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

There are 20 comments on the Mar 15, 2009, Asheville Citizen-Times story 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.

Evil-lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

#102039 Nov 15, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>... MOST scientific laws HAVE been "violated"...
It is most paradoxical to me, but I have noticed that science never makes any real progress until its "laws" are "violated".

In my view only our desire to learn the truth can help us see more clearly, not the laws outlined or identified by those before us.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#102040 Nov 15, 2012
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
The fool has said in his heart,“There is no God.”[Psalm 14:1]
Oh yeah, that's convincing, just like these:

Ancient Greeks and Romans: Only a fool says that Zeus is not the father of all gods.

Ancient Egyptians: Only a fool denies the Ra.

Necronomicon: Only one lacking sanity denies that Cthulhu will rise again.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#102041 Nov 15, 2012
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text>
It does not require a course in logic to identify faults in your reasoning.
Even when I am interested to believe the assertions you make, I am prevented from accepting what you say because the inconsistencies are so irritating.
Let me show you that even though I never took a course in logic, I can see that the ideas expressed by many people in here are biased:
You say that evolution is responsible for much if not all of the diversities we observe in life/nature; fair enough. I can live with that.
But why is it that they utterly hate to hear about God?
It is perfectly effective and reasonable for any creator to re-use/recycle parts and elements whenever creating similar forms that exist under similar conditions and perform similar functions. If there is a will to create quadrupeds; why not re-use the same genes for making every type of quadrupeds?
Do they/you take time to appreciate things like that? No.
Furthermore, quantum science now proves that a particular cause does not have to have a particular effect all the time. Therefore even if evolution/natural selection played a part in the development of life at one point in time, there is no way that you can be sure it was a consistent influence throughout the development of all life. Do they/you take time to appreciate things like that?
Yet you/they are ready to assert that "there is no need for God". That represents nothing more than a desire to live in a Godless world. But hold on; that world coming in a hurry. I hope you are prepared to live in it.
What a post of meaningless drivel.

The fact is that no creationist has shown a need for god, or any evidence of god. Atheists do not hate god. How can you hate something that does not exist? And atheists are perfectly willing to believe in god. All they request is a little evidence. Without evidence, and without prejudice, they can see that the Christian God is no better than the Muslim God, which is no better than the Jewish God and all three are not better than the Gods of the Greeks and the Romans. So even if there was evidence for God which one, out of the thousands that mankind has invented, should he believe in?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#102042 Nov 15, 2012
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text>
The Bile also says "there is life in the Father" as in God is the Source/Cause of life... and "He quickeneth/energises whatever He wills".
The bible says a lots of things. Big deal.
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
It is interesting to see you seeking congruence in what you dont believe; seeking agreement in what you deny. OUTSTANDING!
Gibberish.

What was it I denied again? I seem to have missed it.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#102043 Nov 15, 2012
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text>
It is most paradoxical to me, but I have noticed that science never makes any real progress until its "laws" are "violated".
In my view only our desire to learn the truth can help us see more clearly, not the laws outlined or identified by those before us.

I have not yet seen any indication in you that you desire to learn the truth. I have seen lots of indications that you like to try to inflict your opinion on others without first trying to understand what the poster is saying.

I hope in the future you will do better.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#102044 Nov 15, 2012
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
The fool has said in his heart,“There is no God.”[Psalm 14:1]

The dyslexic fool has said in his heart, "There is no Dog."
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

#102045 Nov 15, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh yeah, that's convincing, just like these:
Ancient Greeks and Romans: Only a fool says that Zeus is not the father of all gods.
Ancient Egyptians: Only a fool denies the Ra.
Necronomicon: Only one lacking sanity denies that Cthulhu will rise again.
I know that the presentation of Scripture has no real significance here. I did that to "flush" certain people out of their corners.

But you. Do you actually have anything to contribute to my knowledge besides your meaningless retorts?
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

#102046 Nov 15, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
...The fact is that no creationist has shown a need for god, or any evidence of god... even if there was evidence for God which one, out of the thousands that mankind has invented, should he believe in?
A) It was written "...with God, all things are possible"[Luke 1:37]
B) In this present reality, a negative cannot be proven.

Therefore the nature of the reality in which we live is consistent with the existence of an Omnipotence; a force which facilitates only the possible... for true power does not form limits as reflected in the negative(that which is not), it removes them.

Therefore science itself testifies to the influence of an Infinitely positive force which is influencing/supporting reality .

I would recommend that you chose the God that is most truthful if you decided to chose. And it is Christ who identifies himself with the truth ("I am the way, the truth and..."); so he would be the character most likely to lead you to the True.
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

#102047 Nov 15, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I have not yet seen any indication in you that you desire to learn the truth. I have seen lots of indications that you like to try to inflict your opinion on others without first trying to understand what the poster is saying.
I hope in the future you will do better.
I am disappointed that you see it that way; but perhaps you are right. Please take comfort in knowing that I am always in the process of trying to do better.
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

#102048 Nov 15, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
The dyslexic fool has said in his heart, "There is no Dog."
Quite so.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#102049 Nov 15, 2012
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text>
A) It was written "...with God, all things are possible"[Luke 1:37]
B) In this present reality, a negative cannot be proven.
Therefore the nature of the reality in which we live is consistent with the existence of an Omnipotence; a force which facilitates only the possible... for true power does not form limits as reflected in the negative(that which is not), it removes them.
Therefore science itself testifies to the influence of an Infinitely positive force which is influencing/supporting reality .
I would recommend that you chose the God that is most truthful if you decided to chose. And it is Christ who identifies himself with the truth ("I am the way, the truth and..."); so he would be the character most likely to lead you to the True.
That's quite a mouthful. How do you get from "a negative cannot be proven" to "the nature of the reality in which we live is consistent with the existence of an Omnipotence"? And how do you go about demonstrating that existence?

