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

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

There are 141863 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

#102522 Nov 20, 2012
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
It's science, dipshit. Not philosophy. No wonder YOU are so screwed up.
Ok, so if you have a wife and you come home and hear her screaming for rape upstairs; you would require testing and replication, right?

You are beyond a dipshit... you are... you know what? Evolution theory just might be right; because here you are, a cross between a monkey and a fucking Neanderthal.

And I know you probably take that as a compliment, so let me tell you that I meant that in a very disrespectful way.

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL!!!1
KAB

Oxford, NC

#102523 Nov 20, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Initially I can only question geometry since there is no data in your post supporting it.
See, it is not all that hard to pretend to be a moron.
I agree that a moron would have difficulty staying on topic.
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

#102524 Nov 20, 2012
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Not playing your game, Marky. We've been over this and over this. The net result has always been you don't understand shit about LoB. Or the scientific method. You've become a tiresome troll.
You are the troll here.

He asked you something relevant to the concept you claim to have knowledge of: Justify life from the non-living/inanimate.

Dont wiggle your way out of it like the rest of the evolutionist goons on here.

You are no better than many of the creationists quirks, running away from questions that require them to justify things they claim to know of.

And while you are trying to justify "life from the in-animate" as speculated by some scientists; justify intelligence from the mindless, without the work of intelligent influence.
Tyler in _______

Ridley Park, PA

#102525 Nov 20, 2012
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Ok, so your faith in your technology and methodology is soooo strong. Fair enough.
2. Ok so the cells in rocks could not have been the remains of organisms with multiple system structures. I get that. Cells are all you found, so cells are all there could have been. Uh huh... yup, there you go again... you are irredeemable.
3. No, I dont find it impossible to do... Its just too damn difficult to explain it to someone like you who would insist otherwise, anyway.
4. No, I dont believe that "nothing you cannot directly and personally experience can be true". I know that matter and energy are constantly undergoing change, so nothing is consistent.
The fact is that facts change. Truth on the other hand, is that which does not change... period.
1. As it should be: I have yet to see it fail. Neither, strangely enough, has anyone else.

2. Are you under the impression that cells are not life?

3. It is fully impossible to do because it would go against reality and be inconsistent with the working of the universe. Even if there was such a theory, you are unlikely to know or understand it; please restrict your answers to the default "I don't know" when this is the case. There's no harm to admitting such; ignorance is only a flaw when enforced, after all.

4. Facts are facts. Is it your contention that truth is unknowable? If not, how does one find truth? Do you believe it can be approximated? If so, how? Do you believe approximate truth is worse than no truth? Do you believe truth exists at all? I believe truth is the absence of bias, and that the scientific method is the best way to remove bias; do you disagree?
KAB

Oxford, NC

#102526 Nov 20, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
The Christians did believe that the death of Nero made the world safer..... for a time.
All the superstitious nonsense modern fundies believe about Revelation is just hysterical. They have no data but they do have vivid imaginations.
Imagine someone imagining that Revelation 21:3,4 relates to Nero.
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

#102527 Nov 20, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
That is, absolutely, the most putrid, train wrecks of contorted "logic" that I has ever been my displeasure to witness.
I will point out that science has never (and you can check this for yourself) NEVER been refuted by philosophy. And will certainly never be refuted by the nonsense above.
You aint pointing to nothing.

How can philosophy refute science if it is the cause and effect of science?

Philosophy is the "love of wisdom", and it is manifested as the desire to find objective knowledge (which is a wisdom, unless it is foolishness).

It is the desire to find wisdom that resulted in the scientific method and like procedures; and the knowledge gleaned from scientific methods and like procedures inevitably leads to the formation of particular views on life and reality.

The definition of phylosophy that you refer to is teh casual definition. It suggests that "the "philosophy" of a person refers to the beliefs held by that particular person".

