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

[15th Dalai Lama]

marksman11 wrote:

<quoted text>No lies are coming from me. Not a one. If I've lied, simply show where.

You dingbat. From day one you have said 'no evidence is evidence' and 'evidence is not evidence'.

[Chaz]

marksman11 wrote:

<quoted text>No it isn't. All you have is evidence that something once existed somewhere in the past and left an image that it once existed. Not that it evolved from anything.

Suuuuure, and the existence of ice is just evidence of ice, not that it was once water. The existence of soil is just evidence of soil, not that living organisms once lived where it laid.

The point of a theory is that it takes facts (plural) together that can be explained by a given framework. In this case, we observe nested hierarchies in the fossil record. We also do not find modern humans (or other modern animals) at lower levels in the geological strata. Instead, we find the fossils of animals that changes as we ascend or descend into the geological strata. When we also take into account genetic sequencing and the fact that both the fossil records and genetics meet the predictions of evolutionary theory, the ONLY naturalistic explanation is that humans evolved.

Repeatedly we have told you that step 1 in the scientific method is not about observing the hypothesis, it is about making observations of facts that lend themselves to the given theory. Observing a fact that indicates a given conclusion. THAT is what it means, and you have continually ignored or refused to respond to these posts - the only obvious reason being because you CAN'T respond to them. You know that you are misrepresenting the scientific method. You are lying, and you don't want to be called on it.

[15th Dalai Lama]

Re: Marksman, the deceiver.

marksman11 wrote:

<quoted text>Sorry at you failure to do so.

Thanks for finally responding to one of my posts.
Until you told us that your 'ministry' was brainwashing little kids you were just an amusing geriatric who couldn't find his ass with both hands and a map. Now we discover that you are promoting a boatload of fictional bullcrap to a bunch of children who don't know any better.
If that doesn't make you a demon, nothing does.

ps: What about Saint Andrew?
pps: What about Noah's Ark?
pps: What about contenderministries.org ?

[Sheila]

15th Dalai Lama wrote:

Re: Marksman, the deceiver.
<quoted text>
Thanks for finally responding to one of my posts.
Until you told us that your 'ministry' was brainwashing little kids you were just an amusing geriatric who couldn't find his ass with both hands and a map. Now we discover that you are promoting a boatload of fictional bullcrap to a bunch of children who don't know any better.
If that doesn't make you a demon, nothing does.
ps: What about Saint Andrew?
pps: What about Noah's Ark?
pps: What about contenderministries.org ?

I think if you asked most kids if they would prefer to do something besides go to church or sunday school, they would say yes. Even just staying home and sleeping would be more productive. Being forced to go is horrible. Anybody remember the video on the news of the little boy who ran with the family car, cops chasing him, all to avoid going to church that sunday morning? I was thinking "run little boy, run!" It was funny and scary all at the same time. Poor kid.

[LMT]

marksman11 wrote:

<quoted text>Why sure, given enough time the completely impossible becomes totally inevitable.

So now you're backpeddling like the crazy azz that you are and saying that evolution of humans from primordial microbes IS POSSIBLE!!! And yet you still say that 4 BILLION years is not enough time?

[tangled bank]

marksman11 wrote:

Ok, my fault that you assumed I have ever heard of this Park guy, which I haven't.

Lie #1
I never assumed you knew anything about Gary Parker. This is why I listed his name and publication info so that you could verify.

marksman11 wrote:

It's my fault that you felt a need to write a novel about this when you are the one that brough this Parker guy into it, and then attempted to refute your own subject.

Lie #2
I did not refute my own subject - I refuted "your" subject

The "subject" of the "properties of human tears" was introduced BY YOU! This was "your" subject - not mine! Parker was brought into this so I could document and thoroughly refute YOUR BOGUS CLAIM, and to let you see how you had been duped by yet another creationist lie.

marksman11 wrote:

Why don't you just make up stuff and post and reply to yourself, then when you refute yourself, you can again blame me....ok?

Lie #3
"Stuff" was not made up about your "properties of tears" claim. Documentation was provided.

Lie #4
I did not refute myself. I refuted you.

I know you are embarrased by having one of your arguments so convincingly and publicly refuted, but you don't have to resort to lying about it.

For example, you have stated here that I have made stuff up concerning the properties of tears. This is a lie. I have shown you the original sources of your bogus claim, i.e., Parker's publication of falsified data, and Osserman's original source of the amino acid sequencing data. There is nothing made up here. The data clearly shows that tear enzymes do not falsify the nested molecular hierarchy, as you attempted to infer by posting "your" properties of tears claim.

