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

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

There are 163763 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.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#102428 Nov 20, 2012
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>To bad you are searching for truth through biased eyes.<quoted text>Agreeing with me means nothing. I am not the standard. The scientific method is the standard and it is a bigger enemy to your philosophy than I could ever be.

Funny how the scientific method works as a support for well done science. This is why evolution cannot be assailed.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#102429 Nov 20, 2012
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>All you have to do is present a violation to the Law of Biogenesis. Just one time, show where life can come from non-life.
Come on! Be the first!

Demonstrating your ignorance of what a scientific law is.

"A scientific law is a statement based on repeated experimental observation that describes some aspect of the world. A scientific law always applies under the same conditions, and implies that there is a causal relationship involving its elements"

So a law is not prescriptive nor immutable. A law is simply descriptive. One cannot "violate" a scientific law, one can only find exceptions. Many exceptions have been found for many scientific "laws".

An exception for biogenesis is abiogenesis.

Therefor your "violation" (falsely so called) has been demonstrated many times in this forum.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#102430 Nov 20, 2012
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Evidence requires observation, testing, and replication. No wonder your philosophy is so screwed up.

Philosophy does not require observation, testing and replication so how can such screw up philosophy?

and we are not discussing philosophy, we are discussing science, or were before you got here.

Where you around when we proved evolution was a fact? Maybe that is why you ran away.
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

#102431 Nov 20, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Ignoring the fact that it looks like it was done in the 60's, it was just one lie after another. Pablum for the masses who they know won't bother to check out their claims.
ďBut I donít want to go among mad people," Alice remarked.
"Oh, you canít help that," said the Cat: "weíre all mad here. Iím mad. Youíre mad."
"How do you know Iím mad?" said Alice.
"You must be," said the Cat, or you wouldnít have come here.Ē
&#8213; Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland
I bet they could say the same thing about you; as a matter of fact, they have said similar things about you.

Furthermore, the fact that the presentation was made in 1000000000000 BC cannot automatically imply that it is not valid?

The fact is that the majority of the phenomena we see are influenced by phenomena that we are not able to see; so no one can make any conclusive statement about reality without neglecting what he does not know. Thats all you do; neglect what is not in accordance with your beliefs.

You handle science like a man who so desperately wants to marry a woman; so he overlooks the fact that she is a stripper at the community night club.

The fact is also that those men (not the ones at the strip club) have studied the same things from a different perspective and they have arrived at different conclusions. What you have discovered is only what you are interested to discover.

But that is the nature of the intellect; it can make anything look the way it wants it to appear. The mind is its own place and in itself can make even a haven out of hell.
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

#102432 Nov 20, 2012
Tyler in _______ wrote:
<quoted text>...even from a logical standpoint it makes no sense to say that no beneficial mutations ever take place. There is absolutely nothing to prevent a beneficial mutation from occurring...
It sounds to me like you can be every bit as illogical as them.

A coin can never fall on a third or fourth face no matter how many times you flip it and no matter where you flip it; for the simple fact that it has only two faces. It is illogical to think that a thing can respond in ways that are beyond its potential.

Therefore, that "things evolve" would suggest that the degrees to which they are able to "evolve" would have already been specified in genetic coding. As such, there would be no true "evolution" of species; only mere development.

There is a concept that says that genes actually to to operate in ways to limit change to their structure; and I tend to agree.

The "mutations" you mention may have been occurring, but not to the end that you suggest. These mutations happen in every generation and person, yet humans have not undergone any significant changes over the years; so I see no reason to believe that these "mutations" are able to produce the "dramatic" effects of evolution nor are they tending towards such outcomes.

Therefore it is apparent that genes only "change in order to remain the same"; i.e they only mutate in ways that keep the original functions going.
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

#102433 Nov 20, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
..."A scientific law is a statement based on repeated experimental observation that describes some aspect of the world. A scientific law always applies under the same conditions, and implies that there is a causal relationship involving its elements"
So a law is not prescriptive nor immutable...
If you truly believed that, you would not be defending evolution theory so aggressively.