But Philosophy extends beyond the personal domain:

"Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language" [wikipedia.com]

Therefore philosophy as such is deeply rooted and inseparable from science; it is you that delude yourself into thinking that a philosophical suggestion is less valid than a scientific one.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#102529 Nov 20, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep. You mean you haven't?
Yes I have, and I've done it before in this forum, and you know I will go back and get them or reproduce the analysis, which is something we know you won't do (actually have yet to show yourself capable of doing either).
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

#102530 Nov 20, 2012
Tyler in _______ wrote:
<quoted text>
1. As it should be: I have yet to see it fail. Neither, strangely enough, has anyone else.
2. Are you under the impression that cells are not life?
3. It is fully impossible to do because it would go against reality and be inconsistent with the working of the universe. Even if there was such a theory, you are unlikely to know or understand it; please restrict your answers to the default "I don't know" when this is the case. There's no harm to admitting such; ignorance is only a flaw when enforced, after all.
4. Facts are facts. Is it your contention that truth is unknowable? If not, how does one find truth? Do you believe it can be approximated? If so, how? Do you believe approximate truth is worse than no truth? Do you believe truth exists at all? I believe truth is the absence of bias, and that the scientific method is the best way to remove bias; do you disagree?
1. we need not go any further.

2. I am under the impression that "life" and the condition of being "alive" are related but different things. Cells are alive in that they posses the attribute of life; but that cells in and of themselves are life... is a fact that I am sure has noooooooo existence outside of your mind.

3. The only impossibility is for you to remove the block from your mind; and for you to realize that if you can cook up a definition for things, so can everyone else. Children do it all the time...

4. Truth does involve the removal of bias, and the scientific method is relatively effective in removing bias; while it is feasibly to practice it. But scientific method is not always applicable, because not all aspects of reality can be tested physically/materially for the simple fact that we cannot access these aspects of reality immediately.

Approximated truth cannot be worse than no truth; for at least in approximate truth there is hope. But in the total absence of truth, nothing exists.

Truth is Consistency/equality. Truth is knowable; but not entirely experience-able in the physical body. The human body is able to detect effects, but only the mind can identify consistency through its logical faculties.

Yet scientific method is not immediately inadequate; it is the retaining of bias by scientific people that cause problems.

Let me show you what I mean:

Every theory must be falsifiable, yet after a scientist finds validity in his theory after testing, he does not go about testing to to see if it is falsifiable (or does he?). After you find evidence of evolution, do you go looking for evidence to disprove evolution? No, you accept what you find; and then you leave "the burden of proof" to others, as if the contrary does not exist if you dont look for it yourself.

But reality does not fail to show us, from the stone to the coin: THERE IS NEVER ONE SIDE TO ANYTHING.
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

#102531 Nov 20, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
He has made it clear that he has no intention of learning anything if he can at all help it.
You keep pissing me off like a weak kidney.

Level 2

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#102532 Nov 20, 2012
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
You keep pissing me off like a weak kidney.
You choose your attitude.
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

#102533 Nov 20, 2012
Croco_Duck wrote:
<quoted text>
You choose your attitude.
And he chose to talk crap.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#102534 Nov 20, 2012
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text>
You wish!
More accurately:
You idea of science is a process that you BELIEVE will reduce ignorance and bias until only the essence of objective reality is left.
It's not a belief; it's a fact. It's demonstrable. Unlike, for example, your God.
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
If "Certainty might be reassuring, but that feeling has nothing to do with whether what one claims certainty of is true or not."; THEN WHAT IS THE VALUE OF YOUR CERTAINTY, REGARDLESS OF WHAT MOTIVATES IT?
I am as certain as one can be based on the evidence. Science works. Religious woo doesn't. It's demonstrable. Until you can either prove science DOESN'T work, or demonstrate a better method of discerning fact from fiction, what I said is true.
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
Is "complete clusterfuck of stupid" your objective scientific observation? LOL LOL LOL!
Yes. If anybody knows any better terminology to describe it, I'm all ears. Guys?
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
The fact is that SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY CAN BE APPLIED TO ANYTHING IN THE PHYSICAL REALM. If it cant, then it is basically inadequate.
Right. And you said your God is in the physical realm, so the scientific method can be applied to it. That means your God is a part of the universe, and thus could not have created the universe. Whoops, it appears your stupidity has counteracted your other stupidity. That's what happens when logic and creationism collide. You just nullified your God. Better luck next time, champ.
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
So how is it that when you test a theory and find the results consistent it is factual; but when a man tries to practice what "the Word of God" says, the results he observes are mythical and illusive (whether he experiences the results suggested by the Word or not)?
1: What has science to do with trying to "practice what 'the Word of God' says?"

