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

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

There are 163769 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.

Evil-lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

#102448 Nov 20, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
"Yes, it is not..."

And you claim to be rational/logical? Get a grip. Cant you see your thought process is flawed to the core?

I understand perfectly well. Anyone who doesn't share your beliefs is lacking in understanding.

I dont need oil. Oil companies need oil to get rich off idiots who dont see that solar technology is more appropriate.

Paleontology is not NEEDED to find oil. Was the first discovery of oil made possible by Paleontology?

After examining the nature of the layers of rock that oil is found in one place; does it take a genius to deduce that similar layers of rocks may contain the same entities or substance?

BTW, do the Arabs use Paleontology to find oil gushing up into their back yards?
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

#102449 Nov 20, 2012
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Thats what you suppose that I suppose.

But even so, does the hydrogen in one part of the universe have to be from the same location as the rest of the hydrogen elsewhere in the universe? No. The event which caused it to be generated in one place might have also caused it to be generated elsewhere.

The idea that similar things were ones related or connected is not consistent.
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

#102450 Nov 20, 2012
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I was not agreeing nor disagreeing with any one. I was suggesting that you are no different from him.
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

#102451 Nov 20, 2012
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
And your ignorance of science does not prevent evolution from occurring.
Nor does your assertion that it is occurring mean that it is truly occurring.

Its all in your mind, and I dare you to say I am lying. Because if it not in your mind; you would have no appreciation for it.
KAB

United States

#102452 Nov 20, 2012
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Not a one has been presented.
The strongest argument against evolution so far seems to be the insufficient time to get the job done based on known mutation rates.
KAB

United States

#102453 Nov 20, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Revelation happened 1950 years ago. Don't you understand the book was encoded to keep the Romans from understanding it?
You're entitled to your dataless opinion.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#102454 Nov 20, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The strongest argument against evolution so far seems to be the insufficient time to get the job done based on known mutation rates.
Only based on your fallacious mythological age of the universe. The reality is there was plenty of time.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#102455 Nov 20, 2012
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text>
I bet they could say the same thing about you; as a matter of fact, they have said similar things about you.

Anyone can say nearly anything. It is a free country.
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text> Furthermore, the fact that the presentation was made in 1000000000000 BC cannot automatically imply that it is not valid?

No. It is the content that makes it invalid.
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text> 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.

So science is a waste of time. Okay everybody, shows over. Back up into the trees!

No HD Satellite for you.
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text> 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.

You are getting deeper and deeper into projection here. 150 years of science, millions of scientists from all over the world, from every background and country, from every religion and political view, from every major institution of higher learning all backs evolution. It is not a hackneyed, back of the envelope, notion concocted sitting at a bar late on a Saturday night. This is the establish science. It explains, predicts and is used in modern medical research (as has saved many lives).
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text>
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.

More projection.
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text> 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.

More projection.

The evidence only cuts one way here.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#102456 Nov 20, 2012
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text>...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.

But that is not what the research shows. It shows just the opposite. That there is nothing limiting evolution.
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text> 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.

You are thinking with your wishes and not with the known facts.
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text> 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;

Actually humans are changing all the time, evolving with every generation. There have been a number of studies on this very thing and it shows that humans continue to evolve, though to what end is hard to tell.
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text> 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.

Except for the actual scientific research that is. No reason to believe except for the known an published scientific research.
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text>
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 this seems to be the result of you thinking about evolution without much actual knowledge about evolution and what is already know based on primary research.

There is simply no mechanism that prevents ongoing evolution from occurring and is observed to be occurring all the time.

Since I have already given some links related to the above, and it is apparent you have not read/understood them, I am hesitant about providing them again.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#102457 Nov 20, 2012
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text>
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?

Laws ares simple relationships between variables. They are useful when working in a given range. To be a true law there has to be a consistent relationship between the variables.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_science
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text> Are the operations of nature made consistent by controlled variables?

A meaningless question. But Laws have their limits. They are applicable within a defined range. The LoB, for example is defined by the experiments that confirmed this concept (L. Pasteur, et al)
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text> 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".

This is just sophism. Science deals with causes and effects as every effect is a cause and every cause has an effect. But that is not the only job of science and it occurs naturally as science builds on what it knows. You live in a world where you get to reap the rewards of science yet you want to bite the hand that feeds you (provides you with microwaves, computers, internet, HDTV, smart phones, GPS,......... In 1945 the interest was in harnessing the power of the atom. No one was much worried about where that power originally came from, only that it was there and theoretically could be released. We now much more about the atom and its make-up, and the particles that make those particles up and that make those particles up, and....

As long as science is progressing and not going in circles...

Have you ever be treated using evolutionary medicine?

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#102458 Nov 20, 2012
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text>
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.

Wow. Gish gallop or just a wild rant?

First you need to learn about the scientific method. It is the foundational framework for science. If you understand this you can figure out how a lot of research is done and how good it is (or isn't).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Here is a real simple test on the scientific method. If you read the questions carefully and have good knowledge of basic science you should be able to get all 10 right.

http://chemistry.about.com/library/weekly/blm...

