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

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

There are 164275 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.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#115313 May 12, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Stomach acid. NOT CONJECTURE.
Lack of breathable air. NOT CONJECTURE.
Drowning. NOT CONJECTURE. Hell, even YOUR fantasy of Jonah in a coma ends up with Jonah drowning.
I want to know if a naked man could survive on the surface of Pluto for three days. You tell me why or why not.
You forgot magik my friend..:-)

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#115314 May 13, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
For every source, a key consideration is whether there is anything from it which can be confirmed incorrect? Of course, not everything is testable, and not all of what is tested yields a conclusive result relative to the matter being considered. I suspect the sources to which you refer contain confirmable errors. I know that is true of the Quran. The Bible has, so far, had numerous assertions of error lodged against it but none confirmed. That builds a record of reliability.
What is obvious myth about the Adam account? I accept that you think it's a myth, but that's not the point, is it?
No amount of error will be seen by someone who blindly accepts the Bible and makes feeble excuses.

You say that there are confirmed errors in the Quran, such as the inconsistent inheritance rules. Yet Quranic scholars have known about these for centuries and completed a full set of excuses and workarounds...that are fully convincing to THEM but unconvincing to objective analysts.

Funny how you are capable of being an objective analyst of Quranic error but totally blind to Biblical error, having accepted all the silly workarounds that fool nobody objective. You are no different from a Mullah, you just have a different pet scripture.

Get my drift???

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#115315 May 13, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You continue to confuse assertions with data. Yes, massive amounts of assertions continue to be provided by your side, as you did here. Even when you cite references, you highlight conclusions and summary statements rather than data. I provide/address the data.
So, KAB, do you want thousands of mitochondrial haplotype samples from around the world sent to you so that you can go off and examine them to your own satisfaction? Or is that not good enough either. Perhaps you want to conduct the sampling yourself? And run the tests yourself, just so you can be sure?

Of COURSE we use the conclusions of research conducted by others, checking their methodology at times. We also rely on peer review where other experts in the field check their methods, their premises, and their conclusions.

If we did not, humans would still be banging two rocks together.

Get real.

Research conducted be experts shows that the haplotype distribution of human mitochondrial DNA is not consistent with a single origin point only 4,500 years ago or even remotely close to that. I accept their conclusions because they have no reason to lie and because competing analyses come up with similar results. By any analysis, the mitochondrial "intersection point" for the human race is >100,000 years ago. Deal with it.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#115316 May 13, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>A man could not survive in the belly of a whale for three days UNLESS God intervened.
Don't forget about all of the myths and miracles that you blindly swallow... such as man evolving from a worm.
Man evolving from a primitive vertebrate is a scientific theory based on the application of known and non-mysterious mechanisms over a period of time, and backed by the evidence of the fossil record, the genome, embryology, atavisms, biogeography, etc.

It does not rely on the miraculous intercession of a supernatural agent at any point.

Thus your comparison is false.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#115317 May 13, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
God is not "magic"
Man evolving from a worm is.
Patently false, as per my last post.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#115318 May 13, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Dogen, I see that you still parroting the same recycled dogma that has been soundly debunked over and over again. If you ever can present some actual science behind your asinine claims, I would be delighted to humiliate you even more than you have already done to yourself.
1. Organisms reproduce exponentially while the resources they rely on do not. observed.

2. Therefore life is in a competition for survival. observed

3. Variation exists in populations. observed.

4. Novel variation is created by mutations. observed.

5. Variations give differential success rates in reproduction. observed.

6. Variations that enhance survival are therefore propagated through populations over time and result in a change in the typical genome of any given species. observed.

7. Such change is cumulative. observed.

8. We have observed examples of changes accomplished by both deletions and insertions of genetic material, giving lie to the claim that random mutation and natural selection cannot create new information. observed.

9. Given long enough, the fossil record shows variation over time consistent with descent with modification. observed.

10. The mechanisms 1-8 are sufficient to explain (9). Deduced.

In addition:

1. the fossil record displays a nested hierarchy that is demanded by the theory of evolution with common descent.

2. the genome displays a nested hierarchy that is demanded by the theory of evolution with common descent. When ubiquitous proteins, ERV's and pseudogenes are examined, they show the same nested hierarchy as the fossil record. observed.

3. Biogeography displays patterns consistent with the nested hierarchy and common descent. observed.

4. Atavisms are found that show remnants of traits existing on the ancestral line. They never show traits not existing on the ancestral line. observed.

5. We have large scale evolutionary change showing in sequences of fossils such as the development of the 3-boned middle ear in the mammal like reptiles, step by step. observed. That each step was ancestral to the next - deduced, but perfectly consistent with observations of descent with modification. How else do YOU explain such a sequence?