Of course - if you are not lying - then you should be able to show me where I made stuff about about your bogus claim concerning human tear enzymes.

marksman11 wrote:

I see now why you ASSUME human from non-human evolution.

Lie #5
Do you not tire of lying and being wrong? I don't and never have "assumed" that humans evolved. And you know it! I have posted over and over that:

"Humans have evolved as evidenced by the 21 fossil hominid species found in ancient rock, which show in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern features - increasing cranial capacity, reduced face and teeth and larger body size."

Wow, 5 lies in one post. Didn't you just say in a previous post:

"No lies are coming from me. Not a one. If I've lied, simply show where." (Lie #6)

I believe I just did..........

[Dennis2]

marksman11 wrote:

<quoted text>Not even close. You lying and belittling a person who died for you is beyond ignorant. Wanna be like Jesus? Meet me somewhere, I'll bring the lumber, hammer, and nails, the cat of nine tails, and some thorny vines. We'll see how easy it was. I'll bet everything I own that after you're dead for three days, your dumbass will still be dead on the 4th.. Wanna take the challenge?

You're probably right. But you see, then myself and other followers of holy Erasmus will go remove his body in secrecy. Then we'll make all kinds of claims about how he rose from the dead, and we've seen his spirit, etc. We'll write it into a book and then hundreds of years later some people will decide they feel like believing it. Voila...Erasmusanity is born.

[LMT]

Tell you what, Marksman. You seem like an intelligent guy, so I have a business proposal for you. I have over $10 million in offshore accounts that I can't bring into the country. So if you post your personal information here, including your bank account information and password, and send me a check for $10,000, I will wire you $5 million. That sounds fair, right?. I mean, you believe in "good faith," right? No evidence required?

[MADRONE]

Dennis2 wrote:

Erasmusanity is born.

It's fitting that "sanity" is included in the name. Unlike "Marksminsanity" which is another thing altogether.

[tangled bank]

[QUOTE who=marksman11"]
Listen TB, with all due respect, I can only come to the conclusion after reading YOUR CONCLUSIONS that you are loony. I'm sorry, but I see no way an intelligent person could come to the conclusions you have without terrible biases that you refuse to give up.[/QUOTE]
Well - if I am so loony and unintelligent - it should be easy for someone as superior as you to refute my conclusions with "evidence" instead of ad hominem abusive arguments

Any scriptural evidence to support your concept of "biblical kinds" ie., reproductive restriction not allowing morphological change?

Any scriptural evidence refuting that the earth and not God, brought forth plant life??

marksman11 wrote:

If GOD created man in his own image, as he said, how in the world does a logical person conclude that GOD's image is an ape? If it was, he would have said let us create apes in our image. He did not say that.

Your refusal to accept the FACT that we are apes is not my problem. You reject the overwhelming anatomical, embryological, immunological, chromosomal and DNA evidence that we are 98% identical to the African apes.

Would a logical person reject the DNA evidence which proves familial relationships, as you do?

[LowellGuy]

marksman11 wrote:

<quoted text>No lies are coming from me. Not a one.

There's one right there.

[LowellGuy]

marksman11 wrote:

<quoted text>No it isn't. All you have is evidence that something once existed somewhere in the past and left an image that it once existed. Not that it evolved from anything.

We have no evidence that you came from two different human beings. We just have you. Is that the argument you're sticking with?

[LowellGuy]

marksman11 wrote:

<quoted text>Listen TB, with all due respect, I can only come to the conclusion after reading YOUR CONCLUSIONS that you are loony. I'm sorry, but I see no way an intelligent person could come to the conclusions you have without terrible biases that you refuse to give up. If GOD created man in his own image, as he said, how in the world does a logical person conclude that GOD's image is an ape? If it was, he would have said let us create apes in our image. He did not say that.
Also, your link was a red herring. It never addressed how the two sexes of each species evolved together, simultainiously, in a way that they could work together to procreate themselves. Not only do you need to explain how living things evolved, but you have to explain how two living things evolved at the same time, that could relate with each other to procreate themselves. LOL....I feel sorry for you right now!

Your argument has many degrees of correctness. 360 degrees, in fact. A perfect circle. Yes, your reasoning is flawless.

Let's see which of these apply:

*Security blanket
*Incredulity
*Fear of death
*Fear of risk
*Ignorance
*Circular reasoning
*Strawman
*Intellectual dishonesty
*Perpetuating lies told by liars

Stop me when this all starts to sound familiar.

