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

Full story: Asheville Citizen-Times

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 ...

Comments (Page 5,838)

Showing posts 116,741 - 116,760 of133,136
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118866
Jun 28, 2013
 
marky, what is your problem with the Cambrian explosion? It was of course not an actual explosion it was the sudden appearance of hard shelled life over a period of 20 to 30 million years long. Twenty to thirty million years is still a long long period of time. And complex life existed before that, they just did not have bad parts that left fossils. All we have are imprints, and those are very rare. But they still exist. Here are just a few of them:

http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Paleobiology/Prec...

Since they are merely impressions it is very hard to positively identify any of them as far as class goes. And as I said they are extremely rare. For a fossil impression to form it had to be a rather specific form of siltstone.

There are a number of hypotheses of why life burst on the scene the way that it did. We know that both the atmosphere and sea water chemistry were changing at that time. It takes a lot of energy investment by an animal to make a hard shell. If the chemistry of the water was not right or their was not enough oxygen in the atmosphere yet, which affects how much oxygen there is in the seas, then it may not have been possible for animals to evolve shells. It is hard to say exactly what changing conditions made it possible for animals to finally develop shells. Once it started it was a trick that all animals "learned". Remember, even if they were not closely related they all came from the same source so odds are that they shared quite a few of the necessary genes.

At any rate, the Cambrian explosion is no big problem for evolution. It is easily understood, especially when you can see, if you investigate it, that it is not the explosion that creationists try to make it out to be.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118867
Jun 28, 2013
 
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> No you don't because if you did you would have posted it and refuted the questions and statements I made attacking you. You failed! You didn't even try!!...and we both know why!!

As I understand the scientific method, it is clear who has the burden of finding empirical support for a proposed hypothesis. Hint: the established guiding theory already had an immense amount of support.

So, who needs to provide this support?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118868
Jun 28, 2013
 
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Doing well. Just really busy. My dad passed away about a year ago and I'm at that stage of trying to get his house ready to sell. We have a buyer under contract, but going through all that crazy inspection stuff. It's unbelievable. Hope you are doing well!

Again, condolences on your father. Selling off a parents assets is a thankless task.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118869
Jun 28, 2013
 
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
The New Quebec Crater is entirely entirely explainable by natural processes and content. Calling it a "global scale flood gauge" is akin to calling it an "alien crash site". Doing either is unsubstantiated and disingenuous.
You can claim that the letter "C" is pronounced "Zaphod Beeblebrox", but it remains the letter "C" and is pronounced "see", as in what you are loathe to either accomplish or admit.
42...

“A belief is formed personally.”

Since: Jun 13

Not forced.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118870
Jun 28, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
marky, what is your problem with the Cambrian explosion? It was of course not an actual explosion it was the sudden appearance of hard shelled life over a period of 20 to 30 million years long. Twenty to thirty million years is still a long long period of time. And complex life existed before that, they just did not have bad parts that left fossils. All we have are imprints, and those are very rare. But they still exist. Here are just a few of them:
http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Paleobiology/Prec...
Since they are merely impressions it is very hard to positively identify any of them as far as class goes. And as I said they are extremely rare. For a fossil impression to form it had to be a rather specific form of siltstone.
There are a number of hypotheses of why life burst on the scene the way that it did. We know that both the atmosphere and sea water chemistry were changing at that time. It takes a lot of energy investment by an animal to make a hard shell. If the chemistry of the water was not right or their was not enough oxygen in the atmosphere yet, which affects how much oxygen there is in the seas, then it may not have been possible for animals to evolve shells. It is hard to say exactly what changing conditions made it possible for animals to finally develop shells. Once it started it was a trick that all animals "learned". Remember, even if they were not closely related they all came from the same source so odds are that they shared quite a few of the necessary genes.
At any rate, the Cambrian explosion is no big problem for evolution. It is easily understood, especially when you can see, if you investigate it, that it is not the explosion that creationists try to make it out to be.
Here is a good read. It is even from the Discovery Institute there in Washington.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/files...

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118871
Jun 28, 2013
 
Man-on-Fire wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is a good read. It is even from the Discovery Institute there in Washington.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/files...
Nothing from the Discovery Institute is a good read. I will still check it out.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118872
Jun 28, 2013
 
Man-on-Fire wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is a good read. It is even from the Discovery Institute there in Washington.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/files...
Nothing from then is viable as scientific, and we only tolerate them here because there are no laws against making fools of yourself.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118873
Jun 28, 2013
 
Oh my, they flat out lie in that article.

And they make claims without links to the sources. That is almost a sure sign that someone is lying in this digital age.

Here is their first clear lie:

". In the fossil
record, however, most of the major animal phyla appear fully formed at the beginning of
the geological period known as the Cambrian, with no fossil evidence that they branched
off from a common ancestor." First the phrase "fully formed" is meaningless. The earliest fossils in the Cambrian were small shells. These are not readily identifiable. They were not "fully formed" brachiopods etc.. When you refuse to see a transitional form when it hits you in the face then all life will be "fully formed".

