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

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 ... Full Story

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#105555 Dec 30, 2012
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Why did GOD reveal himself incarnate to fisherman and the like rather that the religious leaders and politicians, and people like you? GOD works with those who are obedient and love him. He chooses not use those who place themselves above him.
So, God only ever revealed himself to people who already believed in him and didn't need convincing of his existence? Fascinating. So, every convert from atheism who makes such a claim is a liar. Neat.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105556 Dec 30, 2012
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
So, God only ever revealed himself to people who already believed in him and didn't need convincing of his existence? Fascinating. So, every convert from atheism who makes such a claim is a liar. Neat.
Even the disciples had to be convinced through miracles and much wisdom.

But don't concern yourself because JW's believe atheists will get exactly what they ask for,..which is....nothing!

The properties of dark energy is that it is a powerful force that controls the universe, that is unseen and unexplainable that is invented by those that need 'it' to be, so they can maintain faith in their cosmology.

I suppose it is only atheists that give themselves leave to have faith!
antichrist

Morristown, TN

#105557 Dec 30, 2012
Ima burst some bubbles.....live life, have fun, and quit trying to figure shit out. JUST LIVE PEOPLE!!!!

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105558 Dec 30, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
*lesigh* Another lame excuse for not having evidence for your fantastical assertions based on wishful thinking.
Do you mean she should present the data on the overwhelmingly negative effects of epistasis and accumulating so called beneficial mutations and evolutionists inability to explain 'how' this process continues over billions of years?

Or do you mean she should present some of the numerous articles out there on the deterioration of the genome that aligns with the fall?

I wonder if negative effects could have possibly come from a less noisy and deteriorated genome. Oh! heavens NO, that would be evidence for the fall, and that may also align with a genetic bottle neck, what, perhaps around 5,000ya. That may align with the MRHCA!

This study introduces a large-scale, detailed computer
model of recent human history which suggests that the
common ancestor of everyone alive today very likely lived
between 2,000 and 5,000 years ago.
http://tedlab.mit.edu/~dr/Papers/Rohde-MRCA-t...

Can't evolutionary researchers at least have the courtesy to bias all their results suffiently consistently such that they do not support creationism?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#105559 Dec 30, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you mean she should present the data on the overwhelmingly negative effects of epistasis and accumulating so called beneficial mutations and evolutionists inability to explain 'how' this process continues over billions of years?
Or do you mean she should present some of the numerous articles out there on the deterioration of the genome that aligns with the fall?
I wonder if negative effects could have possibly come from a less noisy and deteriorated genome. Oh! heavens NO, that would be evidence for the fall, and that may also align with a genetic bottle neck, what, perhaps around 5,000ya. That may align with the MRHCA!
This study introduces a large-scale, detailed computer
model of recent human history which suggests that the
common ancestor of everyone alive today very likely lived
between 2,000 and 5,000 years ago.
http://tedlab.mit.edu/~dr/Papers/Rohde-MRCA-t...
Can't evolutionary researchers at least have the courtesy to bias all their results suffiently consistently such that they do not support creationism?
Red herring.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Atlanta Georgia

#105560 Dec 30, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you mean she should present the data on the overwhelmingly negative effects of epistasis and accumulating so called beneficial mutations and evolutionists inability to explain 'how' this process continues over billions of years?
Or do you mean she should present some of the numerous articles out there on the deterioration of the genome that aligns with the fall?
I wonder if negative effects could have possibly come from a less noisy and deteriorated genome. Oh! heavens NO, that would be evidence for the fall, and that may also align with a genetic bottle neck, what, perhaps around 5,000ya. That may align with the MRHCA!
This study introduces a large-scale, detailed computer
model of recent human history which suggests that the
common ancestor of everyone alive today very likely lived
between 2,000 and 5,000 years ago.
http://tedlab.mit.edu/~dr/Papers/Rohde-MRCA-t...
Can't evolutionary researchers at least have the courtesy to bias all their results suffiently consistently such that they do not support creationism?
You say:
"Or do you mean she should present some of the numerous articles out there on the deterioration of the genome that aligns with the fall?"

There was no 'fall', there was no Adam and Eve.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105561 Dec 30, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Red herring.
By that comment I assume you are requesting the JW present evidence and data that an evolutionist is going to ratify, do you? On what planet are you from Kitten?

