Climategate Recalls Attacks on Darwin...

Climategate Recalls Attacks on Darwin Doubters

There are 54 comments on the Point of View story from Mar 15, 2010, titled Climategate Recalls Attacks on Darwin Doubters. In it, Point of View reports that:

Believers in human-caused global climate change have been placed under an uncomfortable spotlight recently.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Point of View.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#1 Mar 15, 2010
Since the Darwin Doubters haven't produced a single shred of evidence that calls the Theory of Evolution into question, the AGM deniers may want to stay away from this embarrassing comparison.
JRS

Oak Creek, WI

#2 Mar 17, 2010
MIDutch wrote:
Since the Darwin Doubters haven't produced a single shred of evidence that calls the Theory of Evolution into question, the AGM deniers may want to stay away from this embarrassing comparison.
"Since the Darwin Doubters haven't produced a single shred of evidence that calls the Theory of Evolution into question, "
----------

ROFLMHO!

Darwin himself provided the evidence that called into question his own "Theory of Evolution"

ROFLMHO!

==

"Darwin frankly acknowledged that this lack of ancestral forms was “a valid argument” against his theory. But he hoped that time—and more research—would provide the evidence that was lacking. Some 150 years later, the documentary Darwin’s Dilemma probes how Darwin’s dilemma has been aggravated—not resolved—by the last century of fossil discoveries,"

http://www.darwinsdilemma.org/pdf/faq.pdf

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#3 Mar 17, 2010
JRS wrote:
<quoted text>
"Since the Darwin Doubters haven't produced a single shred of evidence that calls the Theory of Evolution into question, "
----------
ROFLMHO!
Darwin himself provided the evidence that called into question his own "Theory of Evolution"
ROFLMHO!
==
"Darwin frankly acknowledged that this lack of ancestral forms was “a valid argument” against his theory. But he hoped that time—and more research—would provide the evidence that was lacking. Some 150 years later, the documentary Darwin’s Dilemma probes how Darwin’s dilemma has been aggravated—not resolved—by the last century of fossil discoveries,"
http://www.darwinsdilemma.org/pdf/faq.pdf
You really ought to go read the original, in context and complete, rather than trust a creationist site.

From On the Origin of Species, p. 172

But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?It will be more convenient to discuss this question in the chapter on the Imperfection of the Geological Record; and I will here only state that I believe the answer mainly lies in the record being incomparably less perfect than is generally supposed. The crust of the earth is a vast museum; but the natural collections have been imperfectly made, and only at long intervals of time.

Continuing the discussion on p. 342.

These causes [the imperfection of the fossil record, the limited exploration of the record, poor fossilization of certain body types, etc.], taken conjointly, will to a large extent explain why -- though we do find many links -- we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all extinct and existing forms by the finest graduated steps. It should also be constantly borne in mind that any linking variety between two forms, which might be found, would be ranked, unless the whole chain could be perfectly restored, as a new and distinct species; for it is not pretended that we have any sure criterion by which species and varieties can be discriminated.

For a further discussion of the quote mine often used by creationists, see...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/p...

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#4 Mar 17, 2010
Oops...

Sorry for the double post. I must have hit the wrong key right after I posted the link.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#5 Mar 17, 2010
JRS wrote:
<quoted text>
"Since the Darwin Doubters haven't produced a single shred of evidence that calls the Theory of Evolution into question, "
----------
ROFLMHO!
Darwin himself provided the evidence that called into question his own "Theory of Evolution"
ROFLMHO!
==
"Darwin frankly acknowledged that this lack of ancestral forms was “a valid argument” against his theory. But he hoped that time—and more research—would provide the evidence that was lacking. Some 150 years later, the documentary Darwin’s Dilemma probes how Darwin’s dilemma has been aggravated—not resolved—by the last century of fossil discoveries,"
http://www.darwinsdilemma.org/pdf/faq.pdf
A paleobiologist’s response to Darwin’s Dilemma

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/...
JRS

Oak Creek, WI

#6 Mar 17, 2010
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
A paleobiologist’s response to Darwin’s Dilemma
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/...
Imagine that.

The evolutionists have refuted, discredited and debunked anything that does not agree with their theory/religion

Who would have ever guessed.

==

just an example of the mindless babbling:

"4. The film makes another common mistake. When Darwin referred to the need for many small steps in evolution, he did not say whether these steps had to be either fast or slow. Small steps can be made very quickly indeed – as with virus evolution today."

