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

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

There are 162987 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

#102589 Nov 21, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
By asking you to read up on what a law means. Clearly you don't understand it.
<quoted text>
I really see no point in continuing this conversation while your understanding of science is not up to the task of even understanding and defining your own questions.
[a series of ranting questions deleted at this point]
<quoted text>
All disease is evolutionary in origin.
All you keep doing is attempting to put your science above the understanding of the average man.

But guess what; the moment your science and methodologies become too high and exalted for the common man; they are useless and meaningless even to you. Because believe it or not: YOU ARE A COMMON MAN (except in the even that you are gay). In that case you would be inferior to the common man and could not produce anything near "beyond" the intellect of the common man.

I know I am biased against gays, but they are also biased against heterosexuality; so lets call it evens.
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

#102590 Nov 21, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
It is not that you are not intelligent enough. It is that you are not educated enough. Please read the links. You need a base for scientific understanding that you are currently lacking.
Remember, science has never been refuted by philosophical musings,... ever.
Scientific understanding has never been superior to philosophical understandings... ever; except in cases where the philosophical "musing" have been based on less than true/valid premises.

I feel no regret that I am locking in YOUR idea of scientific understanding... it leads nowhere essentially.

You said it yourself: evolution isnt really going anywhere. GENIUS!

LOL LOL
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

#102591 Nov 21, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
You have failed to identify inconsistency in science. You have an ample source coming from your own brain. Either you want to learn or not. If not I am not going to bother with you. I am teaching remedial science to enough people already.
YOOOOU... are the inconsistency in science.

Scientific method is effective; its you that have a retarded or otherwise incapable mind. You retard yourselves with you biases... there is always more than one side to everything; and clinging to one side blocks the other side from your mind, but it doesnt make it go away.

What is the use of using scientific method that reduces biases if you insist on being a biased person?

I want to learn, but I see nothing to suggest that what YOU have to teach is worth learning.

Furthermore, you have failed to informed me of any predictions made by evolutionists regarding the evolution of any species present, past or future.
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

#102592 Nov 21, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
[post ignored as there was nothing rational to respond to]
Translation:

Dogen cannot rationalise the ideas expressed in that post.
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

#102593 Nov 21, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I calculate that we should have reached the current stage in our evolution 28 days ago. Therefore evolution is obviously refuted and we should all embrace magic poofing instead.
Good show!
Clown!

What you are assuming in evolutionary theories is little better than "poofing"!

This is "you":

Matter and energy always existed simply because they always existed. Cause and effect is an influence that shapes the matterial nad energetic world, but we will not bother to question the causes of matter and energy, because we are way too intelligent to try that... One day, suddenly everything came out of the mass(es) that were matter and energy... and ever since then, things have been coming out of matter and energy.

Sounds like a perfectly poofing proposal to me.

And what do "you" say when we request justification:

Our technology and methodology is infallible! We know everything and we can make predictions regarding everything that we know! If yo don't believe (in) us like be believe in our technology and methodology: you are mad, irrational and illogical... Oh, and you cant be a part of our science club! Muhu hahahahahahaha.

Get a grip... and a girl while youre at it.
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

#102594 Nov 21, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I would have to say that "complete clusterfuck of stupid" is an accurate observation.
Your attitude has deteriorated. Are you getting frustrated?
No, I'm getting bored... Did you hope I would get an erection?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#102595 Nov 21, 2012
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text>
You are telling me that you have tested and proven that you have tested all the "natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now,[and] have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe"... in a lab?
You need to go faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar away from humans!
Furthermore, are you implying that once tested, a principle will hold true forever, despite the fact the universe itself is constantly changing, and matter and energy are in a state of continuous "evolution" as is suggested?
Dont you see that you are contradicting your own concepts? GENIUS!!!!
No, you ignorant ass. The original presumptions that uniformitarianism was based upon have been tested in the laboratory. I have not tested them, others have. They have found the assumptions to be true. What part of that did you not understand?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#102596 Nov 21, 2012
Since Evil is a dishonest moron who cannot think for himself perhaps I should get a bit more specific. The assumptions of Uniformitarianism, as they apply to geology, have been tested in the laboratory. They have been found to be true.

Is there any aspect of uniformitarianism that you have problems with Evil?
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

#102597 Nov 21, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
It is not that you are not intelligent enough. It is that you are not educated enough...
Ok, fine. Fair enough. But here is what people who are educated enough think:

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#102598 Nov 21, 2012
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok, fine. Fair enough. But here is what people who are educated enough think:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =N1u61I4GaJUXX
Nephilim farking Free!!!!!!!!!!

Oh

My

God.

I think that has to be the most monumentous fail ever on this thread.

Congratulations Evil.
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

#102599 Nov 21, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>No, you ignorant ass. The original presumptions that uniformitarianism was based upon have been tested in the laboratory. I have not tested them, others have. They have found the assumptions to be true. What part of that did you not understand?
What part dont I understand?

