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

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

There are 161953 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.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#99463 Oct 6, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
All the better to precede the land animals.
They didn't.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#99464 Oct 6, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
All of the flood evidence in the geological record, that I am aware of, were events of less than a year duration.
Imagine that!

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#99465 Oct 6, 2012
Johny wrote:
Thomas - Obviously Noah took the animals which God told him, so he got the correct genetic makeup to have all the animals we have today. The mitochondrial DNA Eve would support the flood narrative, where a few women constrained the genetic makeup of mankind today.
Mitochondrial Eve??? Are you kidding me?

Ok you want to play genetics? Please provide evidence of a human population bottleneck 4500 years ago. In addition, please provide the same information for *all* living species alive today.

Level 2

Since: Jun 08

Socorro, NM

#99466 Oct 6, 2012
KAB wrote:
Perhaps some things escape your notice.
What escapes my notice? Is it when you
1. hide behind your one year resolution smokescreen when the data contradicts your make believe flood story, but dismiss this objection when you think the data supports your story?

Nope, that didn't escape my notice.

-or-

2. stated that other crater lakes corroborated the Canadian lake erosion sedimentary layer 4200 ybp, when in fact, no such data was presented?

Nope that didn't escape my notice

-or-

3. claimed to have "global" evidence, but only presented one reference on alluvial flooding which covered 3 flooding events in ONE location (the Sonoran desert near Phoenix) 4100 ybp?

This one didn't escape my notice either.

So what exactly escapes my notice?

No global flood data
No global flood

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#99467 Oct 6, 2012
forreal wrote:
<quoted text>with all this information you make sure none of your favorite bible scholars ever quote from St Paul ever again!LOL May this be the last time you ever quote St paul yourself!LOL

Oh, he is okay, if Paulism is your thing. If you want to follow Christ you need to get past Paul and back to the teachings of Jesus.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#99468 Oct 6, 2012
forreal wrote:
<quoted text>having sex with different people or races is not evolution!God didnt make just one cow he said cattle according to its kind!

If you can define KIND in a way that actually works in nature then you would be on to something.

Beware, I have asked this of many a creationist and have not got anything back that reflected the reality seen in nature.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#99469 Oct 6, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't assert anything. I raised a question of possibility. "Perhaps" is the distinguishing factor. Those good with English would recognize that.

It was an implied assertion. "Implied" is the distinguishing factor. Those good with English would recognize that.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#99470 Oct 6, 2012
Johny wrote:
Thomas - Obviously Noah took the animals which God told him, so he got the correct genetic makeup to have all the animals we have today. The mitochondrial DNA Eve would support the flood narrative, where a few women constrained the genetic makeup of mankind today.

Obviously the Noah myth is derived from older sources.

The mitochondrial eve lived about 200,000 years ago. Y-chromosomal Adam lived about 60,000 years ago.

There is a problem there.

Level 2

Since: Jun 08

Socorro, NM

#99471 Oct 6, 2012
MikeF wrote:
....What plants existed before the sun? On the not-yet Earth.
Excellent point! Furthermore, there wouldn't even be an earth/solar system w/o the sun as the sun would not have provided the gravitational influence needed for the planets to coalesce.
http://www.quora.com/Astronomy/If-there-were-...

[QUOTE who="MikeF]Whatever was available. But not seed bearing plants.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, some of the vascular seed bearing plants would have been around during the time of early animal evolution e.g., cycads, ginko, conifers, ferns, mosses and liverworts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spermatophyte

But there wouldn't have been any "angiosperms" - plants which evolved the ability to produce flowers and "enclosed" seeds - until 130 mya.(Genesis 1:11-12 refers to angiosperms as fruit trees, having them appear before, and not after, land animal creation, contradicting the fossil record.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evol...

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#99472 Oct 6, 2012
tangled bank wrote:
<quoted text>
Excellent point! Furthermore, there wouldn't even be an earth/solar system w/o the sun as the sun would not have provided the gravitational influence needed for the planets to coalesce.
http://www.quora.com/Astronomy/If-there-were-...
<quoted text>
Actually, some of the vascular seed bearing plants would have been around during the time of early animal evolution e.g., cycads, ginko, conifers, ferns, mosses and liverworts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spermatophyte
But there wouldn't have been any "angiosperms" - plants which evolved the ability to produce flowers and "enclosed" seeds - until 130 mya.(Genesis 1:11-12 refers to angiosperms as fruit trees, having them appear before, and not after, land animal creation, contradicting the fossil record.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evol...
Point taken.