Second they tried to claim that many fossils were soft bodied. That is clearly not true. All of the fossils that they were speaking of were fossilized hard remains. The only way to fossilize a soft bod is to get an impression of it and those are exceedingly rare.

Here is a better article to read. You will not find any obvious lies in it:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/...

By the way, weren't you the one who claimed to get their science form scientific sources? The DI is not a scientific source. AnswersinGenesis is not a scientific source. Creation.com is not a scientific source. None of them rely on peer reviewed science. Heck, Wikipedia articles on evolution at least can trace their roots to peer reviewed science. That makes Wikipedia far superior to those creationist sources I listed.

“A belief is formed personally.”

Since: Jun 13

Not forced.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118874
Jun 28, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
Oh my, they flat out lie in that article.
And they make claims without links to the sources. That is almost a sure sign that someone is lying in this digital age.
Here is their first clear lie:
". In the fossil
record, however, most of the major animal phyla appear fully formed at the beginning of
the geological period known as the Cambrian, with no fossil evidence that they branched
off from a common ancestor." First the phrase "fully formed" is meaningless. The earliest fossils in the Cambrian were small shells. These are not readily identifiable. They were not "fully formed" brachiopods etc.. When you refuse to see a transitional form when it hits you in the face then all life will be "fully formed".
Second they tried to claim that many fossils were soft bodied. That is clearly not true. All of the fossils that they were speaking of were fossilized hard remains. The only way to fossilize a soft bod is to get an impression of it and those are exceedingly rare.
Here is a better article to read. You will not find any obvious lies in it:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/...
By the way, weren't you the one who claimed to get their science form scientific sources? The DI is not a scientific source. AnswersinGenesis is not a scientific source. Creation.com is not a scientific source. None of them rely on peer reviewed science. Heck, Wikipedia articles on evolution at least can trace their roots to peer reviewed science. That makes Wikipedia far superior to those creationist sources I listed.
They give references of their information as they go and after each article. And PBS - Evolution Home - is a scientific source? I beg to differ. It does not have links to their source or even tell where they get the information.

“A belief is formed personally.”

Since: Jun 13

Not forced.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118875
Jun 28, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
Oh my, they flat out lie in that article.
And they make claims without links to the sources. That is almost a sure sign that someone is lying in this digital age.
Here is their first clear lie:
". In the fossil
record, however, most of the major animal phyla appear fully formed at the beginning of
the geological period known as the Cambrian, with no fossil evidence that they branched
off from a common ancestor." First the phrase "fully formed" is meaningless. The earliest fossils in the Cambrian were small shells. These are not readily identifiable. They were not "fully formed" brachiopods etc.. When you refuse to see a transitional form when it hits you in the face then all life will be "fully formed".
Second they tried to claim that many fossils were soft bodied. That is clearly not true. All of the fossils that they were speaking of were fossilized hard remains. The only way to fossilize a soft bod is to get an impression of it and those are exceedingly rare.
Here is a better article to read. You will not find any obvious lies in it:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/...
By the way, weren't you the one who claimed to get their science form scientific sources? The DI is not a scientific source. AnswersinGenesis is not a scientific source. Creation.com is not a scientific source. None of them rely on peer reviewed science. Heck, Wikipedia articles on evolution at least can trace their roots to peer reviewed science. That makes Wikipedia far superior to those creationist sources I listed.
But I will agree it is a creationist site after doing more reading. But that is the problem with any links. They either come from a evolutionists site or a creationists site. It is a no win argument for both sides based on that alone. Both sides back their links because the links back their beliefs.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118876
Jun 28, 2013
 
Man-on-Fire wrote:
<quoted text>
They give references of their information as they go and after each article. And PBS - Evolution Home - is a scientific source? I beg to differ. It does not have links to their source or even tell where they get the information.
Too bad. It is. When it comes to settled science there is no real need for links. You do need links for new claims.

The theory of evolution is settled science. Questions within it are still being answered today and we can get links for those. There may be a free online version of "The Origin of Species" but since it is accepted and has been for over one hundred years there is no need to link to it. Just as there is no need to link to articles on Newtonian gravitation. If someone claimed that Newton said that the force from gravity, let's call it "F" is F = GmM/r^2 where G is the gravitational constant m and M are the two masses involved and r is the distance between the two, would you demand a link to support that claim? Would you demand a scientific article? I sincerely hope not.