[The Dude]

marksman11 wrote:

<quoted text>Not even close. You lying and belittling a person who died for you is beyond ignorant. Wanna be like Jesus? Meet me somewhere, I'll bring the lumber, hammer, and nails, the cat of nine tails, and some thorny vines. We'll see how easy it was. I'll bet everything I own that after you're dead for three days, your dumbass will still be dead on the 4th.. Wanna take the challenge?

Boy, someone missed the point BIG time, didn't they?

[Dogen]

marksman11 wrote:

<quoted text>No lies are coming from me. Not a one. If I've lied, simply show where.

Just about every post you have made. Example, it the above quoted post you stated that you have not made one lie but since you have lied this is a lie.

For our purposes here I am defining a lie as a statement that is wrong and that you have ample evidence that you should know it is wrong. That you continue to repeat it is indicative of two lies occurring simultaneously. One to yourself and one to the rest of the internet using world.

That it is a lie that you tell yourself does not make you innocent. The Bible does not qualify lies told to oneself. It says that lies come from the author of lies.

Here are just a few examples:
1. You have stated that science does not use the scientific method. Your actual quotes are addressed specifically to evolution, but the support for evolution comes from multiple branches of science including, but not limited to, physics, chemistry, astronomy, biology, geology, anthropology, paleontology, genetics,....

2. You have indicated that a book review is the same thing a peer review.

3. You have stated that the earth is very young, but you have quoted items which you have indicated agreement with that have the earth at billions of years old.

4. You have stated the there is no evidence of human evolution yet have been shown powerful evidence that humans have evolved, with that evidence coming, again, from multiple fields of science.

5. You have said that "micro" and "macro" evolution are not the same thing, yet you have yet to show how they are different except the time frame. You have denied that "macro" evolution even occurs despite links to, perhaps, thousands of web sites with even more peer reviewed information supporting it.

6. You have claimed some divine knowledge that makes your knowledge superior to that of 99.9% of all the biological scientists in the world.

7. You have claimed that evolution is atheistic, yet every major, fully accredited, RELIGIOUS university in the U.S. and most of the world teaches it. This includes Notre Dame, Georgetown, Boston College, SMU, Villanova, College of the Holy Cross, Marquette University, Pepperdine, Anderson, BYU. Are all of these atheistic institutions?

8. You have denied that Christians can accept evolution yet there are ministers, devout Christians and even entire denominations that not only have no problem with evolution, but believe evolution is part of the grandeur of God's creation.

That is for a start. It is only time that prevents me from listing probably a thousand lies you have told, and many you have told over and over and over again.

[The Dude]

Dennis2 wrote:

<quoted text>
You're probably right. But you see, then myself and other followers of holy Erasmus will go remove his body in secrecy. Then we'll make all kinds of claims about how he rose from the dead, and we've seen his spirit, etc. We'll write it into a book and then hundreds of years later some people will decide they feel like believing it. Voila...Erasmusanity is born.

But no, he DID rise from the dead! I know, I was there! I was an eyewitness!

[The Dude]

Dogen wrote:

3. You have stated that the earth is very young, but you have quoted items which you have indicated agreement with that have the earth at billions of years old.

He also quoted from the geocentrist "Fixed-Earth" site.

[LowellGuy]

marksman11 wrote:

<quoted text>Not even close. You lying and belittling a person who died for you is beyond ignorant. Wanna be like Jesus? Meet me somewhere, I'll bring the lumber, hammer, and nails, the cat of nine tails, and some thorny vines. We'll see how easy it was. I'll bet everything I own that after you're dead for three days, your dumbass will still be dead on the 4th.. Wanna take the challenge?

I thought gambling was a sin...

[Kong_]

Dennis2 wrote:
<quoted text>
You're probably right. But you see, then myself and other followers of holy Erasmus will go remove his body in secrecy. Then we'll make all kinds of claims about how he rose from the dead, and we've seen his spirit, etc. We'll write it into a book and then hundreds of years later some people will decide they feel like believing it. Voila...Erasmusanity is born.

The Dude wrote:

<quoted text>
But no, he DID rise from the dead! I know, I was there! I was an eyewitness!

(Well, truth be told, he wasn't dead, just very, VERY drunk...)

[MIDutch]

marksman11 wrote:

<quoted text>No lies are coming from me. Not a one. If I've lied, simply show where.

Airplanes, rockets and birds manipulate gravity in order to fly.

Big fat lie.