2: What does "the Word of God" say?

3: What results does he observe?

4: What is "illusive?" This is not an actual word. I recommend paying attention when the Topix reply box puts red squigglies under your words. It means you've either misspelled a word or used a complete nonsense word. You're stupider than you think. The Dunning-Kruger effect is extremely powerful, and you're too stupid to realize that it's acting upon you.

5: How can results be mythical? Results are either observed or not. If they are observed, they are real. If it's a hallucination, that's something else. If you've had a hallucination, how would you know? And, if you've got a chemical imbalance in your brain that causes hallucinations, and it affects your ability to discern reality from hallucinations, how could you tell what is real and what is your brain going bonkers in your head? And, if you stop taking your meds because you aren't getting the crazies anymore, isn't that exactly what the doctor said would happen and would cause relapses, and that you have to take them EVERY DAY NO MATTER WHAT?
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
If scientific principle has any true value, then you cannot deny the testimony of men who claim to know of God. The cultivation of faith depends on proof; so why is it that proof is proof when you say it is proof, but not when other people say it is?
Youre being a bitch, you know.
So, Zeus is real, as is Vishnu. Thanks for confirming that for us. That's all we needed to hear. Dummy.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#102535 Nov 20, 2012
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text>
What is uniformitarianism?
"Uniformitarianism is the assumption that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now, have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe." [wikipedia.com]
ARE YOU SERIOUS?
Do you realize what it would mean if "the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now, have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe".
It would mean absolutely nothing or only one thing! if the same thing was happening to the same thing at every place in time and space; then how can any one thing be any different in type and nature from anything anywhere else at any time?
Furthermore, you would also have to answer the question of how come the things which made up any one thing, is not everywhere; and how come everything did not become what everything is, since the same forces that are everywhere are acting on everything?
Is "uniformitarianism" even a real scientific concept?
Lets see?
"Gould simplified the issue, noting that Lyell's "uniformity of process" was also an ASSUMPTION: "As such, it is another a priori methodological ASSUMPTION shared by all scientists and NOT A STATEMENT ABOUT THE EMPIRICAL WORLD."" [wikipedia.com]
WTF?!!!
I dont even have to be capable for logic to see the crap in your concepts! Even a blind monkey can see the falsehood in your sophisticated foolishness.
Wow. Even with the definition that you went out of your way to locate, you still don't understand it. So, we can add uniformitarianism to the list.

*Uniformitarianism
*Evolution
*Theory of Evolution
*Scientific Method

Anything else you'd like to add?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#102536 Nov 20, 2012
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text>
Only everything is wrong with that poker faced analogy.
Poker involves logically thinking people, not random selection of cards (even if I am a fool at poker). It involves logical selection of cards according to the set principles of the game.
What is the principle behind natural selection? There is no such thing as natural selection is there? By natural section; you can only mean "the tendency for some to live while some die"? And as we all know, the fitness of an organism does not determine its longevity: where are dinosaurs now? Weren't they fit for their era? What species wiped them out? What did they evolve into?
"Natural selection" has no real meaning because you cannot tell what will naturally be selected (or can you?). EVEN IF YOU CAN BY CHANCE TELL WHAT WILL BE GENERATED, YOU CANNOT TELL WHAT WILL SURVIVE. And if that is the case; what have you predicted; failure? What is the use of predicting failure?
Therefore all you are left with is pure randomness which cannot be used to make predictions.
Besides, how come I have never heard any predictions being made regarding the next stage of evolution of any organism?
This is mostly an argument from ignorance. Not know the answer is not an excuse to debunk evolution. You clearly do not know what natural selection is, how it steers evolution just as strongly as strategy drives a poker expert.

