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

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

There are 142469 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.

“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.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#105575 Dec 30, 2012
You say that living things can evolve from one kind of living thing into something completely different over time, but this has never been observed in the history of the planet, so how do you know?
In our own lifetime, we have seen a population diverge to the point that their members cannot mate with the parent population. Biologist Massimo Pigliucci, who has debated with Creationist Duane Gish, claims to have created such events in his own laboratory. He has invited Gish to come into his laboratory and observe such events, but Gish has never accepted his invitation.

Human intervention can create a new species. There is a microbe known colloquially as a “nylon bug,” which feasts upon nylon. This population is now unable to mate with its parent species.

A pair of Australian wallabies escaped from a zoo in Hawaii. They wandered into the wilderness, where they and their offspring adapted to Hawaiian vegetation. Their offspring is now unable to mate with their cousins in Australia.
You belittle talking animals and infer GOD can't create such, even though birds talk everyday, so....how do you know this never occurred?
Yes, I know that cuckoos say “cuckoo” and whippoorwills say “whippoorwill.” But that is not the same as constructing coherent sentences in a human language.

I don’t know that a snake never talked or a donkey never talked. I am merely asking for more evidence.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#105576 Dec 30, 2012
Nope, she is still peddling the same old shit that was debunked over a month ago.

Thanks Maz for the update. You were wrong then, you are still wrong now.
LowellGuy

Lowell, MA

#105577 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?
Is chemistry an atheistic conspiracy? How about physics?

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#105578 Dec 30, 2012
You say that natural processes that are random, haphazard, without aim or method, produced the most complex thing in the known universe, the human brain, but how do you know?
Because the fossil evidence shows that reptiles developed before simple mammals, and simple mammals developed before complex mammals. The brains of simple mammals resemble the entire brains of reptiles on the inside but contain another layer on the outside. Complex mammals such as us contain the aforementioned reptilian brain on the inside, the aforementioned simple mammal brain on the next layer, and a third layer. For further information on this, looked up “triune brain.”

This observation is in perfect according with the fossil findings. Paleontologists have found a progression from reptiles to mammals which is so smooth that they cannot agree on where to draw the line.

Why do you keep asking “how do you know?” I thought I told you that I am an agnostic, and am therefore not absolutely sure about anything. I subscribe to evolutionary theory only because I don’t know of any better explanation of what science has uncovered.

I might lend more credence to the Bible if you can explain why it is any more authoritative than any other ancient scripture. There is an ancient scripture that says that when Jesus was a little boy, he misused his supernatural power by zapping everybody who offended him. One time, Jesus was at the riverside, making mud figurines. Somebody ran past, not noticing, and stepped on his figurines. So Jesus put a whammy on this person. Mary and Joseph got so concerned about this that they were afraid to let him out of the house.

Do you believe that? If not, then why do you believe the Bible?

Another ancient scripture says that baby John the Baptist’s mother was fleeing King Herod’s wrath. A mountain divided in half, allowed the entrance of baby John and his mommy, and closed back up again..

Do you believe that? If not, then why do you believe the Bible?

When Krishna was in his mother’s womb, the King heard a prophecy that the child was born to be King. So he put Krishna’s parents in jail. One night, when Krishna was born, the prison bars opened for Krishna’s mother. Krishna carried the baby to a nearby village. She had to cross a river, but the waters promptly parted for her benefit. In the nearby village, she switched baby Krishna with a girl cousin who was born at the same time. She carried the girl cousin back. Again the waters parted and again the cell bars opened.

The next day, the King tried to kill the baby by bashing her head on the prison cell wall.
The girl immediately sprouted wings, flew out of the king’s hands, and spoke to the king in clear language.

Do you believe that? If not, then why do you believe the Bible?

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#105579 Dec 30, 2012
That this kind of complexity is not a product of design, even though a walk through the woods and you can't even find the complexity of a 2 hinged nut cracker without DNA, yet randomness produced the human brain?....so how do you know this to be true?
Lo siento, pero no comprendo.
Why do skeptics think there is no reason for others to be skeptical of their silliness?
I can’t speak for other skeptics, but this skeptic thinks there is reason for others to be skeptical of anything. At one time, I was skeptical myself.“Where are there still monkeys?”“What good is half an eye?” I asked all the questions, and I listened to all the answers.

I would have no objection to an honest case for Creationism. Icons of Evolution is a relatively honest Creationist book, and I would recommend it for any seeker interested in the subject. Darwin’s Black Box seems to be another relatively honest Creationist book, but it is too technical for me.

What I take issue with is the continual quote mines, ad hominem attacks, appeals to authority, and straw man attacks that we usually hear from Creationists. If Creationists really have truth on their side, as they claim that they do, then they should be able to do very well with a clean campaign.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105580 Dec 30, 2012
Thomas Robertson wrote:
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.
Only 7% of wars are religiously based and I can present research that suggests certain religious beliefs increase prosocial behaviour.

This 7% is not mostly Christians.

However, you are correct in saying that some atheists are more resectful than some theists. That means not all theists are perfect and if they were I doubt that would make any difference to you anyway.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105581 Dec 30, 2012
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Did Noah's flood happen as a year-long global cataclysmic event? Yes or no.
So now we are oing to go with provide an answer to every question even though evos aren't even close to that yet.

How about this? An allegation was made for creos to provide data. I have presented some.

Now what is it going to be, let's play a game of score some irrelevant point over something of yoru choosing, is it.

I am saying that creos can and have provided data and interpretations that support that data.

I don't really care what an evolutionist thinks of it anymore than what you care about what I think of yours.

To say creos can't present any in their support is false.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#105582 Dec 30, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Only 7% of wars are religiously based and I can present research that suggests certain religious beliefs increase prosocial behaviour.
This 7% is not mostly Christians.
However, you are correct in saying that some atheists are more resectful than some theists. That means not all theists are perfect and if they were I doubt that would make any difference to you anyway.
Wow, you are completely disconnected from reality .. or peddling snake oil. Seems more like peddling though.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#105583 Dec 30, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
So now we are oing to go with provide an answer to every question even though evos aren't even close to that yet.
How about this? An allegation was made for creos to provide data. I have presented some.
Now what is it going to be, let's play a game of score some irrelevant point over something of yoru choosing, is it.
I am saying that creos can and have provided data and interpretations that support that data.
I don't really care what an evolutionist thinks of it anymore than what you care about what I think of yours.
To say creos can't present any in their support is false.
If it needs to be interpreted, the it is not evidence.

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#105584 Dec 30, 2012
I see Maz is still printing off reams of the same old creationist toilet paper she has become famous for.
Yes, it is disconnected with reality and has the completely misinterpretted and/or misunderstood references to prove it.
Per usual, Maz continues to claim that none of what she posts has been refuted and has the bulletproof virtue of cited references.
She is being dishonst in this because they have been refuted numerous times by numerous people and the references, well you can site references on any insane rant. Maz is proof of that.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#105585 Dec 30, 2012
antichrist wrote:
Ima burst some bubbles.....live life, have fun, and quit trying to figure shit out. JUST LIVE PEOPLE!!!!
Trying to figure shit out can BE fun.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#105586 Dec 31, 2012
MazHere wrote:
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!
You are referring of course to the ENCODE project, and the actual findings were that 20% either codes or controls coding of useful cellular activity. The remaining "functions" are exactly what one would expect with junk - endless repetitive transcription of useless RNA sequences that buzz around and are disassembled. Parasitical ERV style activity, etc.

Encode has been criticised for labeling as "functional", any DNA activity at all, as opposed to simply sitting there inertly. That is like calling the mindless activity of the bureaucratically monstrous Soviet Politburo "functional"!

The joke is on you.

Like all your claims, you either misrepresent or draw false conclusions from real scientific data. Perhaps Creation Scientists should be call Junk Scientists, though they regard their useless parasitical yapping as close to 100% functional, no doubt.

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) 1 min Paul Porter1 171,517
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr ChristineM 20,448
News Pope Francis Affirms Evolution and Big Bang Theory 1 hr Paul Porter1 199
Darwinism: Science or Philosophy? 2 hr Zog Has-fallen 1
Terms need to be defined better 10 hr MikeF 7
News Bobby Jindal: I'm fine with teaching creationis... (Apr '13) 21 hr GTID62 247
Dr. David Berlinski corrects himself on whale e... Sun Zog Has-fallen 34
More from around the web