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

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

There are 168810 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.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#102549 Nov 20, 2012
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text>
So you find it more convenient to sass than to actually provide some information.
You claim that my argument is from ignorance, and how do you support yours?
I have heard two of you state crap about predictions of evolution and none of you actually state what was predicted or how accurate that prediction was.
You pussy!
I know what they are. I am just waiting to see if you can use that underused organ of yours to figure out for yourself what the answer might be.

I am beginning to think you won't get the answer.
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

#102550 Nov 20, 2012
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Its useless arguing with someone who does not believe that truth is truth.

That which is "truth" is unvarying but you dont believe in truth; you believe in unchanging facts... So I guess the facts or lies since they are not truth.

Jesu(s) was right as always; "You are of your Father/Source, the devil... the father of lies".

And guess what, you basically confirmed it yourself. EXCELLENT!

There is a difference between being animated and being alive, and I begin to understand how.
LowellGuy

Haverhill, MA

#102551 Nov 20, 2012
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text>
I notice that after you think made your point about God being apart of the universe so He couldnt have created it; you start going crazy. Proud huh?
So what do I do now, whimper away and go crawl into my little creationist corner? You retard.
So since the light of the sun influenced the generation of the planets; the sun is not apart of the solar system, right?
WHY COULDNT GOD BE A PART OF THE STRUCTURE HE CREATED?
Do you even know what God is?
Its not enough that you think reality can only be defined on your terms; you would want to define God in your terms also?
Its not that you lack proof of God; the issue is that you insist on proving yourself to yourself.
You are not intelligent; youre just an arrogant little girl who can read and write.
Keep dancing.
LowellGuy

Haverhill, MA

#102552 Nov 20, 2012
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text>
Are those answers to the questions I asked or just your regualr mumbo jumbo.
You are gay, arent you?
And, now we know you hate gay people. The hits just keep coming!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#102553 Nov 20, 2012
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text>
I notice that after you think made your point about God being apart of the universe so He couldnt have created it; you start going crazy. Proud huh?
So what do I do now, whimper away and go crawl into my little creationist corner? You retard.
So since the light of the sun influenced the generation of the planets; the sun is not apart of the solar system, right?
WHY COULDNT GOD BE A PART OF THE STRUCTURE HE CREATED?
Do you even know what God is?
Its not enough that you think reality can only be defined on your terms; you would want to define God in your terms also?
Its not that you lack proof of God; the issue is that you insist on proving yourself to yourself.
You are not intelligent; youre just an arrogant little girl who can read and write.
Evil, no one is saying that god cannot be part of the answer. The theory of evolution does not disprove the existence of god. No one has ever claimed that except for whacky creationists. It only shows that the Genesis stories are myths. But we should have known that anyway.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#102554 Nov 21, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Try calculating all of life's variety and complexity, past and present, being generated in 3.5 billion years using the progress markers in the fossil record and known mutation rates.
The known mutation rate fluctuates, thus it is known because of the fossil records. Changes in the fossil records show the changes in the mutation rate, Cambrian is a prime example of a very high mutation rate, for example. If you continue to put the cart before the horse you will continue to go backwards.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#102555 Nov 21, 2012
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text>
Are those answers to the questions I asked or just your regualr mumbo jumbo.
You are gay, arent you?
If he is, it would explain why he's far more cultured than you are, as well as having far better grammar than you do.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#102556 Nov 21, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Irony meters are all in the shops again, you know how to break them.
Sorry, but that "Irony meter" catch all reply when you're corned and can't get out is terribly unconvincing, uneffective, childishly weak. I love it when your own scientific method refutes you.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#102557 Nov 21, 2012
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Many bacteria and viruses are only one single cell. Are they not alive?
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#102558 Nov 21, 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.
Fine, I'm a troll, you have still not presented a violation to the Law of Biogenesis. It has never been observed violated in a lab nor nature, yet is demanded to have occurred if your atheism be true. For your sake, I wish you could produce this violation, but sadly, you will never be able too!
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#102559 Nov 21, 2012
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
It's science, dipshit. Not philosophy. No wonder YOU are so screwed up.
Really? REALLY? You are forced to twist a one sentence statement? You are an atheist. You are an atheist that has humanistic views, and believe the psuedoscience stated in the humanist manifesto. So now you are actually going to tell me that YOUR science (not the real science) doesn't effect your world view? You can twist it anyway you want, just don't make the mistake of thinking I am unable to untwist it.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#102560 Nov 21, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course if you use a tractor you would have to abandon that without using someone who understood evolution.
Why? Every mechanic and machine fabricator I know rejects evolution.
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text> If your metal tools ever broke you could not replace them without using someone who understood evolution.
Why? My great grandfather was a blacksmith, and he never even heard of evolution. Tool macking was around long before Darwin.
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text> If someone got sick and you wanted modern medicines that would not happen without someone understanding evolution. Anything that came off of the island of Jamaica that is not hand made you would have to give up without using someone who understands evolution. Not everyone needs to understand it, but you rely every day on somebody understanding evolution to get your materials shipped to you. To have plastics built. To have modern medicines developed. The list goes on and on.
That is the silliest thing I've ever heard. None of those things rely on the validity or understanding of evolution in any way. If evolution was completely disproven today, modern medicene would not miss a beat.
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You personally do not need to understand it. But don't even dream that you will ever debunk it.
don't have to. The scientific method has yet to be satisfied that human from non-human evolution is to be a valid theory. Don't have to debunk something that can't be proven valid first.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#102561 Nov 21, 2012
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Fine, I'm a troll, you have still not presented a violation to the Law of Biogenesis. It has never been observed violated in a lab nor nature, yet is demanded to have occurred if your atheism be true. For your sake, I wish you could produce this violation, but sadly, you will never be able too!
The irony. Abiogenesis of some form had to happen, the difference is that scientists are seeking a way it could happen naturally, and they're pretty close to finding one. Your abiogenesis assertion is "a god magically caused it."

