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

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

There are 162576 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.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#96946 Sep 6, 2012
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>You are an idiot dugan and now I remember why I quit posting to you. She says she can replicate the origin of life if she just had the right equipment!! Scientific theories demand that their tests be replicatable dogan. So if you had the "EQUIPMENT" could you replicate the origin of life also????

You are miswording things intentionally. We cannot YET replicated the origin of life. That day is coming but is not here yet.

Theories do demands testing. What theory has been tested more than the ToE? I can't think of any. Problem is that you do not really understand what is meant by a scientific test, by replication, by experiment, by scientific method nor by parsimony.

You will never be able to talk about science without learning about science anymore than I will be able to speak in French without learning French.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#96947 Sep 6, 2012
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>It is called the scientific method. I'm surprised you've never heard of it or you wouldn't have asked that question. It requires observation, testing, replication, with degrees of probability.

Sorry, The scientific method is the mother of the Theory of Evolution. It is a "hallmark scientific theory". It requires observation (check), testing (check), replication (check) and is probable enough to be considered a solid scientific fact by science.

Since: Jun 08

Parsons, TN

#96948 Sep 6, 2012
KAB wrote:
I don't harp about SINGLE flood evidence. I harp about flood evidence period, and I have provided such evidence from "multiple" locations all over the globe, so the flood is backed up.
What you have provided is evidenced of regional flooding. If there were a global flood - the following data would not exist:

1. Regional flood evidence found in Black Sea cores at 9400 years - but no flood evidence in the same cores at 4500 years
2. Sedimentary core evidence shows a stable Danube Delta/sea level for the last 6000 years.
3. Sedimentary core evidence shows drought conditions in Green Sahara 7.2-2.3 ky BP
4. Sedimentary core evidence shows drought conditions recorded 4.6 - 4.3 ky BP, Kaidu River delta margin of Bosten Lake in the Gobi Desert
5. Measurements of cosmogenic isotope 21 Ne in quartz clasts in an Atacama Desert river bed shows no water present for the last 120,000 years.
6. Paleo-artifacts/sedimentary analysis show lower, and not higher, Atacama lake levels 4500 years ago
7. Paleo-artifacts at Atacama lake shorelines show human habitation 4500 years ago
8. Statistical assessment of Paleo-Storm Records and sedimentary analysis from coastal lagoon in Puerto Rico finds nothing more substantial than hurricanes during the last 5500 years.
9. DNA analysis shows human pop. bottlenecks at 50,000 and 20,000 years - but nothing at 4500 years
10. DNA analysis traces us back to Africa, not the Middle East.
11. Coral core analysis shows corals reefs flourishing 4500 years ago.
12. Archaeological digs/artifacts show civilizations flourishing 4500 years ago.
13. Continuous tree ring data going back 11,000 yrs w/no evidence of global flooding 4500 yrs ago.
14. The "discontinuity" at Volo Bog evidenced by an increase in prairie grass pollen 4500 years ago, indicating oak woods and savanna with increasing prairie.
15. Collapse and emptying of Glacial Lake Missoula formed immense ripples, channels, etc., in Eastern Washington state; the outline of the flooded area still obvious with nothing washed away.

16. No discontinuity at 4500 BP in Illinois. The environment has been drying out since the end of the Ice Age.
17. DNA sequences of ancient cattle, as well as cattle living today, found that the DNA differences could only have arisen if a small number of animals, approximately 80, weredomesticated from wild ox (aurochs) 10,500 yrs ago.
18. Mojave Desert rock varnish documenting a dry period over the last 10 ka
19. Cheetah bottleneck 10,000 yrs ago and not 4500 years ago

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#96949 Sep 6, 2012
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Nor does it have any idea the origin of life. Science is very limited. At least you understand that. Funny how you left that off your list. Had you included it, you would have been in complete contradiction with your girlfriend Kitten. She says.....
"They have produced living organisms in the lab, that's why they are able to understand the process enough to actually test the abiogenesis hypotheses they are working on."
Heck dogen, she says she can replicate the origin of life with the right lab equipment. Can you do that too Dogen?

Again, your misunderstanding is in sharp focus. Science is not that limited. We have a better understanding of our universe every day thanks to science. And every day, for the last 155 years, we have more evidence supporting evolution.

We live in a universe where natural law rules. Now I personally believe that universal order was created by god, but since that origin we have needed no magic poofing. The ends were established in the beginning. Evolution is simply part of gods order.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#96950 Sep 6, 2012
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>There is no room in science for "yets". Yet's means it hasn't been confirmed but "maybe someday, hopefully it will". Science works off observation and testing....not the hopes of the dilusional. "Yets" in science is meaningless and void of the slightest worth.

LOL. Sorry dude, you are lost. In 1942 we had not built the atomic bomb,.... YET. But we knew it could be done. It was theoretically possible but not YET actualized.

We are in exactly the same position, today, with regard to the creation of novel life from scratch. We understand it but cannot do it YET.

Hope this helps.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#96951 Sep 6, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It is not an assertion that the Bible states there was a great upwelling associated with the global flood. I cited chapter and verse. That is data, not an assertion. Now can you follow that example in making whatever point you want?
Absurd. Whatever may be said in the bible IS an assertion. Data would be evidence of said global flood. Of which, there is none.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#96952 Sep 6, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Flood evidence all over the earth.
Of course there is. Floods happen. Big whoop. But you cannot prove a global flood. That would be floods everywhere at the same time - in case you're having difficulty with the concept.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#96953 Sep 6, 2012
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Get it right! I wrote the letter to the paper that started this forum!<quoted text>Science has it's limitations. Science can't explain the origin of the same consciousness that created the Mars rover. Nor can you. Science only works on things that are observable, testable, and replicatable. You can't observe, test, or replicate the origin of consciousness, exactly like you can't do the same with human from non-human evolution. Now the mars rover can be observed, tested, and replicated....huh? What about how it fits the scientific method and human from non-human evolution doesn't.

