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

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

There are 141371 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.

HTS

Williston, 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

Williston, 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.
KAB

United States

#115333 May 13, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
KAB is too stupid to understand argument by analogy.
He does, however, understand the fallacy of argument by inappropriate analogy.
KAB

United States

#115334 May 13, 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.
Are there no sufficiently large sea creatures with pockets of air in them?
KAB

United States

#115335 May 13, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
It most certainly is. The odds of it being cuboid instead of spheroid get worse and worse with every piece of evidence, but the possibility always remains, no matter how remote, that the Earth is actually a cube. Just like the possibility always remains, no matter how remote, that a man might live inside a whale's stomach for three days.
Game. Set. Match.
Thankfully, I am no match for you.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#115336 May 13, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's start with confirmation that there are no sufficiently large sea creatures with pockets of air in them.
In their stomachs? Are you claiming that?
KAB

United States

#115337 May 13, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
so you're pretending that stomach acids are as safe as air.
Not exactly, but I am aware they don't adversely affect the stomach of the creature which I believe is also living tissue.
KAB

United States

#115338 May 13, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
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???
I have not accepted the Bible and then examined it. At the outset, I was agnostic, bordering on atheist, and the Bible was just a book to me. From that starting point I have examined the Bible, Quran, and others each from the same skeptical starting point. Only the Bible has withstood the challenging but objective scrutiny.

How can you profess objectivity and not allow for objectively legitimate possibilities demonstrable by data? Data is objective and the same for all.

You are now free to offer a purported Bible error to be objectively scrutinized for confirmation.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#115339 May 13, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Not exactly, but I am aware they don't adversely affect the stomach of the creature which I believe is also living tissue.
Not the first time you've displayed a abysmal lack of knowledge of biology. And the use of Google.

Wiki:
"Gastric acid is produced by cells lining the stomach, which are coupled to systems to increase acid production when needed. Other cells in the stomach produce bicarbonate, a base, to buffer the fluid, ensuring that it does not become too acidic. These cells also produce mucus, which forms a viscous physical barrier to prevent gastric acid from damaging the stomach."

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#115340 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.
Your "additional tutoral" would be appreciated. But only for entertainment value -- at your expense.

No, the study does NOT need to show a 1-year resolution.

This research shows that the surfaces sampled had not been disturbed in hundreds of thousands of years in some areas, and tens of millions of years in other areas.

ANY precipitation falling on, or eroding off of the test sites would have shown cosmogenic surface exposure dates of 4500+/- years ago, were the Noachian flood to be factual.
KAB

United States

#115341 May 13, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I overwhelmingly accept the data of the researchers. It's their conclusions I sometimes don't accept. Don't you notice those conclusions are almost always offered as possible ways to explain the data? Objectivity must allow for other possibilities as well.

Hey, by some measure I'm not as objective as the Guy. He thinks there's still a chance Earth may be cubic in shape. I don't. What say you? The Guy's objectivity, however, quickly evaporates when he doesn't want Jonah to survive 3 days inside a sea creature, even tho he's already acknowledged he thinks there's a possibility it could have happened.

As to the researchers themselves on occasion not being above losing objectivity, do you think someone who doesn't want to accept the Bible has no reason to lie (2 Thessalonians 2:10-12)? Do you think someone who doesn't want to be shunned by the overwhelming majority of his peers has no reason to lie (John 9:22)?

Now, shall we objectively examine that haplotype data together?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#115342 May 13, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I overwhelmingly accept the data of the researchers. It's their conclusions I sometimes don't accept. Don't you notice those conclusions are almost always offered as possible ways to explain the data? Objectivity must allow for other possibilities as well.
Objectivity demands the acceptance of the most reasonable explanation. Not the goofiest.
KAB wrote:
Hey, by some measure I'm not as objective as the Guy.
That's a given.
KAB wrote:
He thinks there's still a chance Earth may be cubic in shape. I don't. What say you?
I say you haven't the faintest idea when you're being made a fool of.
KAB wrote:
The Guy's objectivity, however, quickly evaporates when he doesn't want Jonah to survive 3 days inside a sea creature, even tho he's already acknowledged he thinks there's a possibility it could have happened.
Oh, really? When did he say that?
KAB wrote:
As to the researchers themselves on occasion not being above losing objectivity, do you think someone who doesn't want to accept the Bible has no reason to lie (2 Thessalonians 2:10-12)? Do you think someone who doesn't want to be shunned by the overwhelming majority of his peers has no reason to lie (John 9:22)?
Bible quotes! How impressive.(not)
KAB wrote:
Now, shall we objectively examine that haplotype data together?
The day comes that you are objective will be the day hell freezes over - so to speak.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#115343 May 13, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Not exactly, but I am aware they don't adversely affect the stomach of the creature which I believe is also living tissue.
So now you think all animals are made entirely of stomach lining.

Seriously, you are just posting stupid crap without even thinking about it now, at least when you were outright lying you were thinking about something.
KAB

United States

#115344 May 13, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
A one year resolution is not necessary to detect a world-wide catastrophic flood. Any fool can see that.
The topic being considered here is cosmogenic exposure measurement results and whether those measurements are capable of detecting if the samples had spent approximately one year underwater during the overall exposure time. The answer is no. It's similar to accumulated exposure of photographic film. The measurement does not reveal if there were interruptions in the exposure process.

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
How would creationists explain... (Nov '14) 10 min Rose_NoHo 473
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr NoahLovesU 19,082
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr NoahLovesU 164,459
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) 5 hr Dogen 1,874
When is Quote Mining Justified? 14 hr Zog Has-fallen 26
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 15 hr Ooogah Boogah 178,618
How can we prove God exists, or does not? Thu GTID62 86
More from around the web