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

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

There are 151481 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.

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#118878 Jun 28, 2013
Man-on-Fire wrote:
<quoted text>
They give references of their information as they go and after each article. And PBS - Evolution Home - is a scientific source? I beg to differ. It does not have links to their source or even tell where they get the information.
The Discovery Institute is not a reputable source of scientific information. They are functionally a religious organization decorated to appear like a science organization.

This does not mean that they haven't reported accurate and scientifically valid information. However, that is not their agenda and the opposite is often noted with this organization. They support the religious concept of intelligent design and not science.

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#118879 Jun 28, 2013
Man-on-Fire wrote:
<quoted text>
But I will agree it is a creationist site after doing more reading. But that is the problem with any links. They either come from a evolutionists site or a creationists site. It is a no win argument for both sides based on that alone. Both sides back their links because the links back their beliefs.
Sorry, I did not see this post when I replied to your last post. Though, I would say that sites that tout evolution should do so based on evidence and provide references in order to meet a minimum standard of legitimacy. Keep in mind that science and the theory of evolution do not refute the existence of God or gods.

“A belief is formed personally.”

Level 2

Since: Jun 13

Not forced.

#118880 Jun 28, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry, I did not see this post when I replied to your last post. Though, I would say that sites that tout evolution should do so based on evidence and provide references in order to meet a minimum standard of legitimacy. Keep in mind that science and the theory of evolution do not refute the existence of God or gods.
I keep in mind that you say that evolution does not refute the existence of God or gods. It really comes to mind every time I see someone say God is fake, God is a myth, God is a cult, God is made up ect ect. Maybe science and the theory of evolution does not refute the existence of God but the evolutionists sure do as much as they go on about God being fake, false, a myth all the time.

So if in one breath an evolutionists says "science and the theory of evolution do not refute the existence of God or gods"

then in the next breath they say "God is not real, he is a made up myth". Which one is a lie?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#118881 Jun 28, 2013
Man-on-Fire wrote:
<quoted text>
I keep in mind that you say that evolution does not refute the existence of God or gods. It really comes to mind every time I see someone say God is fake, God is a myth, God is a cult, God is made up ect ect. Maybe science and the theory of evolution does not refute the existence of God but the evolutionists sure do as much as they go on about God being fake, false, a myth all the time.
So if in one breath an evolutionists says "science and the theory of evolution do not refute the existence of God or gods"
then in the next breath they say "God is not real, he is a made up myth". Which one is a lie?
That is usually said in the heat of battle after someone has tried to play the god card. I will happily point out that evolution does debunk the sort of god that HST believes in. That is a psychotic god that will kill everything in his creation in the worst way possible. I have no problem debunking that sort of god. Believing in it would be a truly sick belief.

It is interesting if you look at the God of the Bible he tends to mature and civilize himself as his believers mature and civilize themselves. That seems to me to say a lot more about the people than the supposed god.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#118882 Jun 28, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Right. In other words, there is no special reason anything must be in any particular order if God did it. You just falsified your own argument. Well done.
There is strong reason why things are in a particular order (1 Corinthians 14:33).

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#118883 Jun 28, 2013
Man-on-Fire wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is a good read. It is even from the Discovery Institute there in Washington.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/files...

Good read and Discovery Institute are mutually exclusive terms. It is infinitely improbable that anything put out by the Disco Institution is a "good read".

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#118884 Jun 28, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing from the Discovery Institute is a good read. I will still check it out.

It is more likely that a bowl of petunias suddenly sprung into existence high above an alien world.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#118885 Jun 28, 2013
Man-on-Fire wrote:
<quoted text>
They give references of their information as they go and after each article. And PBS - Evolution Home - is a scientific source? I beg to differ. It does not have links to their source or even tell where they get the information.

PBS is a known credible source. Disco institution is a known incredulous source.

They have been caught red handed quote-mining scientific sources.

http://ncse.com/creationism/general/analysis-...

That is as dishonest as you can get. Why would anyone take a source that does things like that seriously?

Here is another one (more for the comedy than the references)

http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2010/...

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#118886 Jun 28, 2013
Man-on-Fire wrote:
<quoted text>
But I will agree it is a creationist site after doing more reading. But that is the problem with any links. They either come from a evolutionists site or a creationists site. It is a no win argument for both sides based on that alone. Both sides back their links because the links back their beliefs.

No, science backs evolution.

There are over 100,000 peer review journal articles, the vast majority of which are research based, on evolution.

There are zero for creationism.

There are a few for ID but they (directly or indirectly) debunk ID.

BTW, ID was born out of creationism, but has now grown quite apart from its biblical roots. More and more creationists are denying ID and saying it is unchristian.

Evolution, on the other hand, is accepted by the majority of Christian denominations.


KAB

Wilson, NC

#118887 Jun 28, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Design can explain ANY conceivable thing.
And the literature demonstrating the evolution of bacteria has been linked to many times on these pages. I bet you did not read my exact wording very well. What I said is precisely correct.
Hint: look up e.coli on wikipedia an read the section on diversity.
I was just getting you to bit down on the hook.
You did not use my exact wording very well.
I stated that design cannot BELIEVABLY explain any (to be more precise I probably should have stated "every") conceivable thing.

Here are your exact words,

"They do not have the same kind of bacteria as at the start."

which may be correct but are not precise since "kind" can have quite a range of meaning.

