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

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

There are 160955 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.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#115449 May 14, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You have a warped perception of reality. It does not make sense to 99.9% of all professional scientists in relevant fields. Where did you get that statistic? What do you consider a "relevant field"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support...

"The level of support for creationism among relevant scientists is minimal. Only 700 out of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists gave credence to creationism in 1987,[27] representing about 0.146% of relevant scientists. In 2007 the Discovery Institute reported that about 600 scientists signed their A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism list, up from 100 in 2001.[151] The actual statement of the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism is a relatively mild one that expresses skepticism about the absoluteness of 'Darwinism'(and is in line with the falsifiability required of scientific theories) to explain all features of life, and does not in any way represent an absolute denial or rejection of evolution.[152] By contrast, a tongue-in-cheek response known as Project Steve, a list of scientists named Steve who agree that evolution is "a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences," has 1229 Steves as of September 24, 2012. People named Steve make up approximately 1% of the total U.S. population.

The United States National Science Foundation statistics on US yearly science graduates demonstrate that from 1987 to 2001, the number of biological science graduates increased by 59% while the number of geological science graduates decreased by 20.5%. However, the number of geology graduates in 2001 was only 5.4% of the number of graduates in the biological sciences, while it was 10.7% of the number of biological science graduates in 1987.[153] The Science Resources Statistics Division of the National Science Foundation estimated that in 1999, there were 955,300 biological scientists in the US (about 1/3 of who hold graduate degrees). There were also 152,800 earth scientists in the US as well.[154]

Therefore, the 600 Darwin Dissenters signing the A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism represent about 0.054% of the estimated 1,108,100 biological and geological scientists in the US in 1999. In addition, a large fraction of the Darwin Dissenters have specialties unrelated to research on evolution; of the dissenters, three-quarters are not biologists.[155] Therefore, the roughly 150 biologist Darwin Dissenters represent about 0.0157% of the US biologists that existed in 1999. As of 2006, the list was expanded to include non-US scientists, overestimating the number of US scientists that do not accept evolution according to the Discovery Institute,[156] a known creationist lobby institution. Despite the increase in absolute number of scientists willing to sign the dissent form, and an increase in public support, proportionately the figures indicates the support from scientists for creationism and intelligent design is steadily decreasing.[citation needed]"
KAB

United States

#115450 May 14, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution certainly "makes sense" to 99.9% of all professional scientists in relevant fields. Many of them persons of Christian (as well as other) faiths.
Evolution ALSO "makes sense" to a very large percentage (over half?) of Christians in the US, and a much LARGER percentage of Christians in the rest of the world.
Your argument is moot.
Evolution as a theory makes sense. Now, if all the data supported it, and there were no similarly positioned alternatives, then it would qualify as reality.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#115451 May 14, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You have a warped perception of reality. It does not make sense to 99.9% of all professional scientists in relevant fields. Where did you get that statistic? What do you consider a "relevant field"?
Also see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientif...

(Much too long to list here)

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#115452 May 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution as a theory makes sense. Now, if all the data supported it, and there were no similarly positioned alternatives, then it would qualify as reality.
Surprise. I agree with this statement.

But since "all the data" actually DOES agree with the Theory of Evolution, and there ARE not other "similarly positioned alternatives" (as it pertains to the diversity of life on earth), then......

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#115453 May 14, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not categorically against "intellectuals"...
It is unfortunate that many in institutions of higher learning have become detached from the real world and have adopted a worldview that warps their concept of reality.
Of course the "intellectuals" you are categorically not against are the minuscule percentage who support Genesis as a "scientific fact" and you don't include DI, CARM, CRI, etc. as "institutions of higher learning" that have warped world views. Noo - you've not detached from reality...

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#115454 May 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It was a slow drainage. It's in the record. Have you ever observed the effect of a slowly decreasing water level on sand on a surface? Do you see how this didn't require even a single back-flip? Why do you insist on making invalid assumptions? Is it because that's the only way to attempt to defend your case?
"Slow drainage"?!?!

RAPID deposition via precipitation and "fountains of the deep".

A world-wide flood (hypothetically), covering the Atacama with a depth of conservatively 2 MILES of water, being deposited and draining all within 1 year wouldn't show evidence of erosion on the "erosion-sensitive sediment surfaces" of the Atacama, but your average, garden variety precipitation of the SAME AREA 120 THOUSAND years ago left markers we can see today?

"Slow drainage".

Wow.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#115455 May 14, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
"Slow drainage"?!?!
RAPID deposition via precipitation and "fountains of the deep".
A world-wide flood (hypothetically), covering the Atacama with a depth of conservatively 2 MILES of water, being deposited and draining all within 1 year wouldn't show evidence of erosion on the "erosion-sensitive sediment surfaces" of the Atacama, but your average, garden variety precipitation of the SAME AREA 120 THOUSAND years ago left markers we can see today?
"Slow drainage".
Wow.
We're back to his 'stealth flood' again.
KAB

United States

#115456 May 14, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Surprise. I agree with this statement.
But since "all the data" actually DOES agree with the Theory of Evolution, and there ARE not other "similarly positioned alternatives" (as it pertains to the diversity of life on earth), then......
Let's test your assertion. What is the range of measured mutation rates?
KAB

United States

#115457 May 14, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
"Slow drainage"?!?!
RAPID deposition via precipitation and "fountains of the deep".
A world-wide flood (hypothetically), covering the Atacama with a depth of conservatively 2 MILES of water, being deposited and draining all within 1 year wouldn't show evidence of erosion on the "erosion-sensitive sediment surfaces" of the Atacama, but your average, garden variety precipitation of the SAME AREA 120 THOUSAND years ago left markers we can see today?
"Slow drainage".
Wow.
Were those markers caused by water washing down from above or from fountains of the deep slowly upwelling from below over 40 days?

