marks yet another of their failures.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#113677 Apr 8, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Where is the break given here?,
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TFA...
CM wrote:
"Pure speculation. Where is the data from any Biblical, historic, geologic or oceanographic source to support that supposition?"

I invited you to provide a source (any credible source) of your proposition. I did not defame you or your speculation. If you can offer a reasonable and rational reference that the mountains were hills prior to the hypothetical flood and a cause and effect for the prestigious mountain growth afterward along with the ancillary effects that would result, you are still cordially invited to do so.
If you interpreted this invitation as a condemnation for fabricating a scenario to fit a biased conclusion, perhaps that is your conscience is talking, and not my post.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113678 Apr 8, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> THen why am I the only one in here applying the demands of the scientific method?
ROTFLMFAO!!!!


marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> That's pure BS. THere are many highly trained and qualified scientists that reject evolution.
Not true. There are only a handful of biological scientists who are more religious than they are scientific who accept creationism over science.


marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I can learn things from beginners.
What good is learning from beginners when you refuse to learn from experts?


marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> Many times the truth is not found in classic education, but the ability to look at things differently and honestly.
That is your precise problem. You refuse to look at things honestly.



marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> It wasn't scientists that built the first airplane, it was bicycle builders.
But it was first designed by a scientist, wasn't it.



marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> Look at Michael Faraday and all the things he invented, and he was uneducated.
Faraday was NOT uneducated. He was not very FORMALLY educated. He was an advid reader and worked as an assistant to Humphry Davey!



marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> William Herschel was a musican, not an astronomer, yet he discovered 2 moons and a planet.
Astronomy is an area where amateurs can STILL contribute. That is not so true in most areas of science which require specialized knowledge.



marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> And don't forget Gregor Mendel who is a religious uneducated monk, but the father of Genetics!
False. Mendel was VERY well educated. He had at least the equivalent of a masters degree of today.

Mendel was well regarded because he kept such good records.

It is amusing that a dullard such as yourself would dare comparison with some of the great scientists from history.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113679 Apr 8, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>What you are talking about in micro evolution. That isn't debated. It has been observed. Human from non-human evolution has never been documented observed in the history of the planet.

This is as false today as it was when you first stated it.

Remember when we made you look up what observable means?

That was funny.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113680 Apr 8, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>That is because you don't want to understand it. GOD doesn't send anyone to hell. He has done all he can possibly do to keep you from going to hell only stoping short of nulling your free will. It's as if Jesus is nailing signs on the gateway to hell saying, "Danger" "Do not Enter", turns to you and says, "You will enter hell over my dead body".....and people like you will step over his dead body and walk right in. You go to hell because you choose to. He made the way of escape, and you choose not to take it. I have no pity for you.

You don't understand KAB's contention.

KAB is not a Christian. He is a Jehovah's Witness.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113681 Apr 8, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
PICK A OR B
Law of non-contradictions is flawless
<quoted text>
Pick A or B
Once again the of non-contradiction is flawless!
<quoted text>
Good try Mike, but on this one the way you stated how the law of non-contradiction works to try and disprove it was nonsense! Your way of thinking must be universal to every situation in DETAIL and you lacked the “in detail” and then applied the “law of non-contradiction” on the universal scale!

It contradicts it self therefor it is beyond refute?

You might want to think that through.

Can you think of any area of science that meets the (now refuted) Law of non-contradiction?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113682 Apr 8, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It's based on the Bible record. Do you accept that as valid data? If so, I will present it.

This would be a lie.

The bible says nothing about requisite geological activity after the flood.

The bible says nothing about where the water went.

The bible presents a teaching story that is pregnant with metaphors and you reject it's teaching.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113683 Apr 8, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes I do, and you are correct, "adhere" being a critical qualifier in your characterization. Regarding words, explain how the name "Easter" derives from the Bible and adherence to it.

Rejection of Easter does not make one a Christian any more than acceptance of it makes them a non-christian.

Would you say that having a decent translation of the bible is essential to understanding Christianity?

Where are the answers to the last 100 or so questions I have asked you?

Why do you avoid 90% of all questions posed to you and give lame answers to another 9%?

What generated this much fear in you?

Why do you have a compulsive need to tell lies? It is from childhood or is it due to the demands of your cult?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113684 Apr 8, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Where is the break given here?,
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TFA...

10,000

Do you know how to say 'Jehovah's Witness' in Chinese?


Ding-dong

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
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 9 min Subduction Zone 132,926
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 5 hr Ooogah Boogah 13,623
How would creationists explain... 6 hr Dogen 347
Science News (Sep '13) 6 hr Hatti_Hollerand 2,937
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 14 hr MikeF 546
Creationism coming to Ohio classrooms? Not with... Sat nobody 7
24 hour dental emergency (Nov '13) Dec 19 Zach 4
More from around the web