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

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

There are 164685 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.

KAB

Wilson, NC

#127836 Mar 21, 2014
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Yes.
The associated mainland town is called Ushu.
Alexander built a causeway between the two, which also still stands.
Any other feckin' questions?
I do have a question. Why do you state the island still exists when that is not true?
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#127837 Mar 21, 2014
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Why not. He has nothing but distain for your religious beliefs. You are a child of Satan in his opinion and are only worthy of the rubbish heap.
Care to disagree Yellow KAB?
Hey, that may be one of the few times KAB has a point.(shrug)
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#127838 Mar 21, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Your childish caricatures of ancient scripture coupled with your flippant disrespect for cherished religious beliefs of others is indicative of your extreme arrogance and shallowness.
BONG!!!
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#127839 Mar 21, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Neither KAB nor you know what my religious beliefs are.
Is it wrong for me to show respect for the religious beliefs of others in your amoral world?
BONG!!! Ya can't get more amoral than (semi) literalistic YEC creationism.

By the way, you're a protestant fundie Christian YEC reality-denier who thinks the Flinstones is a science documentary. If I'm wrong, then the variation is so piffle it's not even worth mentioning.(shrug)
HTS

Mandan, ND

#127840 Mar 21, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
See what you can find regarding the outcome record for those who declined RBC transfusion for themselves or their loved ones, especially those who were told death would result without it.
BTW, I'm disappointed that you seem unaware patients have had hemoglobin levels down around 2 g/dl and survived.
The lowest hemoglobin I have seen with survival is around 4 g/dl. I'm sure that's not the world record, but it is a dangerously low level. All levels in that range are tolerated because they come on slowly and the patients are otherwise healthy. A heart patient, for example, could not tolerate a level that low. I doubt that a hemoglobin of 2 would be compatible with life for a prolonged period of time. You certainly cannot categorically state that because someone survived with a hemoglobin of 2, that all patients with hemoglobins above that level aren't facing a severe risk by not accepting a transfusion.

I'll see if I can find something in answer to your question. The issue of refusing transfusion does come up in hospital committees regularly. Does your religion permit autologous transfusions?
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#127841 Mar 21, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no island city. The island no longer exists. If you actually read the Bible account carefully you'd know why.
God erected a magic barrier that prevents brick-laying.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#127842 Mar 21, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no island city. The island no longer exists. If you actually read the Bible account carefully you'd know why.
The "island" has been connected to, and EXPANDED to the mainland.
If anything, it has been IMPROVED.

https://www.google.com/maps/ @33.2721566,35.203278,2597m/da ta=!3m1!1e3?hl=en

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#127843 Mar 21, 2014
https://www.google.com/maps/ @33.2721566,35.203278,2597m/da ta=!3m1!1e3?hl=en

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#127844 Mar 21, 2014
Crap. Googlemap "Tyre, Lebanon", and look for yourself.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#127845 Mar 21, 2014
Hi KAB

I haven't yet been able to find a study that I think you're looking for. Here are my thoughts...
There are studies that show that in many elective surgeries, patients who refuse transfusions have statistically equal outcomes as those who received blood. This depends on the surgery and co-morbidity factors... So it is difficult to simply take a study and apply it to any given patient.

It's important to understand that when physicians prescribe transfusions, they are making a judgment based on perceived risks vs benefits. Very rarely can a physician say with any degree of certainty that if you don't receive a transfusion you will have a serious adverse outcome or will die. Some people can tolerate a hemoglobin of 5, and some cannot. If you have serious traumatic blood loss and the doctor tells you that you need a transfusion, he is making a judgment. Perhaps your hemoglobin is dropping fast. He doesn't know how much more you will bleed, and may not even know the source of bleeding. He knows through experience that you will probably benefit and it might save your life. Therefore, if you refuse you are taking a chance, and there is simply no way to calculate what that risk is. He might operate and immediately find one small lacerated artery, and in retrospect you didn't need the transfusion... Or he might find multiple lacerations and require an additional 10 units of blood to keep you alive.

I have seen elective cases such as aortic aneurysm repairs that have required up to 20 units of blood during surgery. Clearly those patients would not make it through the surgery without transfusion. The question then arises... what is the risk of not having the surgery? When an aneurysm reaches a critical size, then the risk of rupture dramatically increases. However, a physician cannot tell a patient that if he refuses surgery, he will have a 30% probability of,dying within two years. He can site studies, but those are only estimations of risk.

I believe that blood transfusions are over-utilized in the United States. It is less of a problem now than it was 20 years ago. One of the challenges that I hope you will understand is that physicians practice Ina very hostile legal environment. If he doesn't prescribe a transfusion and it retrospectively might have helped, he is in trouble. Furthermore, transfusions in the US are very safe with our current system of voluntary donations, because the donor pool tends to be low risk. Therefore, physicians prescribe transfusions rather freely, even though they might not be imperative. In a severely anemic patient, additional blood frequently improves symptoms dramatically.

In any event, I hope that this might have shed some light on the subject.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#127846 Mar 22, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Your childish caricatures of ancient scripture coupled with your flippant disrespect for cherished religious beliefs of others is indicative of your extreme arrogance and shallowness.
Yet you show flippant disrespect and worse for those who have no religious beliefs. In fact your cult encourages you to think of them as foolish an wicked while offering no solid evidence for its own position.