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#102050 Nov 15, 2012
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
The fool has said in his heart,“There is no God.”[Psalm 14:1]
Bah.

"A fool hath no delight in understanding." - Proverbs 18:2

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#102051 Nov 15, 2012
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text>
I am disappointed that you see it that way; but perhaps you are right. Please take comfort in knowing that I am always in the process of trying to do better.

Me too.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#102052 Nov 15, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Pillars of salt of the congregation?
I try to set a good example; the only one who wears a tie on Sunday, the only one who goes to confession, the only one who knows all ten commandments, the only one that doesn't have a Spanish surname, stuff like that.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#102053 Nov 15, 2012
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
I try to set a good example; the only one who wears a tie on Sunday, the only one who goes to confession, the only one who knows all ten commandments, the only one that doesn't have a Spanish surname, stuff like that.

I am sure you do fine.
LowellGuy

United States

#102054 Nov 15, 2012
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok, then. So it is evidence that makes things possible? So it is not possible that rain will fall if YOU dont have any evidence? OUTSTANDING!
<quoted text>
So if a man commits a crime with a knife and his prints are on it; it has no potential to serve as prof if YOU dont think it does? BRILLIANT!
<quoted text>
So until you agree that a thing is proof, it is not possible that the thing has any power to cause/affect outcomes? PURE GENIUS I TELL YOU!
I'll just address one point (on my phone): if the knife is never observed, it is not evidence. I'll deal with your other nonsense later.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#102055 Nov 15, 2012
Tyler in Space wrote:
<quoted text>
A) This is your source. You should be looking for data to refute my claim.
B) I thought you were better than quotemining
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
C) That was only one of several fossils studied.
<quoted text>
D) This isn't actually a bullet point, but is this why you're usually so hesitant to provide sources to back up your own claims? Because you're so bad at it that you find sources that not only fail to support you but actively hinder you?
http://earthsci.org/fossils/geotime/radate/ra...
KAB

Oxford, NC

#102056 Nov 15, 2012
Tyler in Space wrote:
<quoted text>
Theories make predictions. The common ancestor is a prediction of the Theory of Evolution. If we fail to find evidence of these common ancestors, then it's not necessarily a disproof of evolution but it makes it less likely. If we /do/ find evidence of these common ancestors, however, then that is a substantial point in favor of the theory.
I made the prediction of a common ancestor based on the data, which coincidentally fell into a pattern consistent with common descent. More coincidentally, that happens to mesh well with the Theory of Evolution. Even more coincidentally, we have discovered evidence that such common ancestors existed. I fail to see where the issue is that you seem to have.
And that was like forty five minutes worth of work tops. It's not difficult to process some data; you should try it sometime.
Keep in mind that finding common ancestors is also a point in favor of design. BTW my quest is not to disprove evolution, but to establish that it is not proven as the only answer for the present variety of life.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#102057 Nov 15, 2012
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Empirical evidence is all that counts in science. If you're going to make a claim about the natural world (a global year-long miles-deep flood occurred 4500 years ago), empirical evidence is the only thing that will support that claim. The source of the claim is not evidence in science. As soon as you've got something more than "the Bible says..." then we'll start caring about your Bible stories. Until then, it's just wishful thinking.
The Earth MAY be a cube, but every shred of evidence we have says that it is an oblate spheroid. Unless and until you present evidence that demonstrates otherwise, we will continue to consider it such. Just like until you present evidence that your Bible flood occurred as you claim it did, we will continue to reject your claim. THAT is science. THAT is exactly the methodology you despise, because you want everything EXCEPT empirical evidence to be considered. That is exactly NOT science. Science deals with the natural world. Until you come up with a more effective method of determining fact from fiction regarding the natural world, we're going to stick with the one that works: the scientific method.
As long as you acknowledge the earth could be a cube, I'm good. I have no further issue with you since similarly there could have been a global flood 4500 years ago, there could be a creator (Jehovah), and the Bible could be his communication with humankind.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#102058 Nov 15, 2012
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
It does. The answer it provides is the best answer possible based on the sum of all pertinent evidence. That's the single answer that objective science provides to a question. It's not our fault that you hold science to a separate and irrelevant standard. You're not the ultimate arbiter of science. Hell, you hate everything about science.
It's much easier now to understand why you had trouble with the African buffalo(?) bottleneck timing data "answer".

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 14 min thertruth 18,673
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 15 min GTID62 13,669
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 21 min replaytime 160,860
No Place For ID? 22 min GTID62 1
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) 8 hr Dogen 1,338
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) Fri hpcaban 178,585
Guadeloupe Woman Found (1812 (Mar '10) Apr 23 MikeF 73
More from around the web