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

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

There are 150602 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.

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#106270 Jan 5, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>You are doging, and I asked first. You tell me where apes crossed the line from non-human to human, and what changed that caused the difference, and I'll answer everyone of your questions. Make certain that I won't go off running your rabbits because you are unable to defend you claims!! Now....go ahead and display your weakness by your inability to again being unable to define the difference between a non-human and a human. What evolved to cause this change in labeling?
Only evolutionists think they are apes and can't see they are a furless primate, that is an obligate biped, with the ability to draw on many traits to make meaning of the world and are the only species having this discussion.

I wonder if any evolutionist would like to claim some other species is having much the same conversation about the universe and the meaning of it.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#106271 Jan 5, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No. Is there a reason you ask this question?
Kitten reasoned(?) that the mark of the global flood in a tree ring record would be the death of the tree. I suspect you see how helpful looking for trees which died in that timeframe would be in identifying the global flood. Do you think you can help her?
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#106272 Jan 5, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheists make no claim on the origin of life, scientists have some guesses but even they don't claim to know yet. Until you learn the difference between a claim and a denial of a claim, you will never leave that dark cave you call religion. Your claim has no evidence, thus it is dismissed.
Come on, PLEASE USE YOUR BRAIN!!! By definition an atheist says there is no GOD, and thus the origin of life was not due to an intelligent deity? THAT IS ATHEISTS MAKING A CLAIM ON THE ORIGIN OF LIFE!!!! If you are open to the possiblity that GOD is the originator of life, then by definition you are an agnostic and not atheist. Now....start thinking, and present something challenging, and not easily refuted by your self hypocrasy.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#106273 Jan 5, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
In this forum, we have seen a few Creationists who stereotype Evolutionists are atheists together.
They have been reminded that all Christians are not Creationists, but it went in one ear and out the other.
All Christians, as defined by the Bible, accept that God created various lifeforms.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#106274 Jan 5, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Only evolutionists think they are apes and can't see they are a furless primate, that is an obligate biped, with the ability to draw on many traits to make meaning of the world and are the only species having this discussion.
I wonder if any evolutionist would like to claim some other species is having much the same conversation about the universe and the meaning of it.
In their tiny little minds, they probably do. Just keep watching. I know they claim to also be kin to tobacco stalks.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#106275 Jan 5, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Kitten reasoned(?) that the mark of the global flood in a tree ring record would be the death of the tree. I suspect you see how helpful looking for trees which died in that timeframe would be in identifying the global flood. Do you think you can help her?
No, you can't read, can you? I stated that a global flood would kill all trees on the planet due to salination and lack of sunlight. So there would be a huge gap in the tree rings at that time. We see no world wide gap, therefore there is still no evidence suggesting that a flood happened. Gah, you can't use reasoning or logic at all, if you didn't realize this without being told in detail.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#106276 Jan 5, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Come on, PLEASE USE YOUR BRAIN!!! By definition an atheist says there is no GOD, and thus the origin of life was not due to an intelligent deity? THAT IS ATHEISTS MAKING A CLAIM ON THE ORIGIN OF LIFE!!!! If you are open to the possiblity that GOD is the originator of life, then by definition you are an agnostic and not atheist. Now....start thinking, and present something challenging, and not easily refuted by your self hypocrasy.
No, by definition we dismiss the claims of all gods. Some of are gnostic, thinking they know that there cannot be a god, most of use are agnostic admitting we cannot know for certain. But your god claims, like all the others, lack in evidence so we dismiss those claims. Gnostic is knowledge, theist is god, two different aspects. You can contort and redefine all you want, that doesn't change what the words mean.

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#106277 Jan 5, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>It doesn't matter. A Christian can be wrong about something religious and still be riding the right bus.
About the only thing all evolutnists agree on is 'it all evolved' and are definitely riding the wrong bus. This can be demonstrated by evos constantly needing to turn evidence for a creationist paradigm into an evolutionary mystery with their falwed and biased research.

