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

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

There are 164695 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.

marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109649 Feb 2, 2013
coco wrote:
Why is everyone so mean to marksman11?
Thank you for your concern. It doesn't bother me, in fact I welcome it. It means I am making a point that they can't refute, so inturn it comforts them to hurl insults, but the truth remains, they stand there refuted!
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109650 Feb 2, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a total lie. What you do is dispute all scientific evidence that disagrees with your favorite book.
My favorite book, and the existence of the scientific method does all that for me.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#109651 Feb 2, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Thank you for your concern. It doesn't bother me, in fact I welcome it. It means I am making a point that they can't refute, so inturn it comforts them to hurl insults, but the truth remains, they stand there refuted!

No, it means you are insultingly stupid.

If you cannot comprehend basic science (STILL!) then you sound like a broken record every time you post.

You still don't understand what OBSERVED means in scientific context.

You still don't understand what REPLICATED means in scientific context.

You still don't understand much of anything.

And it drives us nuts because it is hard to believe that anyone can be this stupid.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109652 Feb 2, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
I say blah, blah, blah because its tiresome explaining the same thing over and over again to a child incapable of learning even the simplest of concepts.
THe concept you are yet to accept is that you are wrong over..and over...and over...and over...
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
There nothing left for you to say, Marky, that hasn't been refuted dozens of times. Like the Black Knight, refuse to acknowledge when you've had your ass kicked.
When it happens, I'll aknowledge it, but I'm still waiting. You have failed at every turn. THe origin of life, observability of human from non-human evolution, your fantacies concerning irreducable complexity, your inability to produce observable evidence to support punctuated equalibria, your having to fabricate imagined concepts like multible universes to explain away the anthropic principle,.....I'll stop there to save you the embarassment, but I could continue!!

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#109653 Feb 2, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>My favorite book, and the existence of the scientific method does all that for me.

Your favorite book is 'Stupidity for Morons'?

When are you going to start learning the scientific method?

I have given you countless links, ebooks, pdfs, and you clearly have not read page one of any of them.

I can claim in every post that God personally told me that you are a moron in every post, but that does not make it true any more than you claiming support from the scientific method.

You have to learn it before you make any claims based on it.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109654 Feb 2, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
What a liar. The one who criticizes science then hides behind his faith when cornered.
I don't criticize science in general. Just psuedoscience like human from non-human evolution and the gullible people who feel the need to insult those people who see it for what it is, and out right rejects it.

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#109655 Feb 2, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a total lie. What you do is dispute all scientific evidence that disagrees with your favorite book.
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>My favorite book, and the existence of the scientific method does all that for me.
So you are blaming the existence of scientific method exposing your favorite book for your habitual fraudulence? See - that wasn't so bad, was it? Doesn't it feel redemptive to finally practice a little rigorous honesty?
KAB

Wilson, NC

#109656 Feb 2, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
English:
"...ALL THE HIGH MOUNTAINS UNDER THE ENTIRE HEAVENS WERE COVERED."
Esperanto:
"...Cxiuj altaj montoj SUB la tutan cxielon estis kovritaj."
Latvian:
"...VISI augstu kalnos, past&#257;vot piln&#299;gai debesis segtas."
KABian:
"...Come on baby let's do the twist
Come on baby let's do the twist
Take me by my little hand and go like this
Ee-oh twist baby baby twist
Oooh-yeah just like this..."
Take note that the expression "global flood" or equivalent words are not cited for any of the languages.

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#109657 Feb 2, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean what if 'the entire heavens' only covered the area of the eastern half of the Persian empire to a depth of two miles? Yeah, I guess you could say raining ten feet an hour for almost a thousand hours could be called "cats and dogs," since Scooby Doo and Snagglepus are both fictional.
We looked at areas where it rains the most: 24/7 for about 5 months.
Well no worries.
What i alluded to, is that noone talks like that any more so more people are bound to get the wrong interpretation, even if you would give the right translation.
And literalism is probably never going to be cured.

Well i'm with KAB on this one, or is it the other one.
I should start listing them.
'god'is mentioned as the enemy of yhwh as 'gawd'and his band.
Since Gawd was the first english way to say and write god.

15 cubits do not make miles. The arabah-flat land, with some molehills.

Well no global or even to the moon and abck local flood, and i do not care how many people are added to the discussing...they can RTFT back 200 pages. At most the stormflood or Sumer gives the most realistic tale, and the others all add a theological twist.