We know what killed the dinosaurs. The dinosaurs were extremely well adapted to the environment they lived in, can you think of a reason that they might have died?

And lastly, yes, we have predicted the "next stage" of evolution for animals. You have even heard of it. Come on, stretch that pea sized brain of yours. You can come up with the right answer.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#102537 Nov 20, 2012
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text>
It is obvious that everything my texts have told me is wrong... please enlighten me.
Where pray tell is the non-random process in evolution? And what is it that causes that process or processes?
Natural selection is not random.

What texts told you that evolution is 100% random? Was it the same texts that told you that individuals evolve? Care to share the title and publisher of these texts? I'm sure we'd all love to see which books are leading you so far astray, and which religious organization is publishing them.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#102538 Nov 20, 2012
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Ok, so your faith in your technology and methodology is soooo strong. Fair enough.
2. Ok so the cells in rocks could not have been the remains of organisms with multiple system structures. I get that. Cells are all you found, so cells are all there could have been. Uh huh... yup, there you go again... you are irredeemable.
3. No, I dont find it impossible to do... Its just too damn difficult to explain it to someone like you who would insist otherwise, anyway.
4. No, I dont believe that "nothing you cannot directly and personally experience can be true". I know that matter and energy are constantly undergoing change, so nothing is consistent.
The fact is that facts change. Truth on the other hand, is that which does not change... period.
Facts never change. Our understanding of the facts may change, but facts are facts. They are what they are, and nothing else. They are immutable facets of the universe. Truth is a loaded term. You have to define what you mean by "truth" before anybody can agree with your assessment of it.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#102539 Nov 20, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
If you want to believe it on some grounds other than because it's written You'll need to do some checking/scrutinizing. I don't believe things just because they're written.
Me either. I base mine upon the source I use. The source I gave was fairly reputable. I find them highly believable. If I read something dubious I will check it for myself. You are the one who doubts the source, check it out for yourself, I am not stopping you. You might find them not to be reliable. I know you expect others to do your work for you. It is not going to happen this time. If you want to debunk that paper feel free to give it a shot. So far you have nothing.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#102540 Nov 20, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
If you want to believe it on some grounds other than because it's written You'll need to do some checking/scrutinizing. I don't believe things just because they're written.
Noah's flood.

Liar.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#102541 Nov 20, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Then give me your model as a model for my model. Then I can model my model after your model, transforming this exercise into a model of model modelling.
What? Gibberish.

You have to design your own model. The evolutionary model will not work for the creation model. They have different claims and goals. If you use the evolutionary model all you will do is to confirm evolution, and I know you don't want to do that.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#102542 Nov 20, 2012
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok, so if you have a wife and you come home and hear her screaming for rape upstairs; you would require testing and replication, right?
That makes no sense. What point do you think you're making? Screams of rape are evidence of a rape. We know this because there have been past rapes that we can compare our current experience to.
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
You are beyond a dipshit... you are... you know what? Evolution theory just might be right; because here you are, a cross between a monkey and a fucking Neanderthal.
And I know you probably take that as a compliment, so let me tell you that I meant that in a very disrespectful way.
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL!!!1
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!! !!!

http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/7...

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) 2 hr ChristineM 169,031
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 8 hr MikeF 19,806
has science finally debunked the 'god' myth? 15 hr Chimney1 15
News Aliens and evolution (Jun '12) Sun thetruth 6,221
How can we prove God exists, or does not? Jul 2 Paul Porter1 197
How would creationists explain... (Nov '14) Jul 2 Paul Porter1 561
three preventive measures for PID Jul 2 qiu 1
More from around the web