A loose and rambling post, even by your standards. Consciousness is indeed not yet well understood. But we are also closer to this than we were even a year ago. But neurology (and related disciplines) who are at work on consciousness have results that ARE observable, ARE testable and ARE replicable. This is where you are blocked and cannot allow for how these terms are really used.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#96954 Sep 6, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Conceptually that is fair, but it needs to be applied to Biblical "kinds" not present-day "species", and it has to be possible to determine what the status of the target kind was following the flood.
Based on your opening volley do you intend to make this a dataless game, in which case there is no point in playing?
Bullshit.

"Kinds" is an ancient, less precise lable for groups of similar animals.

But then again, you're deflecting the question.

There are many, MANY examples of land-based plants and animals that have had their genome recorded, and NO reporting for a genetic bottleneck 4500 years ago is indicated, thus eliminating the authenticity of your fable regarding a Biblical, world-wide flood that all but obiterated life on earth.

I trust you'll once again attempt to further twist this contention, rather than respond to it directly and honestly.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#96955 Sep 6, 2012
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Liar, you know no such thing and your lack of supporting resources supports my claim.

What I said "This is untrue based on the evidence I have shown you in the past. We know the steps matter took to become "alive" and are making progress in working toward replication. But this is not a problem for you because you have a back-up rationalization in place, as you have already admitted."

Sorry, but in fact several people have illuminated the path to life from base matter. It is a 6 step, completely natural, path. We even have complex biochemicals raining down on us from meteorites. We know that once chemicals become self replicating they start meeting some of the characteristics of living organism (7 characteristics of living organisms). I can share links again if you will read them. But indications are you have not done so in the past or completely discounted them to maintain your delusional ideation.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#96956 Sep 6, 2012
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>No, I'm just tired of fighting fire with a garden hose. I'm ready to call bullshit bullshit.

As I said .... angry, nasty and delusional.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#96957 Sep 6, 2012
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I've already explained the fantasy of your "yets". Darwins book was over 150 years ago! How long until you understand the "yets" aren't coming?

And Evolution is now a fully vetted theory and scientific fact. Those particular "yets" are here now. You just need to deny them to maintain your warped fundy religious views.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#96958 Sep 6, 2012
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I don't have a lack of desire to learn, I just insist that who I learn from is smarter than I am. That isn't you.

That is everyone here even including KAB. You are EASILY the least knowledgeable person who is on this forum on a regular basis. You are not dumb, just uninformed (or worse, misinformed). You can go weeks without saying something that is even accidentally correct. Broken clocks do better.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#96959 Sep 6, 2012
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I'm not so illiterate to state that, "there never was a "nothing" as far as we know"

Yes you are.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#96960 Sep 6, 2012
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>You really ask that question after I've already given you the perfect and obvious answer of the scientific method? Unbelievable!!!!

Your statement makes no sense. The solution to your question is that the scientific method is fully in support of the ToE and forms the basis of the ToE. That is why the ToE is looked upon, in scientific circles, as THE model of what a scientific theory should be and how it should be constructed.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#96961 Sep 6, 2012
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
Did Dogen tell you I've been saved?

I forgot to mention it.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#96962 Sep 6, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
2500 BC comes from the Bible's chronology.

So what?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#96963 Sep 6, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
If that's the case then you will have no trouble citing one specific example of data (i.e., not just comments by an expert as to what he/she thinks was taking place).

Expert comments ARE DATA

You even got to whittle down what 'data' means. You are a joke.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#96964 Sep 6, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It is not an assertion that the Bible states there was a great upwelling associated with the global flood. I cited chapter and verse. That is data, not an assertion. Now can you follow that example in making whatever point you want?

You have ignored the fact that such an upwelling would not add a dent to a global flood. Just not enough underground water.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#96965 Sep 6, 2012
tangled bank wrote:
<quoted text>
Just like this data of hominin cranial capacity and body size thru time (human evolution).
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/09/f...
http://darwiniana.org/hominid.htm
<quoted text>
And just like observing and testing gravity, one can examine the "effects" of the phenomena, replicating the research findings for verification.
The effects of human evolution are the myriad fossils left behind, which are time sequenced in the exact order expected for evolution. What do you think the odds are of that?
From several of your scientific method websites:
"4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments."
"A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through REPEATED experimental tests." (emphasis mine)
http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/App...
"5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation..... the results obtained using the scientific method are repeatable."
http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_...
What is to be "replicated" are the results of the study. This replication is performed in order to verify the findings.
Please note that nowhere is it stated that the hypothesis has to be replicated.

Nice blow by blow. To bad marksman does not have the attention span to read it all.

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.

Asheville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Should Esther Manheimer Remain as Mayor of Ashe... Wed Susan Jayasinghe 13
females in asheville nc (Jul '16) Wed Gary -TEX- Jackson 28
I Feel Unsafe At Asheville Oneness Deeksha (Jan '17) Wed Cynthia 111
The Lord Mayoress Signs Up to Keep Her Coveted ... Tue Proctologist 11
City Ordinances Just for Show - Another of Our ... Jul 25 E Evilzabeth Manh... 1
2018 A Majority black congress Jul 24 how many men heim... 3
Jeffrey Scott Barfield Jul 22 Little Boy Blue 13

Asheville Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Asheville Mortgages