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#106278 Jan 5, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Come on, PLEASE USE YOUR BRAIN!!! By definition an atheist says there is no GOD, and thus the origin of life was not due to an intelligent deity? THAT IS ATHEISTS MAKING A CLAIM ON THE ORIGIN OF LIFE!!!! If you are open to the possiblity that GOD is the originator of life, then by definition you are an agnostic and not atheist. Now....start thinking, and present something challenging, and not easily refuted by your self hypocrasy.
Don't hold your breath!

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#106279 Jan 5, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
About the only thing all evolutnists agree on is 'it all evolved' and are definitely riding the wrong bus. This can be demonstrated by evos constantly needing to turn evidence for a creationist paradigm into an evolutionary mystery with their falwed and biased research.
So you are asserting that you are a clone of your parents.

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#106280 Jan 5, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>In their tiny little minds, they probably do. Just keep watching. I know they claim to also be kin to tobacco stalks.
..of course, tobbacco stalks are alive..I see the connection..Der!

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#106281 Jan 5, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you can't read, can you? I stated that a global flood would kill all trees on the planet due to salination and lack of sunlight. So there would be a huge gap in the tree rings at that time. We see no world wide gap, therefore there is still no evidence suggesting that a flood happened. Gah, you can't use reasoning or logic at all, if you didn't realize this without being told in detail.
Actually, it would be the lack of Oxygen that the plant needs to survive that would eventually kill the trees. ALL the trees, if the planet was indeed covered with water for several months.

...and no, the oxygen suspended in the water would NOT be able to sustain the life of the tree, as it would a fish.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#106282 Jan 5, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, it would be the lack of Oxygen that the plant needs to survive that would eventually kill the trees. ALL the trees, if the planet was indeed covered with water for several months.
...and no, the oxygen suspended in the water would NOT be able to sustain the life of the tree, as it would a fish.
Lack of carbon dioxide, isn't it? Oxygen is what they produce.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#106283 Jan 5, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Lack of carbon dioxide, isn't it? Oxygen is what they produce.
Plants DO produce oxygen as a byproduct of photosythesis, but they also require it to live. It's just that they produce more oxygen than they consume.

Without free oxygen in the atmosphere and soil, all vascular plants would die in a year-long flood.

More: http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php...
KAB

Wilson, NC

#106284 Jan 5, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
"Trees grow in areas best suited for their water, mineral, and temperature range requirements. Trees in the riparian forest
grow at different elevations along the bank because of their sensitivity to being flooded. Depending upon the species
and the duration of the flood, many trees along the Red can survive and even continue growing through a flood. Even
flood-sensitive trees can usually avoid injury if the flood waters recede in one week or less. However, if flood waters
cover the roots of sensitive trees for prolonged periods, the tree can sustain major damage. Symptoms of a flood-
damaged tree include leaf chlorosis, or the yellowing of a tree’s leaves, downward curling of leaves, and loss of leaves.
Without leaves, trees cannot carry out photosynthesis and eventually die. More damage is done when the entire tree is
submerged, which is often seen in young or small trees.
Trees can sustain damage even after flood waters recede since soils remain wet for a long time after the flood retreats.
Waterlogged soils prevent oxygen from penetrating to tree roots, which can drown trees just as effectively as a flood.
However, except in cases where flood waters persist for months, many trees experiencing flood conditions can survive."
www.riverkeepers.org/images/uploads/Tree_ring...
The last line suggesting that trees who are completely covered for extended periods ('months') would probably not survive.
Probably means maybe they would survive or some would, right?
KAB

Wilson, NC

#106285 Jan 5, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
KAB, submerging trees by over a mile of water for a year would kill just about all of them.
If your flood occurred you should be able to find evidence for a massive tree death world wide. It may not be preserved everywhere, but some of it still should be in existence only a few thousands of years after the fact.
Of course we know there was no flood. Forget the geological evidence. You cannot even respond to the genetic evidence that we see everywhere today.
As you note, you are speculating, and that is not data. The trees will not die until/unless you provie confirming data. More generally, do you think it is more effective to assert that there is a lot of evidence rather than provide one slam-dunk example? It isn't.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#106286 Jan 5, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Only evolutionists think they are apes and can't see they are a furless primate, that is an obligate biped, with the ability to draw on many traits to make meaning of the world and are the only species having this discussion.
I wonder if any evolutionist would like to claim some other species is having much the same conversation about the universe and the meaning of it.
Have you seen the evidence??

