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

Discord wrote:

<quoted text>
You seem to be under the impression that anything said here matters. I can't speak for your side of the discussion but for me and many others here we do this simply for entertainment (as masochistic as that might sound) and as an intellectual exercise. I am a writer and like to keep my chops fresh by taking a position and arguing it, even if I have nothing invested in the outcome (I also defend multi boxing on the World of Warcraft forums).
The simple fact is if anyone on your side of the argument had any real information or evidence that disproved or discredited Evolution you would not be here on Topix. You would be out doing the talk shows and collecting your Nobel Prize and working out the advance on your book deals.
Nothing said on these forums is going to change anything, anywhere. No public policy will be initiated, no changes to school programs, no new textbooks. If you were truly interested in this topic and making real change just about any other activity you could be doing would be more productive then posting here.
In short, Evolution is the currently accepted scientific Theory. It is taught in High School and Colleges around the world. It is the basis of modern Biology. And there is absolutely nothing you can do about it.
Have a good weekend.

Kong_ wrote:

<quoted text>
Yup.
Very thin.
Very.
Thin.
Now...please provide evidence that all types of rock varnish accretes at a known and stable rate, in every environment.

thewordofme wrote:

<quoted text>
There was no flood. Geologists and archaeologists have never found evidence of a world-wide flood.
You say there was a flood? Where...prove it.
You've already been following this thread for a long time and you know all the arguments. Fundies have NEVER been able to forward ANY credible evidence that there was a flood.

thewordofme wrote:

<quoted text>
Is this 'varnish' thing going to turn out like the 'moon dust' controversy; which, by the way, some creotards still use.
I think I'll wait until some scientists explore it

KAB wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, I know all the assertions (rarely accompanied even by attempts at confirming data), and I have shown how each example of whatever data has been provided misses the mark (will resubmit one by one for any data references you provide). Against that backdrop I'm essentially asking do you have anything else/new which gets the job done? Your side has yet to prove the global flood did or could not happen. So the consequence is it could have.

TedHOhio wrote:

<quoted text>
We did, it was refuted days ago. Try and keep up!

Thomas Robertson wrote:

KAB, can you prove that the Koran isn't true?
Or the Vedas?
Or the Book of Tao?
Or the Kitáb-i-Aqdas?
Or the Book of Mormon?
Or Science and Health with a Key to the Scriptures?
Or the Divine Principle?
By your reasoning, you will either have to disprove all of these books or join the Moslems, the Hindus, the Taoists, the Bahais, the Mormons, the Christian Scientists, and the Moonies.

Discord wrote:

<quoted text>
I would contest the no data confirming it didn't happen, but even if that was the case that still leaves the only 'evidence' for the Flood being the Bible. And I am not sure what you mean by reliable religious text? Yes, it wrote about cities like Jerusalem that actually existed but things like the divinity of Christ or the Garden of Eden or the Resurrection have ever been confirmed.

KAB wrote:

<quoted text>Why do you want to know about all types of rock varnish in every environment? Do you think there is something objectively scientific about generating unnecessary "make-work" for your opponents? Finding answers for the Atacama varnish seems scientifically most efficacious.

HTS wrote:

<quoted text>Blindly posting a link that you cannot logically defend only indicates that you've been backed into a corner. Every time I read an article on abiogenesis, I'm more convinced of the utter stupidity and overt dishonesty of those who peddle such a lie.

KAB wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, I know all the assertions (rarely accompanied even by attempts at confirming data), and I have shown how each example of whatever data has been provided misses the mark (will resubmit one by one for any data references you provide). Against that backdrop I'm essentially asking do you have anything else/new which gets the job done? Your side has yet to prove the global flood did or could not happen. So the consequence is it could have.

LowellGuy wrote:

<quoted text>
By demonstrating it to be 100% accurate in all things to which it pertains, using EVIDENCE rather than assumptions.
Nobody has done this with the Bible. Until this has been done, the rational and reasonable default is that the Bible IS potentially fallible, and therefore that it should not be treated as though it is infallible. That means that before saying that everything it says should be accepted until it is proven wrong, it should be said that everything it says should be treated skeptically until it is demonstrated to be true.
I'm not sure how you think you've won any ground with that approach.

LowellGuy wrote:

<quoted text>
You're ASSUMING that the flood story is an event that was observed and documented. If there is no evidence of such a global flood, is it more or less reasonable to accept the claim that such a flood occurred? Remember, until the Bible is proven infallible, claims made in the absence of evidence should be treated skeptically rather than simply accepted until proven false. That's how RATIONAL people operate. So...care to stop being completely wrong?

MikeF wrote:

<quoted text>
We've done that. And no one asked for for every line item. You have yet to prove your flood line item true.
Still running away for your burden of proof.

MikeF wrote:

<quoted text>
BS. Where do you see it globally in the same time frame? Where is the evidence in the Atacama?

HTS wrote:

<quoted text>
There is no logical reason to believe in Abiogensis . No observation in science remotely suggests that it is possible. Experimental biochemsistry leads to the conclusion that it's impossible. DNA cannot self organize from raw materials,... I have never read an article on abiogenesis (and I've read a lot of them) that even addresses the obstacle of information evolving from non living matter.

HTS wrote:

<quoted text>Blindly posting a link that you cannot logically defend only indicates that you've been backed into a corner. Every time I read an article on abiogenesis, I'm more convinced of the utter stupidity and overt dishonesty of those who peddle such a lie.

KAB wrote:

<quoted text>
Is this what you consider refuting?,
http://www.topix.net/forum/news/evolution/TFA...

TedHOhio wrote:

<quoted text>
There you are wrong. There is considerable evidence that in the distant past there was no life on Earth. Later along the timeline of Earth's existance, there is life. So no life -- then life. There is your evidence for Abiogenesis.
The question is how did it occur. There are 8 leading hypotheses as I previously stated. There is some evidence supporting each one -- which is why they are scientific hypotheses.
It really doesn't matter what the explanation of Abiogenesis ends up being, it will not effect the Theory of Evolution much at all.
What is lacking is ANY evidence that life started based on the actions of one deity or another. How many religions have a Creation story? How many of them have any actual evidence? Do you care to take a stab at answering that question? I don't think you will. If you do, I doubt you will answer is honestly, but here is your shot.

Kong_ wrote:

<quoted text>
If you have read ANYTHING about the rock varnish studies, you might learn that little is known about the process of accretion, much less about the RATE of accretion.
But it is widely assumed that biological processes are a key component in the formation of the rock varnish.
Since water (and therefore the presence of biological organisms needed to create the varnish) is all but absent (only fog in your source), it might WELL be expected for the rock varnish to accrete at a considerably slower rate.
SO -- again -- if you have reliable, SCIENTIFIC data about the thickness of Atacama rock varnish as it relates to the overall paleoclimatic ARID conditions that has been evidenced as having continued for past SEVERAL MILLION YEARS, please present this data.