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

Full story: Asheville Citizen-Times

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 ...
Comments
113,241 - 113,260 of 135,724 Comments Last updated 12 min ago

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Williston, ND

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#115325
May 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#115326
May 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••