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#115458 May 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Were those markers caused by water washing down from above or from fountains of the deep slowly upwelling from below over 40 days?
Some of those markers were in place for tens of Millions of years. Do you want to go there?

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#115459 May 14, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
We're back to his 'stealth flood' again.
I wonder if Noah got in any trouble for blabbing about it to his neighbors afterward.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#115460 May 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's test your assertion. What is the range of measured mutation rates?
<<cut/paste>>In general, the mutation rate in unicellular eukaryotes and bacteria is roughly 0.003 mutations per genome per generation.[5] The highest per base pair per generation mutation rates are found in viruses, which can have either RNA or DNA genomes. DNA viruses have mutation rates between 10&#8722;6 to 10&#8722;8 mutations per base per generation, and RNA viruses have mutation rates between 10&#8722;3 to 10&#8722;5 per base per generation.[5] Human mitochondrial DNA has been estimated to have mutation rates of ~3 or ~2.710&#8722;5 per base per 20 year generation (depending on the method of estimation);[6] these rates are considered to be significantly higher than rates of human genomic mutation at ~2.510&#8722;8 per base per generation.[3] Using data available from whole genome sequencing, the human genome mutation rate is similarly estimated to be ~1.110&#8722;8 per site per generation.[7]

<<end cut/paste>>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_rate

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#115461 May 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Were those markers caused by water washing down from above or from fountains of the deep slowly upwelling from below over 40 days?
Your 'fountains of the deep' is an assertion. Before you can use them in your argument, you first have to provide evidence of their existence.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#115462 May 14, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
"Slow drainage"?!?!
RAPID deposition via precipitation and "fountains of the deep".
A world-wide flood (hypothetically), covering the Atacama with a depth of conservatively 2 MILES of water, being deposited and draining all within 1 year wouldn't show evidence of erosion on the "erosion-sensitive sediment surfaces" of the Atacama, but your average, garden variety precipitation of the SAME AREA 120 THOUSAND years ago left markers we can see today?
"Slow drainage".
Wow.
The Atacama drops from about 5,000 feet inland to about 1200 feet at the coastal cliffs.

"Slow"?

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#115463 May 14, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
I wonder if Noah got in any trouble for blabbing about it to his neighbors afterward.
Who was there to blab to?
KAB

United States

#115464 May 14, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Some of those markers were in place for tens of Millions of years. Do you want to go there?
Yes I do want to go there. I think we all should go there.
If there was a gully washer 120,000 years ago, that takes care of the millions of years old markers in the washes. If there was not a gully washer 4500 years ago, but rather a gradual inundation and gradual subsidence, that would explain why the 120,000 year old markers are still there.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#115465 May 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes I do want to go there. I think we all should go there.
If there was a gully washer 120,000 years ago, that takes care of the millions of years old markers in the washes. If there was not a gully washer 4500 years ago, but rather a gradual inundation and gradual subsidence, that would explain why the 120,000 year old markers are still there.
The Atacama drops from about 5,000 feet inland to about 1200 feet at the coastal cliffs.

"Slow"?

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#115466 May 14, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Who was there to blab to?
His neighbors, of course. Take your pick. Everybody who was unaware that the global flood was happening - which would be the entire world, or everybody who didn't drown in it - which would be the entire world or everyone who didn't know they were supposed to have drowned in the global flood which didn't happen - which would be the entire world...
HTS

Englewood, CO

#115467 May 14, 2013
MikeF wrote:
Did you read the link you posted?
The 99.9% was simply stated by an atheist stooge... it was not referenced.
It's interesting how professed "authorities" don't even bother to qualify any of their asinine statements.
In order for such a statistic to be valid, you must first define "evolution", and then define "scientist".

99.9% of those with degrees in scientific fields believe in microevolution. How was the survey worded?
You don't know.

Do 99.9% of physicists believe in molecules-to-man evolution?

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#115468 May 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes I do want to go there. I think we all should go there.
If there was a gully washer 120,000 years ago, that takes care of the millions of years old markers in the washes. If there was not a gully washer 4500 years ago, but rather a gradual inundation and gradual subsidence, that would explain why the 120,000 year old markers are still there.
no. Ever been to Niagara Falls, the Badlands or the Grand Canyon, KAB? Ever hear of gravity? Water weighs about 8 lbs per gallon without being mixed with sediments and rock. Do you know what a lahar does?
Stop being stupid. You are dishonoring your grade school teachers. Stop lying. You are making a joke of yourself and a mockery your religion.

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
Curious dilemma about DNA 2 min pshun2404 369
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 5 min Zeke 67,218
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Science 28,657
What location did life started in? 2 hr Confucius 11
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) 2 hr Confucius 1,766
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 3 hr Subduction Zone 221,262
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 3 hr Regolith Based Li... 3,531
News Defending the Faith: Intelligent design vs. 'Go... 12 hr replaytime 332
More from around the web