Since: Feb 12

Roseville, CA

#106287 Jan 5, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>It's because of your pride. You don't want to admit that you are accountable to s supreme being. There is nothing stopping you from believing? THere is nothing wrong with faith, because it is obvious that scientific evidence is far from having all the answers you seek. It is obvious just from biological complexity that randam, haphazard without aim or method processes can produce what you see confirming Romans 1. It is much more logical that a supreme intelligent being is behind all this. Now it is up to you to say to yourself, "I don't have all the answers but I'm going to take this step in faith", because the alternative is so weak.
Pride? I don't swear. I don't cheat on my wife. Im not gay. I do not steal. I don't do drugs. I treat people with kindness. I like to read books, go to work and spend time with my family.

I could see if I was John Gotti, um yeah, I would have a lot that I would have to change in my life to get back to good. In fact I can't think of any major sins in my life.

So really, you're saying I don't want to spend the rest of eternity in complete bliss with my wife, children, and my siblings that passed away because I do not want to be held accountable to God?

Makes perfect sense.

That's like winning a $500 million super lotto jackpot, then not redeeming it because I don't want the responsibility of walking it back to the store.

You get addicted to the good feelings you get with your religion. It's not just you. There are Hindus who are so fervent that their religion is correct they argue against evolution. Although they think your position is completely wrong as well, as they believe that humans -all life, really- have been on Earth for millions of years.

I didn't expect to say anything other than pride for the reason why I don't believe. In fact, if you said anything other than that, I would either have to be a lunatic, or you would have to really reconsider the motives behind TOE.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#106288 Jan 5, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Wasn't the question about the "date" of the flood given in the Bible?
I don't understand what you are saying here KAB

Since: Feb 12

Roseville, CA

#106289 Jan 5, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
You are actually the hopeless one, not KAB, because no matter how many times I put up research that suggests tree ring dating is invalid you lot keep quacking about it.
"The primary conclusion is that the research has invalidating flaws, which are obvious upon inspection. The underlying issue is that the system under which tree-ring research generally is conducted lacks transparency."
http://www.informath.org/ATSU04a.pdf
It appears ring dating methods are about as credible as your evolutionary myth.
Evolutionists publish, therefore they believe they exist, even though they have no idea what they are talking about.
I didn't want to be the one who chastise you, but...

Your supposed to christian, or christ-like. Why are you ridiculing and mocking people on here? You'll notice KAB is not. Don't give me
"because they were doing it!!!" Turn the other cheek, it's why your paid the big bucks(heaven, or paradise on earth)

Secondly, did you read that report on tree-rings? It does not debunk tree ring counting for a single living tree(well many, actually) counted back 5000 years.

Dendrochrologists "fingerprint" tree ring signatures and hope to match a known piece of wood with another to give a date for the original. And yes, i can see how that can be inaccurate.

I know even if you knew, with certainty, that a tree is dated to beyond the time of flood, it wouldn't sway you one bit. Your faith is that strong.

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
Whatever Happened To Mtn Xpress Forums? 17 hr Satyam Thomas Hof... 48
DONNA BARROS SERRANO TRANSGENDER ewwwww 17 hr Satyam Thomas Hof... 4
rednecks are taking over asheville! 17 hr Satyam Thomas Hof... 3
Poll Has America lost its backbone? (Apr '09) 18 hr Goodbye Gentry 80
DOES BOTHWELL's D.W.I. CRIMINAL CONVICTION END ... Mon Satyam Thomas 17
News Confederate flag fan defends the stars & bars (Jun '15) Mon Donna Barros Serrano 266
News Ghost Town founder 'R.B.' Coburn dies at 89 (Apr '08) Mon CRw7323 11
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Asheville Mortgages