Level 2

Since: Jun 08

Socorro, NM

#99473 Oct 6, 2012
marksman11 wrote:
Why do you think I'm not? You guys have no control over me. If he can't read between the lines as even you did, then he can go manipulate himself. Doesn't work with me.
Sure it does. I kept asking you the same question over and over not b/c of lack of understanding on my part, but b/c I knew you would overreact and show the beligerent/bullying/hostile side of your personality. And that is exactly what you did, as evidenced again in your post above. A real teacher of children would not have responded in such a manner.

Now, what were you saying about control/manipulation???

Level 2

Since: Jun 08

Socorro, NM

#99474 Oct 6, 2012
marksman11 wrote:
Show me one thing in it (the bible) that is scientifically disproven.
A global flood.

Level 2

Since: Jun 08

Socorro, NM

#99475 Oct 6, 2012
The difference between an evolutionist and an anti-evolutionist:

Evolutionist
Dogen wrote:

I am not lying. Evolution has been observed:
1. In the fossil record through the progression of fossils.
2. In the genomic record through sequences of previous species of humans.
3. In the environment where new species have been observed changing from old ones.
4. In real time in a lab using cultures of bacteria where evolution has been observed in real time.
I have presented evidence including journal citations of all 4 of these.
Evolution including macroevolution, human from nonhuman evolution (sic) are observable and observed phenomena. You have never taken on the science and you just repeat your belief.
Anti-evolutionist
marksman11 wrote:
You're on drugs!

Level 2

Since: Jun 08

Socorro, NM

#99476 Oct 6, 2012
KAB wrote:
I didn't ignore the statement, rather I saw that it too was only a hope.
Hoping that people who read their review would improve their knowledge is NOT the same as hoping the data was correct. It would seem that the author's hope was lost on you. If you want to dismiss research data provided by ~100 scientists over a period of ~20 yrs - that is up to you. Just don't expect everyone else to.
http://igg.cas.cn/xwzx/yjcg/201003/W020100310...
KAB wrote:
You "scientific" sticklers have not tended to give much weight to hopes.
No need to hope about data when there is more than enough to show that there was no holocene global flood.

No global flood data
No global flood

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#99477 Oct 6, 2012
tangled bank wrote:
The difference between an evolutionist and an anti-evolutionist:
Evolutionist
<quoted text>
Anti-evolutionist
<quoted text>

I am happy to be used and an example of an "evolutionist", whatever the hell an "evolutionist" is.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#99478 Oct 6, 2012
forreal wrote:
<quoted text>having sex with different people or races is not evolution!God didnt make just one cow he said cattle according to its kind!
All sexual reproduction is evolution. Read a book, retard.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#99479 Oct 6, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you sure a few cartons would be the right concentration for a valid experiment?
Are you sure your swimming pool and a garden hose would be the right scale for a valid global flood experiment?

Logic is NOT your friend.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#99480 Oct 6, 2012
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
A global flood would have left evidence spanning hundreds - if not thousands - of years. Your resolution requirement is completely unnecessary and totally ridiculous.
Odd, he was fascinated by a year-by-year record - until I gave him one.

You don't suppose he actually looked up "dendrochronology", do you?
forreal

Sinton, TX

#99481 Oct 6, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, he is okay, if Paulism is your thing. If you want to follow Christ you need to get past Paul and back to the teachings of Jesus.
Thats not what the bible teaches!LOL St Paul said in 1 Cor 11:1 to imitate me( St Paul) just as I also imitate Christ!LOL
forreal

Sinton, TX

#99482 Oct 6, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
If you can define KIND in a way that actually works in nature then you would be on to something.
Beware, I have asked this of many a creationist and have not got anything back that reflected the reality seen in nature.
Sin can break any Kind but if man would listen to him Kind would mean something!Just Look at the German Shepard and the Doberman all made in Germany in the 1800.Man loves to Crossbreed everything its sees!LOL

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.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 2 hr nanoanomaly 117
How can we prove God exists, or does not? (May '15) 2 hr Nemesis 503
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 3 hr Agents of Corruption 221,485
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr 15th Dalai Lama 74,760
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 5 hr Dogen 4,048
Mathematicians PROVED evolution IMPOSSIBLE! 5 hr Dogen 293
Is Creationism and Intelligent Design debunked ... 7 hr Dogen 214
More from around the web