The actual hebrew also leaves some points open for discussion.
Just as ALAHA would be fem. in the singular, becoming elohim male in the plural. That's just a language characteristic.
It does not mean that a genderswitch actually happens.
And the only proper translation seems to be milord. Or milord Elohim. And not lord Lord LORD.(adonai Elohim YHVH)

And 'the flood' seems to be a case of 'finding themselves watershared', engulfed, overflowed, immersed. They find themselfs in that situation. Comparable to: payed himself or released himself.
Well that's just a bit a time with a grammar book.
No great flood, not the flood, nor a flood.

I could be wrong, but then it would be nice if someone showed the proper grammatical interpretation.

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#109658 Feb 2, 2013
Grammar really puts a different view on things.
Supposing a status constructus, i would almost end genesis 1:1 with ....heaven.
gen 1:2 and earth...a.s.o.

grin. maybe someone confused a grammar explanation with the earth being onder construction.

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#109659 Feb 2, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Take note that the expression "global flood" or equivalent words are not cited for any of the languages.
Neither are they in this sentence that you are reading right now!

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#109660 Feb 3, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for the data showing that the expression "global flood" is not used.
Of course not. Globes are spherical. Ancient Hebrews thought the earth was flat and the sky was a solid dome over the top with stars stuck to it.

But nevertheless, the actual statement in the passage make it clear that they believed the flood covered all the world and wiped all life off the face of it.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#109661 Feb 3, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's say there are not 29 evidences for evolution and that, however many there are, have greater than 5% chance of being wrong. What is the number then?
Ok. Lets say 10%. That means each independently has a 90% chance of being right, and 10% of being wrong.

What are the odds that all 29 are wrong? Easy.

1/10 to the power of 29.

That is how independently corroborating lines of evidence are calculated for a meta-analysis.

You have just called attention to the fact that there is

0.0000000000000000000000000000 01% chance that the evidence for macroevolution, taken in its entirety, is wrong.

Thanks for playing.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#109662 Feb 3, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Then PLEASSSSSSE TELL ME why you dummys changed your story from we evolved from apes, to "we didn't evolve from apes, but humans and apes have a common ancester"??? NOWWWWWW.....we're desended from apes....AAAGGGAAAIIInnn!!!Why do you expect people to take you seriously when you can't even be consistent and continue to change your story???<quoted text>Perhaps you should reconsider your inconsistent world view.
Nobody has changed the story.

We evolved from apes. But not the species of apes exactly that you see around you today, as they have been evolving too. This has been explained to you at greater length previously. There have been apes for at least 25 million years.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109663 Feb 3, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody has changed the story.
We evolved from apes.
So why did evolutionists change their story? They distinctly said we did not evolve from apes, but humans and apes had a common ancester. Why make a big deal of the common ancester thing, if the common ancester was an ape also??? That doesn't even make sense.
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>But not the species of apes exactly that you see around you today, as they have been evolving too. This has been explained to you at greater length previously. There have been apes for at least 25 million years.
With all due respect, it never ceases to amaze me what some people will believe.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#109664 Feb 3, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>So why did evolutionists change their story? They distinctly said we did not evolve from apes, but humans and apes had a common ancester. Why make a big deal of the common ancester thing, if the common ancester was an ape also??? That doesn't even make sense.<quoted text>With all due respect, it never ceases to amaze me what some people will believe.
No evolutionist has EVER distinctly said we did not evolve from apes, unless YOU misunderstood. The link to apes has existed since Darwin (actually, since before Darwin).

Some people have had to emphasize that we did not evolve from MODERN ape species, usually when trying to explain to people who ask the question "if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?".

The co-ancestor of modern chimps, bonobos, and humans was itself a species of ape. Apes have been around for at least 25 million years, but the modern ape species have not.

To answer that silly question in full - yes, apes all evolved from a species of monkey (and thus so did the ape that became a hominid). There are still monkeys too, but all modern species have been evolving as well in the 25 million years since an ancient species of monkeys gave rise to apes.

And monkeys evolved from earlier primates and there are still examples around more like those too, from the lemur to the tarsier etc. But monkeys did not evolve from a modern species of lemur. Lemurs have continued to change too.

Evolution works by this branching, but development continues along all branches. Even the least changed branches, the so called living fossils, are not exactly the same as their ancient counterparts.

There, that wasn't hard, was it? No more confusion on this point, please.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#109665 Feb 3, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
With all due respect, it never ceases to amaze me what some people will believe.
I agree! The answer, as every salesman will tell you, is that if you promise enough, some sucker will buy it!

Some people will accept a theory that explains the fossil record, makes successful predictions of what will be found, also is supported by lab experiments and the evidence in the genome, etc. It makes no promises of eternal life though.