Really HTS, Dogen is right and its you who is grasping at straws. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. Scientists have known it for decades, but some religious folk are a little dim, it seems.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#115319 May 13, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
What is the data which confirms a man could not survive 3 days inside a sea creature? Conjecture is all that has been provided so far.
Regarding the Pluto challenge, how cold is it, and survive for how long?
Anyone have any remain doubts that this guy is a loon?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#115320 May 13, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for providing data, and since you're providing it, I hope you understand that the cosmogenic exposure measurements made determine the total surface exposure time of the sample. The measurements are incapable of detecting a one year hiatus in that exposure. If any/all of this is over your head I can provide additional tutorial as needed.
A one year resolution is not necessary to detect a world-wide catastrophic flood. Any fool can see that.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#115321 May 13, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I just asked the question since I presently know little about the matter.
Yet you brought it up without doing any investigation. In other words, data doesn't mean a damn thing to you. I will try to recover from the shock of this revelation.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#115322 May 13, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
What does a temperature of minus 350 degrees and no atmosphere have to do with a whale's stomach. If you want to make a scientifically valid point, then do so.
What does one environment in which a man couldn't survive have to do with another environment in which a man couldn't survive? I don't know. Why don't you tell us? Thus far, KAB has provided an urban legend as evidence for the legitimacy of the Bible story of Jonah and the whale, along with a laundry list of "what ifs." Do you have something more to offer? Hm?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#115323 May 13, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>A man could not survive in the belly of a whale for three days UNLESS God intervened.
Don't forget about all of the myths and miracles that you blindly swallow... such as man evolving from a worm.
So, you're agreeing WITH ME and WITH EVERYONE ELSE HERE EXCEPT KAB that there is no legitimate naturalistic means for a man to survive for three days in the stomach of a whale.

Can you please state, for the record, that you think KAB is wrong about it being possible, without magic being involved, for a man to survive in a whale's stomach for three days?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#115324 May 13, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
God is not "magic"
Man evolving from a worm is.
So, you're saying God's intervention is naturalistic and not supernatural, aka magic? If God intervened to let a man survive three days in a whale's stomach, that's not supernatural intervention, aka magic? That's naturalistic? Please, be clear with your language. Sloppy language is evidence of a sloppy mind.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#115325 May 13, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you're agreeing WITH ME and WITH EVERYONE ELSE HERE EXCEPT KAB that there is no legitimate naturalistic means for a man to survive for three days in the stomach of a whale.
?
Naturalism = atheism

Jonah could have survived in the stomach of a whale if God intervened. Why is that so difficult for you to accept, given the fact that God created man?

There is no naturalistic means for a worm to evolve into a man. So why do you believe in naturalism?
HTS

Mandan, ND

#115326 May 13, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you're saying God's intervention is naturalistic and not supernatural, aka magic? If God intervened to let a man survive three days in a whale's stomach, that's not supernatural intervention, aka magic? That's naturalistic? Please, be clear with your language. Sloppy language is evidence of a sloppy mind.
God does not work through magic. He works through laws that man does not understand. That is no different than you saying that mutations + natural selection + time = any complexity.
You don't understand how a microbe could transmutation into a man. You believe it happened through laws that are not understood by man.
Do you know how life could form from a primordial soup?
You have FAITH that it happened.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#115327 May 13, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Naturalism = atheism
Jonah could have survived in the stomach of a whale if God intervened. Why is that so difficult for you to accept, given the fact that God created man?
There is no naturalistic means for a worm to evolve into a man. So why do you believe in naturalism?
So ... magic. Thus, your story cannot be scientifically feasible, and thus it is mythology. That was easy, next myth to bust?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#115328 May 13, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
God does not work through magic. He works through laws that man does not understand. That is no different than you saying that mutations + natural selection + time = any complexity.
You don't understand how a microbe could transmutation into a man. You believe it happened through laws that are not understood by man.
Do you know how life could form from a primordial soup?
You have FAITH that it happened.
You keep saying it's not magic, then you keep describing magic. Your faery tales require magic to work.
KAB

United States

#115329 May 13, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
And, all you need to do is demonstrate the number of atoms. When you can show me 2 hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom, then we'll talk.
Someone call the goalpost police. Seeing individual atoms was not specified in the original challenge.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#115330 May 13, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You keep saying it's not magic, then you keep describing magic. Your faery tales require magic to work.
Well, of course. But admitting that would lead Fundies into several logical dead ends.
So, their deity does magic, but it's not magic, because the deity is doing it. Sheesh.

Hi, Kit.
KAB

United States

#115331 May 13, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Hmm.
Three days without air, submerged in powerful acid.
What sort of data would satisfy you that that's not survivable?
Let's start with confirmation that there are no sufficiently large sea creatures with pockets of air in them.
KAB

United States

#115332 May 13, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
-380 degrees F on average.
3 days.
Please provide references to actual scientific research on human survivability on Pluto and not just conjecture.
If your -380 deg F is correct the man wouldn't survive.

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 Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 19 min Science 33,030
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 29 min Eagle 12 - 81,660
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 10 hr Eagle 12 - 2,191
Did humans come from Sturgeons? Oct 16 Science 1
Proof humans come from Tennessee Oct 16 Science 1
Science News (Sep '13) Oct 14 Science 4,005
Mathematicians PROVED evolution IMPOSSIBLE! (Apr '17) Oct 14 Science 876
More from around the web