IOW, you demand a creationist provide a higher level of substantiation that any evolutionist can present for anything.

Sorry Kitten, you can't demand data and then when data is presented with a creationist interpretation you call it a red herring. If handwaving is all you evos have to come up with then there is absolutley no point having a discussion with any of you.

If these are red herrings then you will have no trouble in articulating why that data only appears to support creationism, but doesn't. Then you can explain how your algorithmic magic and assumed cohorts are anything more than an assumption.

If you are like many other evolutionists, and I am sure you are, let's predict your response.

Ahh I go with, refering to over 150 years of instability and falsifications with every new flavour of the month being promoted as your so called irrefutable evidence that only the ignorant would not accept! Is that it?

In the end you will be demanding that creationists likewise present over 150 years of outdated waffle and libraries of it, to claim any comaprative validity to the molecules to man conundrum, is that it?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#105562 Dec 30, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
By that comment I assume you are requesting the JW present evidence and data that an evolutionist is going to ratify, do you? On what planet are you from Kitten?
IOW, you demand a creationist provide a higher level of substantiation that any evolutionist can present for anything.
Sorry Kitten, you can't demand data and then when data is presented with a creationist interpretation you call it a red herring. If handwaving is all you evos have to come up with then there is absolutley no point having a discussion with any of you.
If these are red herrings then you will have no trouble in articulating why that data only appears to support creationism, but doesn't. Then you can explain how your algorithmic magic and assumed cohorts are anything more than an assumption.
If you are like many other evolutionists, and I am sure you are, let's predict your response.
Ahh I go with, refering to over 150 years of instability and falsifications with every new flavour of the month being promoted as your so called irrefutable evidence that only the ignorant would not accept! Is that it?
In the end you will be demanding that creationists likewise present over 150 years of outdated waffle and libraries of it, to claim any comaprative validity to the molecules to man conundrum, is that it?
Red herring continued.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105563 Dec 30, 2012
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
You say:
"Or do you mean she should present some of the numerous articles out there on the deterioration of the genome that aligns with the fall?"
There was no 'fall', there was no Adam and Eve.
And yet I a can present numerous peer reviewed articles that speak to a deteriorating genome and the negative effects of epistasis.

All I can hear you offering is a justification for your existence.
Evolutionists publish, therefore evolutionists exist, even when they don't know what they are talking about, and they can prove it.

Evos wish they had a scientific method but all you actually have is a peer review process of ego stroking.

So, is the scientific method a philosophy? Yes it is. And when a philosophy is elevated to the level of dogmatism, then truth suffers.

http://carm.org/scientific-method-philosophy

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3...

I am just waiting for you to deny that the data I spoke to can be presented outright so I can show everyone how smart some evolutionists are!

Then I am going to ask what is the 'how' to the reasonings and why thses are based on more than faith.

Data was requested and data can and has been given. Unfortunately for evolutionists, although they would love to be the ones that determine what creationists think and accept, they aren't.

Certainly I am not after converts. Look at it this way. If you are right we'll die and that will be that. If I am right I get to say "I told you so" in the next world. In the long-term I am on the winning side.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105564 Dec 30, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Red herring continued.
Kitten the only thing you have ever contributed of a scientific nature was some waffle about the backbone in response to vestiality. That is the only time since I have joined that you have ever spoken to a point of science.

You have no idea about the topic at hand and post just to justify your existence here. You are the merry philosopher and that is where you are at home chasing your tail.

I will say to as I said to you previously. If you have no clue then please put me on ignore and don't reply. I want to talk to those with some science knowledge past high school, not 'would be' wastes of space.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#105565 Dec 30, 2012
Does Maz have anything new since her hiatus?

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#105566 Dec 30, 2012
KAB wrote:
Only those adhering to and conducting themselves in harmony with that espoused by and embodied in the complete context of the Bible are the true religion (2 Timothy 3:16,17).