Even so, I see no reason why you think that any Law that hold in the lab must hold true in nature. Is nature a controlled environment? Are the operations of nature made consistent by controlled variables?

Furthermore, I dont think you have any right to make nay conclusions regarding causes; because you stop short the moment you identify the cause you desire to identify. Either that or you cease to search for original causes because of lack of will, inadequacy of technology or in the name of "infinite regress".

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#102434 Nov 20, 2012
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text>
It sounds to me like you can be every bit as illogical as them.
A coin can never fall on a third or fourth face no matter how many times you flip it and no matter where you flip it; for the simple fact that it has only two faces. It is illogical to think that a thing can respond in ways that are beyond its potential.
Therefore, that "things evolve" would suggest that the degrees to which they are able to "evolve" would have already been specified in genetic coding. As such, there would be no true "evolution" of species; only mere development.
There is a concept that says that genes actually to to operate in ways to limit change to their structure; and I tend to agree.
The "mutations" you mention may have been occurring, but not to the end that you suggest. These mutations happen in every generation and person, yet humans have not undergone any significant changes over the years; so I see no reason to believe that these "mutations" are able to produce the "dramatic" effects of evolution nor are they tending towards such outcomes.
Therefore it is apparent that genes only "change in order to remain the same"; i.e they only mutate in ways that keep the original functions going.
All you have shown here is that you do not understand evolution. The amount of change per generation is very small. And you are concentrating too much on the individual. Individuals do not evolve, populations do. We have seen evolution of bacteria in the lab. The same applies to viruses. We have seen changes in them that would be the equivalent of the change from Lucy to Man.
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

#102435 Nov 20, 2012
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you ask me questions about undetectable phenomena? Are you sure you didn't ask Dogen? And, if it was regarding love, we have evidence of love (brain signals, deeds). I have a feeling that's where you were going with that. You are treating well-worn ground like virgin soil. Your ignorance of your ignorance does nothing to support anything you say.
I asked you nothing about love and that crap.

Furthermore, brain signals reflect only the fact that the brain is generating signals; there is no way you can say look, there is a loving thought. Love is more than brain signals.

And since there is such thing as pretending; you have no way of identifying real love from deeds.

You mentioned something about creationists not being able to give evidence for God; but I realize that you make that claim simply because "God" does not immediately appeal to the human senses.

Therefore I asked you how a person could confirm the presence of things like radio waves, sounds that are below the frequencies humans can hear and light waves that are below the frequencies humans can see.

None of these things appeal to the human senses at any point in time; so people dont have to believe that they are causing the effects you may point out. How can these phenomena be interacted with and studied unless you first BELIEVE that they exist and study them ACCORDING TO THE IMPLICATIONS OF WHAT YOU BELIEVE?

Even if the questions were directed to Dogen, he has failed to answer up till now; so I'm asking you.
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

#102436 Nov 20, 2012
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
You're obviously undecided on whose side you are on...declare yourself bud.
Thats the difference between me and you.

I am not going around shopping for things to believe in; because only one thing matters: TRUTH, the product of that which is TRUE.

The truth has no friends nor does it take any sides; so I cant be looking for a side to take if I am seeking truth.

It is the animal savagery in your nature that leads you to take sides and form your "herds" like cattle.

Both creationists and evolutionists embrace falsehood so if I were looking for a side to take; it certainly wouldnt be any of them.

If I were the captain of a boat that was sinking and there were two groups (creationists and evolutionists) and I was told to get rid of ANY ONE group so the boat may reach shore; I would kick BOTH creationists and evolutionists off.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#102437 Nov 20, 2012
Evil, even though we cannot witness creation, creationist should be able to develop a model that explains the fossil record. No creationist has come close to doing that without being shown to be wrong.