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#102459 Nov 20, 2012
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text>
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.

You seem to have decided, without much information I might add, what is and is not the TRUTH. By early acceptance of one "truth" you end up rejecting all others. In science this would be a huge mistake. In your case it is just a choice.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#102460 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.

Oh, the ignorance. The massive ignorance. Where to start?
......
Okay, first of all, the fossils, DNA, Nested hierarchies, cladistics, phylogenetic trees, ERVs, morphology, ALL match PERFECTLY with each other and the ToE. ALL of these things show a PROGRESSION (tree of life) throughout geological time. It is not conceivable that all these could line up as some sort of coincidence.

Further: it is not reasonable for god to create different species at different times in the fossil record.

Our own DNA shows amazing similarity to other simian DNA (the similarity being a function of the closeness of the relationship as measured by the molecular clock).
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text> 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?

This is an epic fail. You let your ignorance run the show. Why not just admit you don't know what you don't know like Socrates did? All of us are vastly ignorant about many things.

The one difference is that I do not ramble on about 17th century French Poetry because I know absolutely nothing about it.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#102461 Nov 20, 2012
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text>
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".

I completely disagree. Ignorance (often combined with religious fervor) has killed and will continue to kill far more people than atomic bombs ever will.

Figure 350,000 killed in nuclear explosions, total. But 6,000,000 die each year just from smoking cigarettes. And that is just one way people are ignorant.

Ignorance is far more lethal.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#102462 Nov 20, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The strongest argument against evolution so far seems to be the insufficient time to get the job done based on known mutation rates.

We have been through this. Mutation rates are nearly perfect for the observed rate of evolution in the fossil record.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#102463 Nov 20, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You're entitled to your dataless opinion.

LOL. I have provided plenty of data. You have chosen to ignore it (and lie about it).

At least you are consistent.

Why don't you look it up?
Tyler in _______

United States

#102464 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.
On the contrary, your arguments all seem to be rooted in baseless philosophy rather than logic. You made a lot of assertions, but not one is supported by what we know and observe to be true in the real world. Many of your assertions have even been outright falsified.

If you would like, we can take a moment to look at it logically.

We know the earth is several billion years old. I hope you don't dispute this, people should know I have very little regard for young earth beliefs.

We know the earliest life on earth appeared around or at least 3.7 billion years ago. Again this is a fact. We have fossils of the earliest cells.

We know that modern life would die instantly in an early earth environment. Early earth conditions were vastly different from conditions today. Therefore we can assume they did not exist at that point.

Modern animals exist today. They must have come from somewhere. Per the principle of biogenesis that marksman is touting, all observed instances of life have so far come from previous life. It is reasonable to assume that modern animals did not spontaneously generate.

Therefore we must logically come to the conclusion that modern animals are descended from those earliest cells.

All of science besides comes to this very same conclusion. Please, point out the flaw in my thinking.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#102465 Nov 20, 2012
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text>
"Yes, it is not..."
And you claim to be rational/logical? Get a grip. Cant you see your thought process is flawed to the core?
I understand perfectly well. Anyone who doesn't share your beliefs is lacking in understanding.
I dont need oil. Oil companies need oil to get rich off idiots who dont see that solar technology is more appropriate.
Paleontology is not NEEDED to find oil. Was the first discovery of oil made possible by Paleontology?
After examining the nature of the layers of rock that oil is found in one place; does it take a genius to deduce that similar layers of rocks may contain the same entities or substance?
BTW, do the Arabs use Paleontology to find oil gushing up into their back yards?
Paleontology was not needed to find oil early on. Just dumb luck. All of those easily tapped near surface sources have long since been drained of all of their oil. And yes, even the Arabs need paleontology to find oil today.

Similar rocks alone is not enough. You need to find rocks of the same age. So how do you determine that rocks are of the same age?

And you may claim not to "need" oil, but I bet you use it every day. How does your food get to you? Is is all hand grown on Jamaica and carted to you by donkeys? What is the frame of your keyboard made of? Is it made of wood? You are reliant on oil for anything that is made of plastic (an oil product) or steel (oil is needed to run the machinery that digs up the ore, carts it to the smelter, and finally delivers it to you). The last time I checked Jamaica was not well known for its natural resources. So here you are using your high tech devices, most of them not possible without using the theory of evolution some way and you have the hypocrisy to claim you do not need it.
KAB

United States

#102466 Nov 20, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Go ahead and debunk the claim. Of course all of your pathetic claims have failed so you are reduced to throwing stones at people who can actually do scientific work.
Initially I can only question the claim since there is no data or reference provided to establish/confirm the dating of the artifacts.
KAB

United States

#102467 Nov 20, 2012
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
And the world will be a safer place
Yes it will, eventually (Revelation 21:3,4).

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 Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 11 min ChromiuMan 222,780
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Eagle 12 - 79,975
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 10 hr River Tam 32,582
What's your religion? 15 hr Zog Has-fallen 4
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