If I saw religious believers behaving any better than religious skeptics, I might take notice.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#105567 Dec 30, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Kitten the only thing you have ever contributed of a scientific nature was some waffle about the backbone in response to vestiality. That is the only time since I have joined that you have ever spoken to a point of science.
You have no idea about the topic at hand and post just to justify your existence here. You are the merry philosopher and that is where you are at home chasing your tail.
I will say to as I said to you previously. If you have no clue then please put me on ignore and don't reply. I want to talk to those with some science knowledge past high school, not 'would be' wastes of space.
Still touting that red herring.
LowellGuy

Lowell, MA

#105568 Dec 30, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet I a can present numerous peer reviewed articles that speak to a deteriorating genome and the negative effects of epistasis.
All I can hear you offering is a justification for your existence.
Evolutionists publish, therefore evolutionists exist, even when they don't know what they are talking about, and they can prove it.
Evos wish they had a scientific method but all you actually have is a peer review process of ego stroking.
So, is the scientific method a philosophy? Yes it is. And when a philosophy is elevated to the level of dogmatism, then truth suffers.
http://carm.org/scientific-method-philosophy
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3...
I am just waiting for you to deny that the data I spoke to can be presented outright so I can show everyone how smart some evolutionists are!
Then I am going to ask what is the 'how' to the reasonings and why thses are based on more than faith.
Data was requested and data can and has been given. Unfortunately for evolutionists, although they would love to be the ones that determine what creationists think and accept, they aren't.
Certainly I am not after converts. Look at it this way. If you are right we'll die and that will be that. If I am right I get to say "I told you so" in the next world. In the long-term I am on the winning side.
Pascal's wager? Easy. Which god or gods should we believe exist? According to Pascal's wager, they're all equally good options.

Oh, and do show us peer-reviewed articles regarding genetic entropy/deteriorating genomes. This should be good.

Isn't Ray Comfort bad enough? You think you have to add to it?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#105569 Dec 30, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
Does Maz have anything new since her hiatus?
Nope.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105570 Dec 30, 2012
1. Creationist predictions are continuing to be validated with the expectation that 100% of the genome likely to be functional. This validation comes after evolutionists shoved junk dna down creos throats as proof TOE was true, there was no designer and creos were idiots. Now they scurry off in shame, suggest TOE never could make a prediction around non coding dna but creos can clearly see just whom the silly ones really are!
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketsc...

1. Creationist predictions and claims are continuing to be validated with 80% of the genome being found to be functional and the expectation that 100% of the genome likely to be functional.
This continuing validation comes after evolutionists shoved junk dna down creos throats as proof TOE was true, there was no designer and creos were idiots. Now they scurry off in denial, suggest TOE never did or could make a prediction around non coding dna and deny that yet another evolutionary claim and irrefutable evidence for TOE is about to be thrown into that huge rubbish bin of evolutionary delusions past!
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketsc...

2. Creationists predictions are vestigial organs are continuing to be validated by evolutionists finding that these left over functionless organs do indeed have function. This validation comes after evolutionists found function in these organs and had to toddle off and redefine the definition of vestigial to reflect ‘a different’ function.
http://www.naturalnews.com/022914_appendix_gu...

3. Fossil evidence that is more in line with creationism then TOE. The Genesis account was the oldest account published that suggests the alignment of the fossil record from plant s to creatures of the sea, then land animals and lastly mankind. Evos were not the first to come up with this line up. Whales and birds are the only ones that evos have out of biblical alignment . Surprise, surprise they have been having trouble with these two ever since. Evos are still confused over whale bones found in strata dated to 290mya and have had to invent mythical theropods to wear a reversed hallux although not one single theropod ever found has modern avian feet. The data supports creationism and the hubris supports TOE.
http://www.ehow.com/list_7182299_fossils-foun...
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v417/n68...

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105571 Dec 30, 2012
4. Beneficial mutations have an overwhelmingly negative effect due to epistasis. All the recent data supports this. Clearly this is evidence in support of creationism and an organisms inability to limitlessly adapt for billions of years. Evos have come up with many theoretical assumptions to explain this in evolutionary terms and why TOE is not falsified. Hence the data supports creationism and the hubris supports TOE.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...

5. All data suggests the genome is deteriorating. Again this is creationist support demonstrating that adaptation is limited. Again evos have to toddle off and come up with some story and convoluted hypothesis as to why a deteriorating genome does not falsify TOE. The data supports creationism and the hubris supports TOE.
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/1...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/...
http://www.naturalnews.com/021220_genetic_mod...