On the other hand, others are willing to believe a book full of stories that happen to disagree with that theory, written by humans 2-3,000 years ago, and full of other things like assertions of a global flood and the earth being made before the sun and stars, and magical things like humans living 900 years and talking animals, that all investigation show to be false or unsupported by any physical evidence whatsoever! Can you believe it?

But as the salesman said, simply because this book offers them the emotional hope that they might cheat physical death, they are willing to swallow the whole thing hook, line, and sinker.
The Pencil Dick

Kingston, Jamaica

#109666 Feb 3, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
You said CHRISTIANS don't give a rat's ass about the shroud of Turin. I refuted that claim.
No you cannot claim that you refuted that claim without using the fallacy of hasty generalization.

To say that Christians find value in the shroud, suggests that Christians generally do; and thats false.

The fact is that there are many Christians,(perhaps the majority) who dont even know about the shroud of Turin.

Furthermore, the shroud is of no significance to Christian beleifs, so there is no need for Christians to regard the shroud, whether it is authentic or not.
LowellGuy wrote:
Never said anything about being required. Try being honest next time, and we might not treat you like a liar.
Where was I dishonest?

Why didnt you present proof with the post I wrote?

It matters not, regardless.

Faith in or submission to the Authority of The Messiah Of the Al-Mighty does NOT depend on some piece of cloth. Period.

As far as I am concerned, the Shroud of Turin may have been brought to light by Satanic conspirators who see the chance to use it to manipulate the thinking of weak minded Christians.
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

#109667 Feb 3, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting.. when it's Piltdown Man you are ready to raise it on a pike and scream through a microphone, "LOOK AT THIS! LOOK AT THIS!"
When it is the Shroud of Turin you squeek,
....
("pay no attention to that man behind the curtain")
The Shroud of Turin is irrelevant to Christianity and Christian beliefs.

We could just say "[email protected] off with that piece of cloth, it is of no relevance to our struggle!"
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

#109668 Feb 3, 2013
God Himself wrote:
...performance demonstrates...capacity...
The Dude wrote:
...An intelligence can perform tasks inefficiently, but still have intelligence.
Now that you agree with me...
The Dude wrote:
You claimed "efficiency" indicates intelligence. Now you're changing it to "performance". Not sure whether you're being daft or dishonest here.
And you can see no relationship between performance and efficiency?

To say that performance demonstrates intelligence ins not different from saying efficiency indicates intelligence.

I am not being daft nor dishonest; you simply lack the capacity to fathom the import of my expression.
The Dude wrote:
Yet I'm still waiting for you to present the mechanisms of these alleged performances, along with evidence of those mechanisms, along with whatever those particular performances are.
I'm glad you are.

If nature is inherently intelligent or is being guided by and intelligent agent: all the set of actions and responses that are identified as "intelligent" will be observable in the natural world and natural processes.

But in order for us to proceed; we must first agree on what intelligence is and how we identify it.

In order to do that, we must first create a criteria by which we measure and identify intelligence/intelligent influence.

I ASSERT THAT:

The primary and fundamental attribute/characteristic of intelligence is efficiency; It makes things work.

In essence I am saying "If it works, it is influenced by intelligence."

Shall we agree on that or do you possess a different view?
The Dude wrote:
The only intellectual academic agenda is education. I not only presented evidence but also how it was tested. If you have a difference "interpretation" of orthologous ERV's can be shared amongst the great apes that passes the scientific method we'd all love to hear it.
Goddid it with an evolution methodology.*shrug*
The Dude wrote:
Until then we can safely assume that you didn't have a clue what we were talking about anyway and hence dismissed it for theological reasons and incredulity.
I asked for proof/evidence that inanimate particles and elements possess the inherent potential to just "poof!" and form genes and structured organisms etc over many many years.

You have not been able to demonstrate it yet.
The Dude wrote:
The simple fact you've not been able to demonstrate it yet.(shrug)
The Attributes of God are continuously demonstrated in nature.

But we all have the responsibility of deciding what is sufficient to convince us. That you dont see what I accept as proof to be sufficient for you, is your own decision.

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
ASHEVILLE ONENESS "BLESSING" IS a CULT WHERE I ... 52 min KookyChucky from MN 2
Wanda Green The Gift That Keeps On Giving 1 hr Local Born 3
Salary needed to live comfortably in AVL? 1 hr Local Born 4
BRING BASCK M.X. FORUMS yup! 2 hr JayBugg 7
Another Wanda Greene Thread Gone 22 hr Doctorwaanduh 26
Transgender Restrooms (May '16) Tue Proctor Gamble 44
Whats The Big Deal Tue Bill Clinton 15

Asheville Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Asheville Mortgages