So how does a creationist explain the fossil record? Did god put it there to mislead us? That is the only way that I can conceive its existence.
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

#102438 Nov 20, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
All you have shown here is that you do not understand evolution. The amount of change per generation is very small. And you are concentrating too much on the individual. Individuals do not evolve, populations do. We have seen evolution of bacteria in the lab. The same applies to viruses. We have seen changes in them that would be the equivalent of the change from Lucy to Man.
There is no shame in me not understanding evolution. It does not prevent me from surviving nor being successful. Furthermore, it was not my theory so I dont even have to give a rat's ass.

The statement(s): "And you are concentrating too much on the individual. Individuals do not evolve, populations do."; reveals that you idiocity has no bounds. You are not a safe person to be around.

A population is made up of each single individual; so how the population can evolve if the individuals within the population dont evolve would puzzle God himself.

Is "evolution" of bacteria and viruses your proof of "evolution"? I seriously hope its not!

Furthermore, the degree to which viruses or bacteria (anything actually) can "evolve" MUST have already been specified in their DNA/genes; i.e. they would have already been "programmed" to "evolve". You cannot pour water from a flame, because water is not a potential of fire. Neither can any genes develop into what was not already specified by its coding.

Therefore there does not have to necessarily be any randomness nor any natural selection; just exercise of their God given potential.

Some say there is no need for God; but there is no need for evolution.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#102439 Nov 20, 2012
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I'm not trying to support my beliefs. They are a matter of my faith and your acceptence or rejection of them is irrelevant. I'm to busy distroying yours!
Then why would you never admit that 1.10 is not greater than 1.1 or 1.9? Liar.
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

#102440 Nov 20, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
Evil, even though we cannot witness creation, creationist should be able to develop a model that explains the fossil record. No creationist has come close to doing that without being shown to be wrong.
So how does a creationist explain the fossil record? Did god put it there to mislead us? That is the only way that I can conceive its existence.
You want a model to explain the fossil records? Here it is:

The fossils that were found that resemble the ancestors of "modern" creatures are nothing but that; fossils that resemble the ancestors of "modern" creatures.

But just because a wheel resembles a sphere doesn't mean the wheel was originally a sphere, does it?

God didnt put it there to mislead us; fools mislead themselves with what appeals to sight. Didnt you hear that appearances are deceiving?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#102441 Nov 20, 2012
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no shame in me not understanding evolution. It does not prevent me from surviving nor being successful. Furthermore, it was not my theory so I dont even have to give a rat's ass.
The statement(s): "And you are concentrating too much on the individual. Individuals do not evolve, populations do."; reveals that you idiocity has no bounds. You are not a safe person to be around.
A population is made up of each single individual; so how the population can evolve if the individuals within the population dont evolve would puzzle God himself.
Is "evolution" of bacteria and viruses your proof of "evolution"? I seriously hope its not!
Furthermore, the degree to which viruses or bacteria (anything actually) can "evolve" MUST have already been specified in their DNA/genes; i.e. they would have already been "programmed" to "evolve". You cannot pour water from a flame, because water is not a potential of fire. Neither can any genes develop into what was not already specified by its coding.
Therefore there does not have to necessarily be any randomness nor any natural selection; just exercise of their God given potential.
Some say there is no need for God; but there is no need for evolution.
Yes, it is not necessary for you to understand evolution to live, make money, etc.. But it you want to try to debunk it you have to understand it. Clearly you don't. Most of your posts are gibberish, bad analogies, and a total misunderstanding of the theory.

In other words if this were a formal debate you would be losing. Of course your side has been losing this debate for 150 years now. Luckily for science, and for the world, we do accept the theory of evolution.

By the way, I should take back part of my post. If you have had a flu shot, or any antibiotics recently then you have relied upon the theory of evolution to live. If you drive a car you have used the theory of evolution to get from one place to another since paleontology needs evolution to explain it and a knowledge of paleontology is needed to find oil you are using the theory whether you like it or not.
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

#102442 Nov 20, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Stealth faith destroyer?
The only thing you are doing here that is obvious is parading your pride in your massive ignorance of science.
The ignorance of science does not prevent the world from spinning.