Only the part involving "...processes that operate in the universe now, have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe." [wikipedia]

Like, how the phuque would you know? You barely know of the diversity of conditions that exist under the ocean, yet you attempt to tell us about events everywhere in the universe, and that also occurred in the past on a universal scale? OUTSTANDING!!!!

Such an assumption can never amount to anything more than an assumption. That that idea (uniformitarianism) is amere assumption is clearly expressed "Uniformitarianism is the ASSUMPTION THAT... " on the web site {wikipedia.com}. It is NOT expressed "Uniformitarianism is the discovery/fact that..."

The web site is modern and up to date; so it can be concluded that Uniformitarianism remains an assumption.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#102600 Nov 21, 2012
And in case you doubt my word about Uniformitarianism, which really is not used since it was based upon assumptions you might want to read this article on it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianis...

From the article:
20th century
Stephen Jay Gould's first scientific paper, Is uniformitarianism necessary?(1965), reduced these four interpretations to two, methodological and substantive uniformitarianism.[27] He dismissed the first principle, which asserted spatial and temporal invariance of natural laws, as no longer an issue of debate. He rejected the second as an unjustified limitation on scientific inquiry, as it constrains past geologic rates and conditions to those of the present. So, uniformitarianism was unnecessary.
Uniformitarianism was originally proposed in contrast to catastrophism, which states that the distant past "consisted of epochs of paroxysmal and catastrophic action interposed between periods of comparative tranquility"[28] Especially in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, most geologists took this interpretation to mean that catastrophic events are not important in geologic time; one example of this is the debate of the formation of the Channeled Scablands due to the catastrophic Missoula glacial outburst floods. An important result of this debate and others was the re-clarification that, while the same principles operate in geologic time, catastrophic events that are infrequent on human time-scales can have important consequences in geologic history.[29] Derek Ager has noted that "geologists do not deny uniformitarianism in its true sense, that is to say, of interpreting the past by means of the processes that are seen going on at the present day, so long as we remember that the periodic catastrophe is one of those processes. Those periodic catastrophes make more showing in the stratigraphical record than we have hitherto assumed."[30]
Even Charles Lyell thought that ordinary geological processes would cause Niagara Falls to move upstream to Lake Erie within 10,000 years, leading to catastrophic flooding of a large part of North America.
Unlike Lyell, modern geologists do not apply uniformitarianism in the same way. They question if rates of processes were uniform through time and only those values measured during the history of geology are to be accepted...
Essentially we do not rely on assumptions any more. The important factors have all been laboratory tested and the original assumptions were found to be fairly reasonable.
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

#102601 Nov 21, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
Since Evil is a dishonest moron who cannot think for himself perhaps I should get a bit more specific. The assumptions of Uniformitarianism, as they apply to geology, have been tested in the laboratory. They have been found to be true.
Is there any aspect of uniformitarianism that you have problems with Evil?
I dont care about uniformitarianism, really.

But your idea that something that happens everywhere was confirmed in a lab, is just preposterous.

I will tend to believe it if you go to every square inch of the universe and test it. Yup. Then you would have more than enough evidence.

If you ahd said the principle of "uniformitarianism" has been proven to be a fact on the planet earth; it would not have been so bad.

But the moment you extend your claims to places that you dont even know exist, let along are able to perform tests in... you prove only that you are an idiot.
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

#102602 Nov 21, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Nephilim farking Free!!!!!!!!!!
Oh
My
God.
I think that has to be the most monumentous fail ever on this thread.
Congratulations Evil.
Oh yeah, well they are educated regarding the matters they discuss, and they have proof of what they are saying on the clip (they got statistics and shit).

So how do you justify your meaningless retort?
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

#102603 Nov 21, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
And in case you doubt my word about Uniformitarianism, which really is not used since it was based upon assumptions you might want to read this article on it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianis...
From the article:
<quoted text>
Essentially we do not rely on assumptions any more. The important factors have all been laboratory tested and the original assumptions were found to be fairly reasonable.
Amazingly, none of that suggests that Uniformitarianism is a fact.

As a mater of fact, it said "So, uniformitarianism was unnecessary."

So even if it were fact, we still dont have to give a phuque!

What is your point, really?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#102604 Nov 21, 2012
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text>
What part dont I understand?
Only the part involving "...processes that operate in the universe now, have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe." [wikipedia]
Like, how the phuque would you know? You barely know of the diversity of conditions that exist under the ocean, yet you attempt to tell us about events everywhere in the universe, and that also occurred in the past on a universal scale? OUTSTANDING!!!!
Such an assumption can never amount to anything more than an assumption. That that idea (uniformitarianism) is amere assumption is clearly expressed "Uniformitarianism is the ASSUMPTION THAT... " on the web site {wikipedia.com}. It is NOT expressed "Uniformitarianism is the discovery/fact that..."
The web site is modern and up to date; so it can be concluded that Uniformitarianism remains an assumption.
You are paying far too much attention to the word "assumption".

