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

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

There are 151281 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.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#119139 Jul 2, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
At least you acknowledge science, for the most part, doesn't guarantee its answers are correct. One virtually always has to have faith.
I could accept faith, but not the blind stupidity you possess and consider to be faith.

This is a conclusion based on data.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#119140 Jul 2, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing that was not designed by humans so far. Are you hiding something that we have not seen yet?
Is there nothing in the non-man-made world more complex than the best comparable design by humans?
KAB

Wilson, NC

#119141 Jul 2, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I have a patient that says that people I can't see are all around me.
I was SO hoping you were retired, for their sake.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#119142 Jul 2, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolutionary ROC is not a stable fixed thing in any life form. ROC will depend upon genome length, environment, conserved areas, exposure to mutagens.......
So what is lacking will continue to be lacking. We will learn to understand the variable better but they will still be (ahem) variable.
As bacteria are part of the food chain we will have bacteria for as long as we have other life forms.
Do you suppose there are upper and lower values to what has been directly observed so far? Those could be used to make some sanity checking calculations to test (that's a scientific method term and requirement) ToE.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#119143 Jul 2, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
HEre we go again!
Genesis 1:
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said,“Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
Seems pretty specific.
Yes. It specifically mentions evening before morning. Please elaborate on the one and only way that can and has to be understood.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#119144 Jul 2, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL. You are exposing your ignorance again.
I caught you in your ignorance so you are trying to break out with more ignorance.
Eukaryotes typically have more DNA (which I see you don't understand), reproduce sexually (more exposure to novel genetic changes), competition, ecological niches, and the drivers (mechanisms) of evolution.
You seriously can't understand why a population of complex, long strand DNA, sexually reproducing organisms would be exposed to more evolutionary pressures than bacteria?
Seriously?
I feel like I am arguing with a 6th grader.
6th graders still want to know why you indicated that eukaryotes have had more years than bacteria to accumulate mutations?

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#119145 Jul 2, 2013
“Israel Finkelstein, dean of archaeology at Tel Aviv University, and his co-author, Neil Silberman, have published a book,“The Bible Unearthed”, that goes beyond the typical critique of the historicity of the Bible, noting, "... It is now evident that many events of biblical history did not take place in either the particular era or manner described. Some of the most famous events in the Bible clearly never happened at all."

Their conclusion is that the Pentateuch is principally a collection of myths and legends, likely written to support the religious-cleansing policies of the Judahite ruler at the time, King Josiah.

With attacks like these, across several fronts, the Judaeo-Christian religion is indeed facing the fight of its life, with the possibility of a rout of truly 'biblical' proportions.”
http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20130701/c...
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#119146 Jul 3, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
So then your god is flawed. Not much of a god, Zeus is perfect, and Cthulhu is more powerful than all of then and alien.
Whatever. You are just a good example of why I'm getting tired of wasting time in here. You can't debate people who don't live in reality.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119147 Jul 3, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps you could identify the assertion you had in mind.

Bottlenecks line up 4,500 years ago.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119148 Jul 3, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It seems the global flood waters are now primarily in the oceans.

no.

ocean waters are in the ocean.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119149 Jul 3, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I trust science equally in both directions. Do you?

This is a lie.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119150 Jul 3, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
No (Acts 17:11), but you do. It's so much less work for you isn't it?!

Only when it suits your purposes.

Do lie using the Bible. Some of us use that for things other than toilet paper.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119151 Jul 3, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a nice hypothesis regarding what you perceive to have taken place. Now what's the next step in the scientific method?
BTW, I have studied it and do understand, whereas it appears you don't even know how many generations it would take to generate a population of about 100,000.

His post was not a hypothesis, but mostly observation. It is THE established science.

You don't care what the next step in the scientific method is because you have no science to put against it AND you want to deny that it is YOUR responsibility.

In fewer words you are a chronic liar.

Who is the father of all lies?



Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Because newly generated haplotypes have to disseminate through the population generation by generation, in the case of mitochondria through the female line. Try doing a bit of arithmetic on how many generations its likely to take for a new haplotype arising from one individual to disseminate through a population of say 100,000.
Then remember that the haplotypes form nested hierarchies. That means we can see one variant, then an additional variant adding to a previous one, then another, and so on, allowing us to determine lineages that accumulated.
Its not easy to explain all that properly on this forum, but if you took some time to think about it, you would understand.
And this cannot happen in 4500 years. No scientist could make that assumption fit the data. But of course, unlike you, scientists did not start with an inbuilt conviction that the timescale has to be 4500 years. Quite the reverse; they studied the data and built the timelines accordingly, starting with little idea of how it would work out...and letting the data determine the result.
The same is true for the age of the earth, and various other scientific discoveries. The data gave the answer - we did not start with the answer we wanted and try to bend, special plead, or cajole the data to tell us what we wanted to hear. This is exactly what you do, and its a flawed approach.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#119152 Jul 3, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It seems the global flood waters are now primarily in the oceans.
There isn't enough water in the oceans. Not much on math, are you?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#119153 Jul 3, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I trust science equally in both directions. Do you?
No you don't. Who the hell do you think you're fooling?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#119154 Jul 3, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
At least you acknowledge science, for the most part, doesn't guarantee its answers are correct. One virtually always has to have faith.
Nah. You're the one who takes things on faith. Take, for example, your mythical flood. You insist it could have happened even though you have admitted you have no proof. THAT is faith.

The rest of us are content to use evidence and logic.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#119155 Jul 3, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. It specifically mentions evening before morning. Please elaborate on the one and only way that can and has to be understood.
I just did, dumbass. Read it again without your official Watchtower blinders on. If that's possible.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#119156 Jul 3, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Whatever. You are just a good example of why I'm getting tired of wasting time in here. You can't debate people who don't live in reality.
In other words, you talked yourself into a corner and being unable to address it, you attempt to save face by projecting your failure onto others.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#119157 Jul 3, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. It specifically mentions evening before morning. Please elaborate on the one and only way that can and has to be understood.
I'll let our good friend, John D. Morris, answer that for you:

he length of the days of Genesis 1 has been much debated. Are the days of Genesis 1 regular solar days, referring to the rotation of the earth on its axis, or could each day be a long, indefinite period of time, equivalent in total to the vast time spans of geology? Such an interpretation would give solace to Christians who try to harmonize long ages with Genesis.

It is true that the Hebrew word yom,translated "day," can have a variety of meanings. By far its most common is a literal day, but it can mean "age." The question is, what does it mean here? As always for a word with multiple possible meanings, we must let the Scriptural context take precedence in discerning its meaning for a particular usage.

Interestingly, the very first time the word is used, in Genesis 1:5, it is strictly defined as the light portion of a light/dark cycle as the earth rotated underneath a directional light source, producing day and night. It is also true that whenever "day" is modified by a number, like second day or six days, it can only mean a true solar day. There are no exceptions in Hebrew. Any uncertainty is resolved in the Ten Commandments as God commands us to work six days and rest one day just as He worked on the six creation days and rested on day seven (Exodus 20:11).

Now consider that each day in Genesis is modified by the term "evening and morning," both commonly used words in the Old Testament. Can they be referring to indefinite periods of time? Standard Bible study tools define the Hebrew word for "evening" (ereb) as meaning simply evening or night. It is derived from expressions connoting "the setting of the sun or sunset," and associated with evening sacrificial meal and rituals. Often mentioned is the "evening sacrifice" or "returning at evening." Likewise the word for "morning" (bôqer) literally means morning or dawn, the breaking through of daylight, and reference is made to "rising early in the morning" or keeping the fire burning until the morning. There is little possibility of translating the word pair as "the end of an age" and/or "the beginning of an age."

The job of both Bible student and expositor is to carefully determine what the Author of Scripture is communicating to the reader. We dare not impose on the straightforward Word of God our own bias. We must stand in submission to Him and His words. Remember, God is all wise and wants to reveal truth to us, things we might not know otherwise. He can also write clearly. He will help us understand even difficult passages if we value His thoughts above our own.

http://www.icr.org/article/3228/

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#119158 Jul 3, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
At least you acknowledge science, for the most part, doesn't guarantee its answers are correct. One virtually always has to have faith.
No. Not faith. Confidence based on the evidence. Faith is what you use as an excuse for believing something despite a lack of evidence and/or in spite of contradictory evidence.

EXAMPLE: God exists. You believe this on faith, despite there being no evidence of such a thing (hell, you can't even define what it is to be able to demonstrate its existence).

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) 1 min One way or another 34,025
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 17 min Eagle 12 14,835
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr ChromiuMan 199,191
News ID Isn't Science, But That's the Least Of Its P... 5 hr DanFromSmithville 31
My Story Part 1 Fri JanusBifrons 1
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) Fri Don Barros Serrano 179,706
Evolution in action Jun 20 Darth Robo 9
More from around the web