At least when science tells you you are wrong, it tells you WHY you are wrong, backed by physical evidence.

For example, scientists do not take the flood myth seriously. Not because they are out to "get" the Bible, but because when we look there is simply no good evidence that one occurred and lots of good evidence against it. If there had been any good evidence for a Flood 4500 years ago or thereabouts, science would not hide it.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#127847 Mar 22, 2014
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
The "island" has been connected to, and EXPANDED to the mainland.
If anything, it has been IMPROVED.
https://www.google.com/maps/ @33.2721566,35.203278,2597m/da ta=!3m1!1e3?hl=en
Is KAB seriously trying to suggest that a prophesy of GOD can be circumvented by the simple expedient of filling in the land between the Island and the mainland? That really is funny.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#127849 Mar 22, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
See what you can find regarding the outcome record for those who declined RBC transfusion for themselves or their loved ones, especially those who were told death would result without it.
BTW, I'm disappointed that you seem unaware patients have had hemoglobin levels down around 2 g/dl and survived.
A few people have, incredibly, survived falls from thousands of feet without parachutes.

You would still be advised to wear one when jumping out of a plane at 10,000 feet.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#127850 Mar 22, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Your childish caricatures of ancient scripture coupled with your flippant disrespect for cherished religious beliefs of others is indicative of your extreme arrogance and shallowness.
I think it's more than fair. You provide childish caricatures of science, history and reality itself, yet expect to be sheltered and unaccountable for propagating delusion because it is your "cherished religious belief". Do you also respect and cherish Buddhist and Islamic beliefs? How about Santeria and Vodoo? You make creationist claims that I find to be extremist, disrespectful, arrogant and shallow - and exceedingly dishonest.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#127851 Mar 22, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet you show flippant disrespect and worse for those who have no religious beliefs. In fact your cult encourages you to think of them as foolish an wicked while offering no solid evidence for its own position.
At least when science tells you you are wrong, it tells you WHY you are wrong, backed by physical evidence.
For example, scientists do not take the flood myth seriously. Not because they are out to "get" the Bible, but because when we look there is simply no good evidence that one occurred and lots of good evidence against it. If there had been any good evidence for a Flood 4500 years ago or thereabouts, science would not hide it.
I don't respect those who pretend to use science to justify their philosophical beliefs.
You obviously have no concept of true science. If you convene a group of scientists for debate, there is never 100% agreement on anything. Your broad statements that all scientists reject a global flood, and that the fossil record is a "seamless" history of descent, demonstrates that you are only repeating talking points.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#127852 Mar 22, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
A few people have, incredibly, survived falls from thousands of feet without parachutes.
You would still be advised to wear one when jumping out of a plane at 10,000 feet.
Your analogy has an element of validity...however it is a gross exaggeration.
There is at least a 99.99% probability of death after jumping out of an airplane without a parachute.
There are very few medical situations with analogous probability of death by refusing a transfusion.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#127853 Mar 22, 2014
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
I think it's more than fair. You provide childish caricatures of science, history and reality itself, yet expect to be sheltered and unaccountable for propagating delusion because it is your "cherished religious belief". Do you also respect and cherish Buddhist and Islamic beliefs? How about Santeria and Vodoo? You make creationist claims that I find to be extremist, disrespectful, arrogant and shallow - and exceedingly dishonest.
I don't provide "childish caricatures of science".
I have no respect for those who pretend to be using science to justify their religious beliefs, ie, atheism.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#127854 Mar 22, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet you show flippant disrespect and worse for those who have no religious beliefs.
Everyone has religious beliefs, including you.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#127855 Mar 22, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't provide "childish caricatures of science".
I have no respect for those who pretend to be using science to justify their religious beliefs, ie, atheism.
Really..? Is evolution a violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, HTS? Do you accept and endorse any of the other "scientific" claims of Answers in Genesis, the Institute for Creation Research and the Discovery Institute without acknowledging that they are in fact, pseudoscience, ie. caricatures of science?
You keep right on saying atheism is a "religious belief" and it will continue to be said that you have no respect for orthology.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#127856 Mar 22, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Everyone has religious beliefs, including you.
Is that because there are multiple definitions of "religious" and "belief" or is it because in/with your mind you cannot fathom any other mode of thought?
I have a religious belief. I believe that religious fundamentalists are disconnected from reality and by consequence are incapable of honesty with themselves or others. Am I not entitled to the same respect for my "religious belief" as you are for yours? At least I can point to real world evidence for mine.

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
Post your Bible Science Verses that show Evolut... 7 min THE LONE WORKER 130
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 14 min Dogen 83,136
Golden Section in our DNA again proves DESIGN 52 min Regolith Based Li... 35
What is the theory of natural selection and has... 1 hr Science 3
The worst enemies of Creationism are "religioni... 1 hr 15th Dalai Lama 25
Bible 'Science' Verses opposing the Evolution R... 3 hr Reb Bacchus 123
Evolution is boring as Hell 6 hr Science 6
More from around the web