Its men who claim to have knowledge of science that make the atomic bombs and all that jazz.

Your "knowledge" is a greater threat to life and the existence of the human race than his "ignorance".

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#102443 Nov 20, 2012
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no shame in me not understanding evolution. It does not prevent me from surviving nor being successful. Furthermore, it was not my theory so I dont even have to give a rat's ass.
But, if you don't understand what it is, how can you expect to go about refuting it? If you're refuting something you think is evolution but isn't, what have you accomplished, other than revealing your ignorance? Nothing.
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
The statement(s): "And you are concentrating too much on the individual. Individuals do not evolve, populations do."; reveals that you idiocity has no bounds. You are not a safe person to be around.
A population is made up of each single individual; so how the population can evolve if the individuals within the population dont evolve would puzzle God himself.
Individuals DON'T evolve. Evolution is a matter of population dynamics, not individual development. The allelic frequency in an individual never changes over time. It DOES change in a population over time. As such, evolution is NEVER occurring at the individual level. See also: what I said in my previous paragraph.
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
Is "evolution" of bacteria and viruses your proof of "evolution"? I seriously hope its not!
Why? Clearly there's something you think WOULD qualify as evolution. Why don't you tell us what that is?
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
Furthermore, the degree to which viruses or bacteria (anything actually) can "evolve" MUST have already been specified in their DNA/genes; i.e. they would have already been "programmed" to "evolve". You cannot pour water from a flame, because water is not a potential of fire. Neither can any genes develop into what was not already specified by its coding.
Evolution isn't programmed. Evolution is a result of DNA replication errors and natural selection. Neither of those is programmed. Your ignorance of how DNA works only compounds your ignorance of evolution. Again, see my first paragraph.
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
Therefore there does not have to necessarily be any randomness nor any natural selection; just exercise of their God given potential.
Some say there is no need for God; but there is no need for evolution.
But there IS random genetic mutation and there IS natural selection. Nobody said these are necessary; they simply ARE. Evolution occurs. Simple as that. Your ignorance of the facts (which is readily apparent throughout this post of yours) does not change the facts. Unless you can show that random genetic mutations do not occur, or that there are advantages/disadvantages as a result of these, or that genes are passed on to offspring, or that there is a barrier for genetic mutations, you'll be the first. But, I STRONGLY recommend you learn what you're talking about before opening your fat yap.
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

#102444 Nov 20, 2012
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Then why would you never admit that 1.10 is not greater than 1.1 or 1.9? Liar.
... said the alloy to the mixture of metals.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#102445 Nov 20, 2012
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text>
You want a model to explain the fossil records? Here it is:
The fossils that were found that resemble the ancestors of "modern" creatures are nothing but that; fossils that resemble the ancestors of "modern" creatures.
But just because a wheel resembles a sphere doesn't mean the wheel was originally a sphere, does it?
God didnt put it there to mislead us; fools mislead themselves with what appeals to sight. Didnt you hear that appearances are deceiving?
So, any organism that is slightly different from another was separately and discretely created from every other organism, and was not in any way related genealogically to anything it mostly resembles? This is your supposition, correct?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#102446 Nov 20, 2012
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text>
... said the alloy to the mixture of metals.
Are you agreeing with marksman11 that 1.10 is greater than 1.1, and also greater than 1.9?

If you think I've gotten something wrong, identify it and demonstrate me wrong. Evidence or GTFO.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#102447 Nov 20, 2012
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text>
The ignorance of science does not prevent the world from spinning.
And your ignorance of science does not prevent evolution from occurring.

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) 2 hr Eagle 12 - 79,964
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 3 hr Dogen 222,748
What's your religion? 4 hr Zog Has-fallen 4
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) Wed Eagle 12 - 32,581
Life started in Tennessee proof. Sep 15 Science4life 1
Science News (Sep '13) Sep 8 Ricky F 4,001
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... Sep 7 Science 1,932
More from around the web