To be more precise, Aren't they all still e. coli?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#118888 Jun 28, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
It is more likely that a bowl of petunias suddenly sprung into existence high above an alien world.
Don't forget the whale:

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#118889 Jun 28, 2013
Man-on-Fire wrote:
<quoted text>
I keep in mind that you say that evolution does not refute the existence of God or gods. It really comes to mind every time I see someone say God is fake, God is a myth, God is a cult, God is made up ect ect. Maybe science and the theory of evolution does not refute the existence of God but the evolutionists sure do as much as they go on about God being fake, false, a myth all the time.
So if in one breath an evolutionists says "science and the theory of evolution do not refute the existence of God or gods"
then in the next breath they say "God is not real, he is a made up myth". Which one is a lie?

Okay, you are confabulating terms here.

Neither evolution nor any other branch of science says God is a fake.

Atheists often say this. And sometimes the atheists are even scientists. But that does not mean that science says or implies that. Science cannot (yet at least) address the issue of the existence of God. While it has refuted some IDEAS about God, the real thing, if it exists, is untouched.

Would you like a list of ministers who accept evolution or a list of denominations that do?


“A belief is formed personally.”

Level 2

Since: Jun 13

Not forced.

#118890 Jun 28, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
PBS is a known credible source. Disco institution is a known incredulous source.
They have been caught red handed quote-mining scientific sources.
http://ncse.com/creationism/general/analysis-...
That is as dishonest as you can get. Why would anyone take a source that does things like that seriously?
Here is another one (more for the comedy than the references)
http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2010/...
It is really hard to quote mine when you post a link. Do you even know what quote mine means?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#118891 Jun 28, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
There is strong reason why things are in a particular order (1 Corinthians 14:33).

Epic fail unless you can tell us what that order is.

We are back to creationism (aka design) can explain anything and therefore explains nothing. It does not make testable predictions, cannot be falsified, cannot be repeated, cannot be tested.....


There is a good reason why you don't address this.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#118892 Jun 28, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I did not know that birds counted as intelligent beings.
Nor spider
nor slime mold
nor coral.......
Dipstick. You stepped in it again.
Isn't intelligence relative (e.g., me being relatively more intelligent than you)?

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#118893 Jun 28, 2013
Man-on-Fire wrote:
<quoted text>
I keep in mind that you say that evolution does not refute the existence of God or gods. It really comes to mind every time I see someone say God is fake, God is a myth, God is a cult, God is made up ect ect. Maybe science and the theory of evolution does not refute the existence of God but the evolutionists sure do as much as they go on about God being fake, false, a myth all the time.
So if in one breath an evolutionists says "science and the theory of evolution do not refute the existence of God or gods"
then in the next breath they say "God is not real, he is a made up myth". Which one is a lie?
Neither.

Science does not argue the existence or non-existence of a deity.

Nor will it, nor should it, until evidence for the assertion that he exists is forthcoming.

So far, all I've seen are folklore and anecdotes.

Here's how it works:

Believer: "God."

Everyone else: "Really? Kewl! Show me!"

Believer: "BLASPHEMY!!!"

So, Science is not in the business of disproving a deity, but has no reason to believe in one.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#118894 Jun 28, 2013
Man-on-Fire wrote:
<quoted text>
I keep in mind that you say that evolution does not refute the existence of God or gods. It really comes to mind every time I see someone say God is fake, God is a myth, God is a cult, God is made up ect ect. Maybe science and the theory of evolution does not refute the existence of God but the evolutionists sure do as much as they go on about God being fake, false, a myth all the time.
So if in one breath an evolutionists says "science and the theory of evolution do not refute the existence of God or gods"
then in the next breath they say "God is not real, he is a made up myth". Which one is a lie?
Oh, and it's "etc". Not "ect".

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#118895 Jun 28, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You did not use my exact wording very well.
I stated that design cannot BELIEVABLY explain any (to be more precise I probably should have stated "every") conceivable thing.
Here are your exact words,
"They do not have the same kind of bacteria as at the start."
which may be correct but are not precise since "kind" can have quite a range of meaning.
To be more precise, Aren't they all still e. coli?

e.coli does not tell us anything.

there is more genetic variability between strands of e.coli than there are between humans and bananas. 2 strands of e.coli can differ in genetic material by as much as 80%.

So they can change radically and still be labeled e.coli.

Science has noted this problem and sub-strands are known by different identifiers (though the generic name e.coli still sticks to the entire classification).

They are rather simple and have a simple genome.

Now, do we expect organisms with simple genomes to have more or fewer point mutations?

Fewer is the correct answer. Do you know why?

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#118896 Jun 28, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
It is more likely that a bowl of petunias suddenly sprung into existence high above an alien world.
"Oh, no. Not again."
KAB

Wilson, NC

#118897 Jun 28, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
You dolt, a designer can do what they want.
Now you are telling God how he has to be.
What great folly.
Perhaps I should have told him to do it the way you require instead of just humbly accepting the way he did it.

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr Chimney1 43,191
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 3 hr The First Amendment 204,831
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 4 hr Eagle 12 18,514
Sun could not have formed as thought 8 hr U think Im wrong 19
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) Wed It aint necessari... 912
Current Education And Its Huge Flaws Aug 22 Bren 1
Transfer Old iPhone Data to Samsung Galaxy S7 w... Aug 22 CarLayshia 1
More from around the web