Well genius, duh,

show us fast or slow steps in the fossil record.

Duh, neither are there to be seen.

Just another mindless non thinking zombie / religious zealot running the mouth about how the unbelieving infidels are totally wrong.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#7 Mar 17, 2010
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
A paleobiologist’s response to Darwin’s Dilemma
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/...
Thanx Kong.

I liked one quote..."Some 20 million years of evolution has thereby been ignored. Or censored."

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#8 Mar 17, 2010
JRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Imagine that.
The evolutionists have refuted, discredited and debunked anything that does not agree with their theory/religion
Who would have ever guessed.
You silly little boy....or girl.

Of course we have.

We have the evidence.

(and yes, we have presented it many, many times.....)

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#9 Mar 17, 2010
JRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Imagine that.
The evolutionists have refuted, discredited and debunked anything that does not agree with their theory/religion
Who would have ever guessed.
==
just an example of the mindless babbling:
"4. The film makes another common mistake. When Darwin referred to the need for many small steps in evolution, he did not say whether these steps had to be either fast or slow. Small steps can be made very quickly indeed – as with virus evolution today."
Well genius, duh,
show us fast or slow steps in the fossil record.
Duh, neither are there to be seen.
Just another mindless non thinking zombie / religious zealot running the mouth about how the unbelieving infidels are totally wrong.
Has it even occurred to you to read the guy's book and see what he has to say?
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#10 Mar 17, 2010
JRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Imagine that.
The evolutionists have refuted, discredited and debunked anything that does not agree with their theory/religion
Who would have ever guessed.
==
just an example of the mindless babbling:
"4. The film makes another common mistake. When Darwin referred to the need for many small steps in evolution, he did not say whether these steps had to be either fast or slow. Small steps can be made very quickly indeed – as with virus evolution today."
Well genius, duh,
show us fast or slow steps in the fossil record.
Duh, neither are there to be seen.
Just another mindless non thinking zombie / religious zealot running the mouth about how the unbelieving infidels are totally wrong.
So JRS, since you are unwilling to accept evidence for evolution in any shape or form anyway, may I ask what scientific alternative you propose that does a better job of explaining the evidence?

Thanks in advance.
JRS

Oak Creek, WI

#11 Mar 17, 2010
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Has it even occurred to you to read the guy's book and see what he has to say?
You assume I have not.

This is not a book review forum. This is an evolution debate forum.

If you claim there is actual evidence that proves/demonstrates evolution is a true fact then present it. Do not present a book recommendation.

What is the actual evidence that proves/demonstrates evolution to be a true fact?
JRS

Oak Creek, WI

#12 Mar 17, 2010
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
So JRS, since you are unwilling to accept evidence for evolution in any shape or form anyway, may I ask what scientific alternative you propose that does a better job of explaining the evidence?
Thanks in advance.
"a better job of explaining the evidence?"
----------

What evidence. Present what you claim is evidence.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#13 Mar 17, 2010
JRS wrote:
<quoted text>
"a better job of explaining the evidence?"
----------
What evidence. Present what you claim is evidence.
Successful prediction of human fused chromosome 2:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TGV...

But you dismissed it out of hand. So like I said here:

http://www.topix.com/news/evolution/2009/10/i...

Why do you insist on evidence you know you will reject outright anyway?

And what scientific alternative do you propose?
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#14 Mar 17, 2010
JRS wrote:
<quoted text>
You assume I have not.
This is not a book review forum. This is an evolution debate forum.
If you claim there is actual evidence that proves/demonstrates evolution is a true fact then present it. Do not present a book recommendation.
What is the actual evidence that proves/demonstrates evolution to be a true fact?
Okay, time for some basics: "Truth" is subjective. Like the old saying goes, "Truth" is for maths and alcohol. Evolution is a THEORY which consists of many facts. In a colloquial context, "theory" is often synonimised with "wild guess", however in scientific usage it is different:

"a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena"

"—Synonyms
1. Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory

Contrary to popular belief, theory is the highest accolade in science. It does not get up-graded to "law", e.g. Newton's "law" of gravity is still a theory. This is because that theories need to be flexible to adapt to newly discovered evidence. This is a strength of science, not a weakness, as science takes on board new information and takes advantage of gained knowledge and discoveries, it is not dogmatic like faith is. So it is normal for theories to change and adjust over time to take new facts into account. Hence why plate tectonics is accepted by the geological community today, although it took time to be accepted until the evidence eventually became overwhelming. Evolution was the same, it wasn't accepted by everyone at first, but evidence mounted until it became the accepted explanation for the diversification of life on Earth and remains one of the strongest scientific theories we have today.