It is when new claims are made that proper links etc. must be supplied. What that article gave had nothing new.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118877
Jun 28, 2013
 
Man-on-Fire wrote:
<quoted text>
But I will agree it is a creationist site after doing more reading. But that is the problem with any links. They either come from a evolutionists site or a creationists site. It is a no win argument for both sides based on that alone. Both sides back their links because the links back their beliefs.
Wrong. They either come from science based sites or creationist sites. If evolutionists were pushed hard enough they could show the peer reviewed science that backs their claims. That is not the case with creationist sites. And all creationist sites that I know of openly profess their antiscience stance.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118878
Jun 28, 2013
 
Man-on-Fire wrote:
<quoted text>
They give references of their information as they go and after each article. And PBS - Evolution Home - is a scientific source? I beg to differ. It does not have links to their source or even tell where they get the information.
The Discovery Institute is not a reputable source of scientific information. They are functionally a religious organization decorated to appear like a science organization.

This does not mean that they haven't reported accurate and scientifically valid information. However, that is not their agenda and the opposite is often noted with this organization. They support the religious concept of intelligent design and not science.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118879
Jun 28, 2013
 
Man-on-Fire wrote:
<quoted text>
But I will agree it is a creationist site after doing more reading. But that is the problem with any links. They either come from a evolutionists site or a creationists site. It is a no win argument for both sides based on that alone. Both sides back their links because the links back their beliefs.
Sorry, I did not see this post when I replied to your last post. Though, I would say that sites that tout evolution should do so based on evidence and provide references in order to meet a minimum standard of legitimacy. Keep in mind that science and the theory of evolution do not refute the existence of God or gods.

“A belief is formed personally.”

Since: Jun 13

Not forced.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118880
Jun 28, 2013
 
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry, I did not see this post when I replied to your last post. Though, I would say that sites that tout evolution should do so based on evidence and provide references in order to meet a minimum standard of legitimacy. Keep in mind that science and the theory of evolution do not refute the existence of God or gods.
I keep in mind that you say that evolution does not refute the existence of God or gods. It really comes to mind every time I see someone say God is fake, God is a myth, God is a cult, God is made up ect ect. Maybe science and the theory of evolution does not refute the existence of God but the evolutionists sure do as much as they go on about God being fake, false, a myth all the time.

So if in one breath an evolutionists says "science and the theory of evolution do not refute the existence of God or gods"

then in the next breath they say "God is not real, he is a made up myth". Which one is a lie?

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118881
Jun 28, 2013
 
Man-on-Fire wrote:
<quoted text>
I keep in mind that you say that evolution does not refute the existence of God or gods. It really comes to mind every time I see someone say God is fake, God is a myth, God is a cult, God is made up ect ect. Maybe science and the theory of evolution does not refute the existence of God but the evolutionists sure do as much as they go on about God being fake, false, a myth all the time.
So if in one breath an evolutionists says "science and the theory of evolution do not refute the existence of God or gods"
then in the next breath they say "God is not real, he is a made up myth". Which one is a lie?
That is usually said in the heat of battle after someone has tried to play the god card. I will happily point out that evolution does debunk the sort of god that HST believes in. That is a psychotic god that will kill everything in his creation in the worst way possible. I have no problem debunking that sort of god. Believing in it would be a truly sick belief.

It is interesting if you look at the God of the Bible he tends to mature and civilize himself as his believers mature and civilize themselves. That seems to me to say a lot more about the people than the supposed god.
KAB

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118882
Jun 28, 2013
 
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Right. In other words, there is no special reason anything must be in any particular order if God did it. You just falsified your own argument. Well done.
There is strong reason why things are in a particular order (1 Corinthians 14:33).

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118883
Jun 28, 2013
 
Man-on-Fire wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is a good read. It is even from the Discovery Institute there in Washington.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/files...

Good read and Discovery Institute are mutually exclusive terms. It is infinitely improbable that anything put out by the Disco Institution is a "good read".

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118884
Jun 28, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing from the Discovery Institute is a good read. I will still check it out.

It is more likely that a bowl of petunias suddenly sprung into existence high above an alien world.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118885
Jun 28, 2013
 
Man-on-Fire wrote:
<quoted text>
They give references of their information as they go and after each article. And PBS - Evolution Home - is a scientific source? I beg to differ. It does not have links to their source or even tell where they get the information.

PBS is a known credible source. Disco institution is a known incredulous source.

They have been caught red handed quote-mining scientific sources.

http://ncse.com/creationism/general/analysis-...

That is as dishonest as you can get. Why would anyone take a source that does things like that seriously?

Here is another one (more for the comedy than the references)

http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2010/...

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 116,741 - 116,760 of133,136
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

17 Users are viewing the Asheville Forum right now

Search the Asheville Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
NC Who do you support for U.S. Senate in North Car... (Oct '10) 4 min Victoria 54,896
corruption and fraud in our city and courts (Nov '13) 18 min JUANITA OWENS 19
MEET n GRRET 21 min Vanassa Bell 18
Chief of private police firm cleared of assault... (Apr '08) 40 min ApePeeD 15
Mapping slave history with Google Earth 45 min ApePeeD 1
Should USA Trade with Mexico? 8 hr Curmudgeon 4
GOP For Abortion Rights 10 hr Curmudgeon 6
•••
•••
•••
•••

Asheville Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Asheville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Asheville News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Asheville
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••