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

There are 20 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.

LowellGuy

United States

#105668 Dec 31, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>Adam and Eve knew they were talking to the ventriloquist reflected in the snake.
Prove it.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#105669 Dec 31, 2012
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
You really need to calm down and not be so confrontational.
Arguing against evolution is pointless...its been picked at by both scientists and creotards for over a 150 years now and it still stands strong, whether you think it should or not.
The Bible keeps getting eaten away at by scientific findings, and more and more people think religion is a fraud....which it it, by the way.
In short, your arguments are pointless.
Didn't we tell her that last quarter?

For if we pretend for a moment if evolution is false, since her "scientific alternative" is GODDIDIT WITH MAGIC all we need to do is also invoke magic to solve any and all problems just as she does.

She can't win. Stalemate could be the best she could ever hope for. She may as well go home.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#105670 Dec 31, 2012
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
IF is a very large word, and upon that word rests the entirety of the tale. "IF God exists" could he not also create and employ a process by which different kinds of living organisms might develop and diversify from earlier forms? Where is your faith?
i'm sure he could but what is our source of information concerning GOD's attributes? For me it's the bible and it is perfect, and GODs instruction book and gift to his creation n the meaning of life and how to live it. OF course that is a faith mstter, faith being from the greek word pistis, which is a verb, not a noun. Faith is action. You don't have biblical faith, you "do" biblical faith. So my faith is that the bible is GOD's word, and his word tells us he created ex nihilo with his word, and that he created living things after their own kind. Could he have done it through evolution? Sure he could...but what I believe is is very words say he didn't.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#105671 Dec 31, 2012
Thomas Robertson wrote:
On MazHere Number 1:
If I understand MazHere correctly, she is arguing that humans carry more functional DNA than previously believed.
Therefore, the trend can be expected to continue to the point that junk DNA will be dismissed altogether.
I don't know how much of the cited study is true discovery and how much is mere deceptive word play, but let's give MazHere the benefit of the doubt and say that the research team has truly found important functions for DNA which had hitherto been dismissed as junk.
That still won't prove that junk DNA doesn't exist at all.
It would take more than that one study to prove that.
There is a biologist who claims to have bred birds with teeth by awakening DNA inherited from their reptilian ancestors.
If junk DNA doesn't explain this biologist's findings, I would like to know what does.
The extrapolation fallacy--I just love it.
On another forum in which I used to participate, there was a Creationist who gleefully reported to us any finding that a species was older than previously believed.
Apparently, if enough of these reports accumulated, that would prove that mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and birds all date from pre-Cambrian times.
What I want to see is an observation of how random, haphazard without aim or method natural occurrences can produce the origin of DNA.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#105672 Dec 31, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Two points.
1. The Cambrian was revealed, for a long time, through the exclusive window of the Burgess Shale. Just because that is the only window, does not mean that all the creatures revealed there suddenly appeared at once.
2. PE was alluded to even by Darwin in his first book (though not by that name). So you can cut the crap. The first time I told you this over a year ago, I bothered to find the actual quotation supporting it. But since you repeat the lie, I cannot be bothered again. Gould made a lot of the point and brought it to the attention of evolutionary theorists, but it was already embodied in the theory.
Listen, why do you think it is called the cambrian Explosion? It is because these fossils showed up suddenly without evidence of any ancestors! PE as unscientific as it is, was fabricated to explain it. I don't care who came up and "alluded" to it. It is an unscientific explanation to support an unexplanable observation that doesn't support evolution, but does creationism!!!!

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105673 Dec 31, 2012
Are any of you going to explain how the deteriorating genome supports TOE better than a creationist pardigm? I guess not and that can go off into the too hard basket. Don't feel bad though, because your well credentialled researchers also have no clue.

I am confrontational because I can't believe I am talking to adults.

Every time I get on here the same crap ensues. An allegation is made that creationists can't support their view, a creationists provides their support, then evos go into melt down asking for a theory of everything. We surely get sick to death of it.

This is on top of the fact that TOE is entirely based on the myth that life can arise without the hand of deity and one that you have not repeatedly demonstrated in a lab. You actually do not have a theory of evolution because your failed attempts are kinda making it look impossible. Do you understand this at all?

Most of you are not here to engage in scientific discourse. Many are here as an excuse for their sorry lives and an open opportunity to ridicule a creationist. This fact is further exemplified by evos not addressing any questions creos ask even though I have attempted to address theirs.

One point at a time you will not refute me with any substance.

Now again after weeks we are back to the same thing with evos sprooking hot air ad nauseum at JWs.

The genome is deteriorating and I have presented data in support of that claim. That data supports the concept that the genome was once 'perfect' and now isn't. That is also an interpretation of the data based on an assumption of no common ancestry and a biblical scenario that can be supported or falsified. The data indicates deleterious mutations are accumulating in the genome, the interpretations come later. Is that simple enough?

How does this data align with TOE? What mechanism has been proven or demonstrated to address this? Why or how are any assumptions evos have made any more 'scientific' than my claims that a deteriorating genome can be interpreted as evidence for the fall of man?

If you want to be specific and defend TOE I suggest one of you rise to the occasion with links to your support.

If you can't then that says it all...evos want to post and publish and demand more substantiation than they themselves can present, but really can't defend themselves at all.

The evolutionist penchant....I publish, therefore I exist, even though it appears that I do not know what I am talking about. Show me I am wrong!

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105674 Dec 31, 2012
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>What I want to see is an observation of how random, haphazard without aim or method natural occurrences can produce the origin of DNA.
You will be waiting a long time. Don't hold your breath in expectation!

"The dirt did it"
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#105675 Dec 31, 2012
Thomas Robertson wrote:
Marksman11, when did anyone on this thread ever advocate panspermia?
This thread is 105,000 posts long now. I was here on day one. My letter to the editor is what started this thread, and I have been here 3 years now. Believe me, it is here.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#105676 Dec 31, 2012
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Listen, why do you think it is called the cambrian Explosion? It is because these fossils showed up suddenly without evidence of any ancestors!
Wrong.
marksman11 wrote:
PE as unscientific as it is, was fabricated to explain it. I don't care who came up and "alluded" to it.


PE was not 'fabricated' to explain the Cambrian.
marksman11 wrote:
It is an unscientific explanation to support an unexplanable observation that doesn't support evolution, but does creationism!!!!
Still hawking the same old nonsense, I see.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#105677 Dec 31, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
You will be waiting a long time. Don't hold your breath in expectation!
"The dirt did it"
I've been on the net for 15 years now asking the same question. THey are no closer to answering it now that they were from day 1. I would be embarrassed trying to defend their world view.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#105678 Dec 31, 2012
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong.
<quoted text>
PE was not 'fabricated' to explain the Cambrian.
<quoted text>
Still hawking the same old nonsense, I see.
And you are still unable to refute it. I'm showing myself to be correct about the myth of human from non-human evolution everyday, and you are showing yourself unable to scientifically refute me.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105679 Dec 31, 2012
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Prove it.
After you demonstrate anything you have to say is built on more than a straw man of repeatedly failed attempts to hand over the power of God to dirt. Was dirt intelligent back then?

PS. I really can support ventriloquism as being real. I really can support energy poofing into matter.

What you can't do is defend this waffle you call a theory in relation to one single event, the deterioration of the genome.

Evos here on this forum appear to be a total waste of thead space.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#105680 Dec 31, 2012
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Listen, why do you think it is called the cambrian Explosion? It is because these fossils showed up suddenly without evidence of any ancestors! PE as unscientific as it is, was fabricated to explain it. I don't care who came up and "alluded" to it. It is an unscientific explanation to support an unexplanable observation that doesn't support evolution, but does creationism!!!!
SEE....there you go again being confrontational and mean spirited.

Give it a rest, talk calmly and don't dis everyone.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105681 Dec 31, 2012
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I've been on the net for 15 years now asking the same question. THey are no closer to answering it now that they were from day 1. I would be embarrassed trying to defend their world view.
You know it's great having a few creos around. It usually feels like taking on some alien nation that speaks no human when it comes to discussing evolutionary theory and evos understanding of it.

Many evos are escaping the confusion and fleeing to the creationist paradigms in preference to all the evolutionary convolutionas and complications. There is also a push back to geocentricity with many reseaerchers having had a gurful of dark energy and its profound complications. It is very exciting times.

Of course we do not expect any answers to our questions. To attempt to do so would highlight the straw men that TOE is built on. It is a good evo strategy to avoid, ask questions and steer the converation all over the place.

Evos have their penchant, I publish, therefore I exist; and as demonstrated their interpretations sound like the background noise of confusion.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105682 Dec 31, 2012
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
SEE....there you go again being confrontational and mean spirited.
Give it a rest, talk calmly and don't dis everyone.
Perhaps you could try giving him an answer, instead of evasion. That would be a novel idea! Ever heard of it?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#105683 Dec 31, 2012
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>i'm sure he could but what is our source of information concerning GOD's attributes?
EXACT same as yours.
marksman11 wrote:
For me it's the bible and it is perfect
Except for that whole flat square circular Earth and global flood thing.
marksman11 wrote:
and GODs instruction book and gift to his creation n the meaning of life and how to live it. OF course that is a faith mstter, faith being from the greek word pistis, which is a verb, not a noun. Faith is action. You don't have biblical faith, you "do" biblical faith. So my faith is that the bible is GOD's word, and his word tells us he created ex nihilo with his word, and that he created living things after their own kind. Could he have done it through evolution? Sure he could...but what I believe is is very words say he didn't.
So the Bible is true cuz teh Bible sez so right?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#105684 Dec 31, 2012
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>What I want to see is an observation of how random, haphazard without aim or method natural occurrences can produce the origin of DNA.
The theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis.

Chemistry is not random.

Argument from incredulity is invalid.

It's been YEARS, Markie.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#105685 Dec 31, 2012
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Listen, why do you think it is called the cambrian Explosion? It is because these fossils showed up suddenly without evidence of any ancestors! PE as unscientific as it is, was fabricated to explain it. I don't care who came up and "alluded" to it. It is an unscientific explanation to support an unexplanable observation that doesn't support evolution, but does creationism!!!!
Actually there was evidence of ancestors. That's WHY there are fossils in pre-Cambrian strata.

Duh.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#105686 Dec 31, 2012
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>i'm sure he could but what is our source of information concerning GOD's attributes? For me it's the bible and it is perfect, and GODs instruction book and gift to his creation n the meaning of life and how to live it. OF course that is a faith mstter, faith being from the greek word pistis, which is a verb, not a noun. Faith is action. You don't have biblical faith, you "do" biblical faith. So my faith is that the bible is GOD's word, and his word tells us he created ex nihilo with his word, and that he created living things after their own kind. Could he have done it through evolution? Sure he could...but what I believe is is very words say he didn't.
So ... bats are birds?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#105687 Dec 31, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
You will be waiting a long time. Don't hold your breath in expectation!
"The dirt did it"
Hello John, nice to see you finally registered one of your socks.

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) 11 min ACTUALLY 161,932
No Place For ID? 46 min Chimney1 96
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) 7 hr Dogen 1,691
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 8 hr Denisova 18,852
Why Are There No Transitional Animals Today? (Mar '09) 23 hr yoo 895
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) Sun Paul Porter1 13,692
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) Sun Kong_ 178,596
More from around the web