Let's see, what benefit could yours offer:
-- Um, nothing, it's a non-answer.

Benefits of finding a natural form of abiogenesis:
-- Cell manufacturing could would require less raw materials.
-- We could created vaccines from scratch.
-- We may figure a way to use this to grow a new form of technology.
-- We'd understand how chemicals work better.
-- We'd have a much better use for clay, probably.

When you guess at possible uses, there are hundreds more you cannot see from a real answer. Just look at the technological advances the light bulb helped drive, you're using one such result right now. But, that answer has to be a real answer, not a non-answer.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#102562 Nov 21, 2012
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry, but that "Irony meter" catch all reply when you're corned and can't get out is terribly unconvincing, uneffective, childishly weak. I love it when your own scientific method refutes you.
How does one get corned?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#102563 Nov 21, 2012
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> Why? Every mechanic and machine fabricator I know rejects evolution.<quoted text>Why? My great grandfather was a blacksmith, and he never even heard of evolution. Tool macking was around long before Darwin.<quoted text>That is the silliest thing I've ever heard. None of those things rely on the validity or understanding of evolution in any way. If evolution was completely disproven today, modern medicene would not miss a beat.<quoted text>don't have to. The scientific method has yet to be satisfied that human from non-human evolution is to be a valid theory. Don't have to debunk something that can't be proven valid first.
A mechanic and machine fabricator? Factory workers are not known for their education.
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

#102564 Nov 21, 2012
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
And, now we know you hate gay people. The hits just keep coming!
I knew it. No masculine man would readily subject himself to all those crappy theories without criticizing every last syllable used to word them.

You are gay arent you? That pretty much sums up your hatred for God and everything.

But wait: do you hate God because you are gay, or are you gay because you hate God? The chicken or the egg?
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

#102565 Nov 21, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, I never claimed that the makers had of computers had to know the theory of evolution, but the fact is that they are using it whether they realize it or not...
The makers of computers and HDTV and all that crap didnt have to know about evolution theory; you know why? Because its insignificant.

The human race would have progressed without it, just as well or better than we would with it. Notice I said "than we would" and not "than we do"? Thats because it still has no real significance.
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

#102566 Nov 21, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Uniformitarianism is not just an assumption, it has been tested and verified in the laboratory.
Ok, so the fact that those who closely study it and are intimate with it say that it is an assumption means nothing; because it does what you want it to do... BRILLIANT!
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

#102567 Nov 21, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I know what they are. I am just waiting to see if you can use that underused organ of yours to figure out for yourself what the answer might be.
I am beginning to think you won't get the answer.
I hope that wasnt an excuse not to answer my question... cuz thats just lame.

Furthermore, did you notice that your friends Dogen and Lowellguy remain silent on the matter? Thats because there is nothing to say, because there is no real meaning in the crap they have been talking.
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

#102568 Nov 21, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Many bacteria and viruses are only one single cell. Are they not alive?
Yes, dear lady (I assume you are), they are "alive"; but they are not "life".

The person who posted the text I responded to stated that the cells are life. You need to stop hanging out with those morons... and some of them are gay. Thats just naaaaaaaaaaaaaasty.

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) 1 hr Prince of Darkness 94,362
Beauty is the Lord's Golden Section 5 hr 15th Dalai Lama 3
Altruistic Behaviour negates the theory of Evol... 5 hr 15th Dalai Lama 29
Evolutionists are now called.. 'BUBBLE PEOPLE' 6 hr Rose_NoHo 44
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 7 hr Eagle 12 - 5,998
Evolution is an ANCIENT RELIGION 10 hr Davidjayjordan 5
List what words of Jesus (the Creator) you evol... Thu Davidjayjordan 44