Even when they wrote the first laws of uniformitarianism they were not assumptions in the way that creatards like you think they were. The so called assumptions were based upon observation and deduction.

For example, a well sorted sandstone, could only be deposited in a few different environments. One that it could not be deposited in is a flood environment. Even back then they knew that flood water was a mixture of all sorts of sediments and that you either needed a beach type environment that allowed the sand to be separated from the silt, or a wind blown environment. Now if you want to see an interesting environment, look up turbidites.

The same goes for the chalk cliffs of Dover. We know by looking at the rock through a microscope that it is made of microscopic sea life that very slowly "rained" down to the ocean floor. It is impossible to make that happen quickly. And again flood conditions do not sort, they do the opposite. Flood sediments are generally a mixture of muds of different degrees of siltiness. No pure sandstone, no pure shale, no pure bioclastic strata.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#102605 Nov 21, 2012
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh yeah, well they are educated regarding the matters they discuss, and they have proof of what they are saying on the clip (they got statistics and shit).
So how do you justify your meaningless retort?
No, Nephilim Free is the biggest idiot on YouTube. He has won awards for his stupidity. Nephy loves to debate people, but when they get through his craziness and show that he is wrong he bans them from discussing his videos. That is something that I wish YouTube would not allow. It should be an open forum. Instead the makers of videos can ban, or even erase comments to their videos that they do not like.

If you are such a fool that you cannot see that Nephy is a world class tard who will never have a clue there is no hope for you.
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

#102606 Nov 21, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
And in case you doubt my word about Uniformitarianism, which really is not used since it was based upon assumptions you might want to read this article on it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianis...
From the article:
<quoted text>
Essentially we do not rely on assumptions any more. The important factors have all been laboratory tested and the original assumptions were found to be fairly reasonable.
Look, there is nothing wrong with working with what works for you. So if you find a concept that is able to give you the results you want; just take the results you want.

If you are able to identify some degree of "uniformity", fine; work with it. Dont impose the idea on us and the rest of the universe in the public domain. Contemplate the supremacy of your ideas in your mind in your own little corner.

I might even be interested in those results too... But the moment you start declaring what exists and cannot exist and what can be proven and cannot be proven and what is real and what is not real; you begin to step on toes.

Besides, ever wondered why politicians never discuss such things as evolution? Its because the issue of evolution is not politically correct. There are many intelligent people who will never conform to your lame ass descriptions of reality.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#102607 Nov 21, 2012
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text>
Look, there is nothing wrong with working with what works for you. So if you find a concept that is able to give you the results you want; just take the results you want.
If you are able to identify some degree of "uniformity", fine; work with it. Dont impose the idea on us and the rest of the universe in the public domain. Contemplate the supremacy of your ideas in your mind in your own little corner.
I might even be interested in those results too... But the moment you start declaring what exists and cannot exist and what can be proven and cannot be proven and what is real and what is not real; you begin to step on toes.
Besides, ever wondered why politicians never discuss such things as evolution? Its because the issue of evolution is not politically correct. There are many intelligent people who will never conform to your lame ass descriptions of reality.
In other words, don't bother Evil with the facts. He is perfectly happy believing in his fairy tales from bronze age goat farkers.
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

#102608 Nov 21, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You are paying far too much attention to the word "assumption".
Even when they wrote the first laws of uniformitarianism they were not assumptions in the way that creatards like you think they were. The so called assumptions were based upon observation and deduction.
For example, a well sorted sandstone, could only be deposited in a few different environments. One that it could not be deposited in is a flood environment. Even back then they knew that flood water was a mixture of all sorts of sediments and that you either needed a beach type environment that allowed the sand to be separated from the silt, or a wind blown environment. Now if you want to see an interesting environment, look up turbidites.
The same goes for the chalk cliffs of Dover. We know by looking at the rock through a microscope that it is made of microscopic sea life that very slowly "rained" down to the ocean floor. It is impossible to make that happen quickly. And again flood conditions do not sort, they do the opposite. Flood sediments are generally a mixture of muds of different degrees of siltiness. No pure sandstone, no pure shale, no pure bioclastic strata.
Ok so the word "assumption" was not made because the idea was assumed?

But I am not surprised. Thats a common strategy of you nerds. The moment you sense that your little misconceptions are in danger, you attempt to place your knowledge and field of study beyond the understanding of common men... as if you are uncommon men.

The only thing uncommon about you and your knowledge is that you are gay and your knowledge was manufactured and fabricated by people just as gay as you.

We are obviously not speaking the same language here, so stop talking.

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 min Science 222,188
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 14 min Science 78,578
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 26 min Science 1,371
Mathematicians PROVED evolution IMPOSSIBLE! 1 hr Science 791
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) Wed Science 32,430
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... (Jan '17) Aug 5 yehoshooah adam 4,381
News Intelligent Design Education Day - Dallas Aug 2 John B 4
More from around the web