To date, evolution has not been falsified and no alternative explanation has yet been offered which is capable of doing a better job of explaining the evidence.
JRS

Oak Creek, WI

#15 Mar 17, 2010
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Successful prediction of human fused chromosome 2:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TGV...
But you dismissed it out of hand. So like I said here:
http://www.topix.com/news/evolution/2009/10/i...
Why do you insist on evidence you know you will reject outright anyway?
And what scientific alternative do you propose?
You are dumber than a Darwinian disciple.

I never claimed that there are no web sites. Yet you continually provide links to web sites.

You claim that there is evidence that evolution is a proven fact.

I say show me the facts. You being an idiot keep listing web site links.

==

That is like your spouse saying give me one of those oranges that you claim to have bought.

You being an idiot, give your spouse a link to a web site that talks about fruit.

==

Really "The Dude" you have proven over and over that you are either incapable of grasping a simple request, or you lied about having the goods in the first place.

There is no actual proof that evolution is true. That is why you never give any.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#16 Mar 17, 2010
JRS wrote:
<quoted text>
You are dumber than a Darwinian disciple.
I never claimed that there are no web sites. Yet you continually provide links to web sites.
You claim that there is evidence that evolution is a proven fact.
I say show me the facts. You being an idiot keep listing web site links.
==
That is like your spouse saying give me one of those oranges that you claim to have bought.
You being an idiot, give your spouse a link to a web site that talks about fruit.
==
Really "The Dude" you have proven over and over that you are either incapable of grasping a simple request, or you lied about having the goods in the first place.
There is no actual proof that evolution is true. That is why you never give any.
You're lying again. I never said that you did say there were no websites that supported evolution. Not only did I provide a reference, I provided you with a simple explanation of *why* it was evidence for evolution. Apparently some of the words were too big for you.

The evidence was provided, as was the explanation. One can't ask for anything more (without being absurdly unreasonable).

So why do you continue to insist on evidence you know you will reject outright anyway?

And what scientific alternative do you propose?
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#17 Mar 17, 2010
Evidence was asked for, evidence was provided. As was an explanation. You have refuted neither.

Don't blame others for your own failings, JRS.
JRS

Oak Creek, WI

#18 Mar 17, 2010
Ya gotta love that "The Dude"

Endless babbling about all the evidence

and never actually provides any.

A whole lot of mouth and no performance
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#19 Mar 17, 2010
JRS wrote:
Ya gotta love that "The Dude"
Endless babbling about all the evidence
and never actually provides any.
A whole lot of mouth and no performance
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TGV...

Keep lying bub. It's the only path you got.
Pray to Zeus

Winter Haven, FL

#20 Mar 17, 2010
JRS, there is so much information that it would be impossible to start explaining it all, and unnecessary because professionals have already written millions of pages supporting evidence for evolution (BTW, the number of pages supporting creationism with provable evidence still is exactly zero). This information is readily available through thousands of books, and also websites. There is no reason for anyone to explain the proof because:
1. It's way too much to put on topix.
2. It's way too time consuming to rewrite it.
3. It's unnecessary because there are links that provide the info you are requesting more in depth than can be provided on topix.
4. It would be a waste of time because you are either unwilling or incapable of reading and understanding facts.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

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.

Iowa State University Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News How Canada Curbed Foreign Workers and Hobbled I... Feb '17 wheres the beef 1
News Kim Reynolds 'out to get things done,' friends say (Jun '10) Dec '16 Nancy Edwards Hoc... 3
News Gene mutation appears to increase risk of Parki... Nov '16 Stephany McDowell 1
News Lucky? Hillary Clinton Wins All 6 Coin Tosses I... (Feb '16) Nov '16 ClintonCorruption 11
News Don't Throw Out That Pig Snout When It Can Be S... (Jun '16) Jun '16 bozo 1
News Dick Spotswood: On the ground in Iowa (Jan '16) Jan '16 Ritual Habitual 2
News The Latest: Clinton supporters say no concerned... (Jan '16) Jan '16 Renee McCallister 1
More from around the web