6. Evolutionary supports are derived from arbitrary and pick a box morphological and genomic homology that changes like the wind and biased algorithmic magic that is no better than any algorithmic magic a creationists can provide. This is supported by an evolutionary history of falsifications, instability and change.
http://www.nature.com/news/studies-slow-the-h...

None of the above links are to creationist sites, Some speak to published data. Many of the above links are to the actual peer reviewed work.

Conclusion: Creationist views are supported by research data. Evolutionary views are supported by excuses, hubris, rhetoric and pure speculation.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#105572 Dec 30, 2012
marksman11 wrote:
You are an evolutionist. You say that we as humans are kin to tobacco stalks, how do you know?
DNA research, fossil finds, observations of embryos, and observation of vestigial organs all come up with the same answers. If one branch of science said that we were descended from apes, another branch said we were descended from cocker spaniels, and another branch said we were descended from a eucalyptus tree, I would say that the whole thing is baloney.

Could this mean that the scientists of different disciplines secretly got together and collaborated? That is very unlikely. If that many thousands of people got together on a secret mission, someone would most likely have defected by now.

It does not seem possible to keep a secret with so many people. The Mormons have a secret wedding ceremony in which one person dresses up like a mainline Protestant minister and another person dresses up like Satan. They put on a skit in which the minister is presented as a hireling of Satan. Defectors from the Mormon church have told us about this ceremony, and their accounts agree on every detail

Likewise, the Scientologists have a story about an interplanetary emperor who lived 75 million years ago. This emperor was concerned because his empire was becoming overpopulated. He drugged millions of his citizens, brought them to our planet, and killed them with lava from volcanoes. Scientologists are forbidden under pain of death to reveal this story to the outside world, but that has not stopped numerous defectors, and their accounts agree on every detail.

Unlike a scientific claim, a religious claim depends wholly on the author of the claim. The Millerites expected the world to end at one point in time, Harold Camping expected the world to end at another point in time, and we have just one more day for the world to end according to the Maya prophesy.
You say that Jesus is physical and living without oxygen, but how do you know?
I was brought up to believe that “on the third day he rose from the dead.” How does that not imply that he is living in a physical body without oxygen?
You don't believe that GOD created living things and you have no scientific alternative, so how do you know?
I never said whether God created living things or not. In fact, I very clearly stated that I didn’t know whether there is a God or not.
LowellGuy

Lowell, MA

#105573 Dec 30, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Even the disciples had to be convinced through miracles and much wisdom.
But don't concern yourself because JW's believe atheists will get exactly what they ask for,..which is....nothing!
The properties of dark energy is that it is a powerful force that controls the universe, that is unseen and unexplainable that is invented by those that need 'it' to be, so they can maintain faith in their cosmology.
I suppose it is only atheists that give themselves leave to have faith!
You are trying so hard to dethrone marksman11 as the stupidest person here, but also challenging Psychology aka Jim Ryan as the batshittiest person here. Pick a lane.
LowellGuy

Lowell, MA

#105574 Dec 30, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you mean she should present the data on the overwhelmingly negative effects of epistasis and accumulating so called beneficial mutations and evolutionists inability to explain 'how' this process continues over billions of years?
Or do you mean she should present some of the numerous articles out there on the deterioration of the genome that aligns with the fall?
I wonder if negative effects could have possibly come from a less noisy and deteriorated genome. Oh! heavens NO, that would be evidence for the fall, and that may also align with a genetic bottle neck, what, perhaps around 5,000ya. That may align with the MRHCA!
This study introduces a large-scale, detailed computer
model of recent human history which suggests that the
common ancestor of everyone alive today very likely lived
between 2,000 and 5,000 years ago.
http://tedlab.mit.edu/~dr/Papers/Rohde-MRCA-t...
Can't evolutionary researchers at least have the courtesy to bias all their results suffiently consistently such that they do not support creationism?
Did Noah's flood happen as a year-long global cataclysmic event? Yes or no.

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
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 2 hr DanFromSmithville 127,919
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 3 hr Dogen 94
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 7 hr Ooogah Boogah 13,578
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 23 hr DanFromSmithville 175,466
Ten Reason Why Evolution Is a Lie (Jul '09) Wed MikeF 1,902
More Theories to Disprove Creation Wed The Dude 64
Atheism - A Non Prophet Organisation (Mar '11) Nov 25 The Dude 996

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE