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

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

There are 151463 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.

KAB

Wilson, NC

#105707 Dec 31, 2012
antichrist wrote:
Ima burst some bubbles.....live life, have fun, and quit trying to figure shit out. JUST LIVE PEOPLE!!!!
How would you relate that to the Sandy Hook shooting?

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105708 Dec 31, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Meh, a fundie is a fundie is a fundie.(shrug)
Says one who supports a theory based on an unsubstantiated story based on faith alone. Life is able to arise from natural processes is the faith you base TOE in its' entirety on.

This is the lynchpin to the difference between opening the door to evolutionary theory be it theistic or not; OR keeping the door open to creationist options of instant, or ID, creation.

Waht you have is data that supports the theory of surprizes.

How is faith in abiogenesis being a possibility anything more than a matter of a difference scale in faith when it comes to basing an assumption on faith alone. Oh that's right, that would be one of those questions you need to ignore.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#105709 Dec 31, 2012
MazHere wrote:
Says one who supports a theory based on an unsubstantiated story based on faith alone.
Yet we have demonstrated otherwise.

Numerous times over.

You have yet to address it.
MazHere wrote:
Life is able to arise from natural processes is the faith you base TOE in its' entirety on.
If you refer to abiogenesis then you are incorrect, for reasons already described.

Numerous times over.

You have yet to address it.

Any other reference is irrelevant, as once life is here, and it is, evolution works. Life DOES in fact arise naturally. In fact it ONLY EVER arises naturally.

Not one example of magical poofing.

Ever.
MazHere wrote:
This is the lynchpin to the difference between opening the door to evolutionary theory be it theistic or not; OR keeping the door open to creationist options of instant, or ID, creation.
Naturalism? I'm glad you think so. I have no problem with you admitting over and over that your "scientific alternative" is Jewmagic. However in science, naturalism is all that's observed.

Sorry if you find that inconvenient.
MazHere wrote:
Waht you have is data that supports the theory of surprizes.
It only surprises creationists as they keep expecting for reality to be not real and magic to be real.

That's NOT our problem.
MazHere wrote:
How is faith in abiogenesis being a possibility anything more than a matter of a difference scale in faith when it comes to basing an assumption on faith alone. Oh that's right, that would be one of those questions you need to ignore.
On the contrary, it's been addressed over and over and over and over...

Abio is not taken on faith which is why there are numerous scientific organisations across the globe researching the very subject. However it is not relevant to the validity of the theory of evolution. All evolution needs is for life to be here. Life IS here. Life evolves. Facts. No faith required. In order to demonstrate otherwise you need to demonstrate that life is in fact NOT here.

Good luck.

STOP worrying about abiogenesis. In fact I GIVE YOU abiogenesis on a plate. The first lifeforms were magically poofed into existence. GREAT. Good. NOW we have life. We can prove this since life IS in fact HERE. Now evolution can take over. OR you can prove that the Earth really IS just 6,000 years old and throw out chemistry, physics as well as biology as a whole, and prove that we all died of cancers long ago, that Noah and his crew all died when they were heated to 10,000 degrees kelvin and our solar system became a binary, then super invisible Jewmagic fixed it all again and life somehow was magically-poofed back to Earth as is no flood ever happened (imagine that) and that somehow the entire human population is still deteriorating despite the current exponential increase in population and all our DNA still has 100% function despite deterioration which will presumably at some point destroy humanity due to too much deterioration even though what is left of our deteriorated DNA will still be 100% functional, just not functioning any longer, okay? Good. Now snap to it.

Or we could save time and skip the BS and just point out that you don't believe in evolution cuz it wuz all done by an invisible magic Jew-wizard cuz teh Bible iz troo cuz teh Bible sez so.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#105710 Dec 31, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Says one who supports a theory based on an unsubstantiated story based on faith alone. Life is able to arise from natural processes is the faith you base TOE in its' entirety on.
This is the lynchpin to the difference between opening the door to evolutionary theory be it theistic or not; OR keeping the door open to creationist options of instant, or ID, creation.
Waht you have is data that supports the theory of surprizes.
How is faith in abiogenesis being a possibility anything more than a matter of a difference scale in faith when it comes to basing an assumption on faith alone. Oh that's right, that would be one of those questions you need to ignore.
Yeah, and despite all your bitchin', the theory/fact of Evolution just keeps on keepin' on.

People smarter and much more educated than you have tried for 150+ years to destroy it, but have all failed miserable.

Why do you suppose that is??

Do you suppose its because the 'theory' is true??

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105711 Dec 31, 2012
The Dude wrote:
Continued:
<quoted text>
DNA test. Job done.
<quoted text>
False:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Green_Grass...
All natural.
In case you missed it the first few hundred times.
<quoted text>
Not at all. The theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis. All it needs is for life to be here. Life IS here. Life evolves. Facts. In order to demonstrate otherwise you need to demonstrate that life is in fact NOT here.
Good luck.
.
I am glad we agree life is here. I have addressed the questions related to the subject matter at hand. Forgive me if I don't want to take a merry stroll down every garden path you wish to walk down as an evasion.

This is false and you have not defended this claim at all...In fact it is a ridiculous reply to me that reflects the intelligence of a bird, eg parrot.

"Not at all. The theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis. All it needs is for life to be here. Life IS here. Life evolves. Facts. In order to demonstrate otherwise you need to demonstrate that life is in fact NOT here."

I suggest you are very wrong and further suggest you hope to peddle this line as an evasion. Your words..."Life evolves ...facts" is a reflection of the so called 'substance' you are trying to take some hero status over. This is not a refute just in case you are confused.

Three words such as your handwaving is what I more refer to as waffle, and an inability to appropriately respond but has some crazy need to regardless eg. to save face.

Life is here. The onus is on both of us to demonstrate, HOW it arises by natural processes if it did, or how an organism can be instantly formed, by physics.

My lack of understanding is no different than your own. It does not matter if you can present libraries of data and its interpretation because, likewise, so can creationists. Both can apparently challenge each other using their own assumptions of data.

The lynchpin for the both sides is to support the basis of their following assumptions, once we confirm how life arose.
I have no problem converting to theistic evolutionism. There are plenty out there.

The thing to me in all sencerity, is that, evolutionists really need to demonstrate this process is a possibility, not just talk about it and hand wave it away as you do.

That to me surpasses all guesswork around fossils, dating, and algorithmic magic coming from either side. Really, I don't care. I just would like to know in my lifetime but likely won't.
I have other sources of faith in God that do not relate to the creation/evolution debate.

If one believes in a deity at all, one also must acknowledge that such a deity will have knowledge of physics we have yet to understand.(BTW these aliens evos reckon are scattered everywhere are found in a non organic form in theist understanding that re very advanced, which is not surprising).

Indeed, one may take so many failed attempts to demonstrate this process of abiogenesis, in a controlled lab setting, where every possible scenario of nature can be mimicked, as evidence that it cannot be done by nature alone.

So my paradign is based on 2 assumptions. There is a God and he chose to create via instant creation as opposed to evolution. Atheistic evolution is based on one. Life can arise by natural proceses alone. The rest is able to be interpreted many ways.
If one is an atheist then one has no choice apart from panspermia, and that just relocates the same problem to another object or planet.

When it is demonstrated that life can arise by robust observation, then I am happy to convert to theistic evolution. I would never have thought it would have been so hard for you evos to pull it off, but it has!

YOU DON'T NEED TO RESPOND TO EVERY COMMENT, JUST TELL ME WHY YOUR LEAP OF FAITH IN ABIOGENESIS BEING POSSIBLE, IS ANY LESS A MATTER OF FAITH THAN MY FAITH IN A GOD.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#105712 Dec 31, 2012
MazHere wrote:
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!
There was no fall of man...

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105713 Dec 31, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet we have demonstrated otherwise.
Numerous times over.
You have yet to address it.
<quoted text>
If you refer to abiogenesis then you are incorrect, for reasons already described.
Numerous times over.
You have yet to address it.
Any other reference is irrelevant, as once life is here, and it is, evolution works. Life DOES in fact arise naturally. In fact it ONLY EVER arises naturally.
Not one example of magical poofing.
Ever.
<quoted text>
Naturalism? I'm glad you think so. I have no problem with you admitting over and over that your "scientific alternative" is Jewmagic. However in science, naturalism is all that's observed.
Sorry if you find that inconvenient.
<quoted text>
It only surprises creationists as they keep expecting for reality to be not real and magic to be real.
That's NOT our problem.
<quoted text>
On the contrary, it's been addressed over and over and over and over...
Abio is not taken on faith which is why there are numerous scientific organisations across the globe researching the very subject. However it is not relevant to the validity of the theory of evolution. All evolution needs is for life to be here. Life IS here. Life evolves. Facts. No faith required. In order to demonstrate otherwise you need to demonstrate that life is in fact NOT here.
Good luck.
STOP worrying about abiogenesis. In fact I GIVE YOU abiogenesis on a plate. The first lifeforms were magically poofed into existence. GREAT. Good. NOW we have life. We can prove this since life IS in fact HERE. Now evolution can take over. OR you can prove that the Earth really IS just 6,000 years old and throw out chemistry, physics as well as biology as a whole, and prove that we all died of cancers long ago, that Noah and his crew all died when they were heated to 10,000 degrees kelvin and our solar system became a binary, then super invisible Jewmagic fixed it all again and life somehow was magically-poofed back to Earth as is no flood ever happened (imagine that) and that somehow the entire human population is still deteriorating despite the current exponential increase in population and all our DNA still has 100% function despite deterioration which will presumably at some point destroy humanity due to too much deterioration even though what is left of our deteriorated DNA will still be 100% functional, just not functioning any longer, okay? Good. Now snap to it.
Or we could save time and skip the BS and just point out that you don't believe in evolution cuz it wuz all done by an invisible magic Jew-wizard cuz teh Bible iz troo cuz teh Bible sez so.
Ok so you agree than abiogenesis is not estabished and therefore I do not have to explain my genesis.

Now of all the BS you spoke about pick one....

Before we get to your great hero flapping about Noah and genome deterioration, let me begin by asking you do you also now concede, after blowing much hot air, that the deterioration of the genome (accumulation of deleterious mutations) can run along side a fully functioning genome and the two being in situ at the same time do not contradict each other?

Let's do an ignorance test, before we go any further.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#105714 Dec 31, 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.
What is clouding your vision is failure to screen professed believers thru the Bible's filter. After doing that then check the behavior of those who meet the Bible's standard (Matthew 7:21,22).

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#105715 Dec 31, 2012
marksman11 wrote:
Listen, why do you think it is called the cambrian Explosion? It is because these fossils showed up suddenly without evidence of any ancestors!
I can't speak for Chimney1, but I can tell you why I think it is called the Cambrian explosion.
It is because for a long time, they had not found any fossils any deeper than that.
There are some Creationist Websites in which the authors either still don't know about the pre-Cambrian findings or hope that their readers don't.
Those webmasters kick up a big fuss over the Cambrian explosion, hoping that in the excitement, their readers assume that elephants and dinosaurs and alligators are all found in the Cambrian layer.

In Darwin's time, they hadn't even found fossils in the Cambrian layer. Although he didn't call it that, Darwin wrote about a Silurian explosion.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#105716 Dec 31, 2012
MazHere wrote:
This is on top of the fact that TOE is entirely based on the myth that life can arise without the hand of deity ...
Is there any place in this forum where an Evolutionist brought up the subject of a deity?
I have seen postings citing Evolutionists with religious views.
I have seen postings reminding the Creationists that Evolutionary theory does not presuppose the nonexistence of a god.

But evolution has left us with the need for hate targets.
And religion is powerless to overcome that need for hate targets.
So religious followers apply euphemistic names to their feelings of hatred--something like "righteous indignation."1
And some Creationists have chosen both atheists and Evolutionists for their hate targets.
And it is efficient to consolidate hate targets.
So the Creationists keep right on ignoring those posts.
That enables them to keep right on pretending that atheists and Evolutionists are the exact same people.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105717 Dec 31, 2012
Thomas Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't speak for Chimney1, but I can tell you why I think it is called the Cambrian explosion.
It is because for a long time, they had not found any fossils any deeper than that.
There are some Creationist Websites in which the authors either still don't know about the pre-Cambrian findings or hope that their readers don't.
Those webmasters kick up a big fuss over the Cambrian explosion, hoping that in the excitement, their readers assume that elephants and dinosaurs and alligators are all found in the Cambrian layer.
In Darwin's time, they hadn't even found fossils in the Cambrian layer. Although he didn't call it that, Darwin wrote about a Silurian explosion.
The fact remains that the bible spoke to animal life beginning in the sea, long before evolutionists were even suggesting our ancestors were bubbling around in ponds that has now also reverted to the sea option.

What a convenient turn of events for creationists. There appears to be many such convenient turns of events for creationists.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105718 Dec 31, 2012
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
There was no fall of man...
It's bed time for you, obviously....

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#105719 Dec 31, 2012
MiDutch wrote:
Letting livestock copulated in front of a stick painted with stripes produces offspring with striped coats.
That's a new one on me.
When did religionists say that?

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105720 Dec 31, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok so you agree than abiogenesis is not estabished and therefore I do not have to explain my genesis.
Now of all the BS you spoke about pick one....
Before we get to your great hero flapping about Noah and genome deterioration, let me begin by asking you do you also now concede, after blowing much hot air, that the deterioration of the genome (accumulation of deleterious mutations) can run along side a fully functioning genome and the two being in situ at the same time do not contradict each other?
Let's do an ignorance test, before we go any further.
Come on now, this is where Dude usually disappears.

Anyone care to carry his line? or is it too ridiculous even for the majority of you evos?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#105721 Dec 31, 2012
MazHere wrote:
None of you have stated why a deteriorating genome supports TOE better than creationism
Here the onus of proof is on you, as by your statement you are assuming a "deteriorating genome". False already.

And as it happens, through a link I have already posted twice, we have empirical evidence that a genome degraded through lack of natural selection can recover fitness within a few generations when natural selection is reintroduced, rendering your assumption and your claim invalid to the core.

Full of your parasitical, quote mining, sucking off the honest hard work of real scientists and twisting their work and their words, deplorable and sickening, intellectually bankrupt "Creation Science" bullshit as always.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#105722 Dec 31, 2012
MazHere wrote:
THERE IS NO NO NO (in case you missed it) EVIDENCE THAT LIFE CAN ARISE WITHOUT THE HAND OF GOD or by natural processes.
MazHere, do us all a favor and start an abiogenesis thread.
Then anyone who wants to debate abiogenesis with you can go on that thread and debate to their heart's content.
In case you missed reading the title of this thread, it's about evolution.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#105723 Dec 31, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Come on now, this is where Dude usually disappears.
Anyone care to carry his line? or is it too ridiculous even for the majority of you evos?
Replying to yourself now?

Self referential nonsense is, I suppose, an expected extrapolation from reference to the nonsense of others, i.e. the Bible deemed as canonical and perfect though written by men.

Perhaps its time you looked at the empirical evidence without trying to fit it into your dogmatic cage?
KAB

Wilson, NC

#105724 Dec 31, 2012
karl44 wrote:
<quoted text>
where does the bible claim the earth is cubic
flat - oval - disk - on 4 pillars -
but not cubic
Actually, none of the above, including cubic.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#105725 Dec 31, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact remains that the bible spoke to animal life beginning in the sea, long before evolutionists were even suggesting our ancestors were bubbling around in ponds that has now also reverted to the sea option.
What a convenient turn of events for creationists. There appears to be many such convenient turns of events for creationists.
Funny.

The first mention of life in Genesis is

"11 Then God said,“Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day."

The first mention of life in the sea is:

20 And God said,“Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

In other words, Genesis is clear that seed bearing land plants preceded life in the sea.

Which, of course, is utter bullshit.

Thanks for playing, your own Testament condemns you.

Now let us all wait for the inevitable apologetics, while you tell us what GOD "really meant".

Laughing already.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#105726 Dec 31, 2012
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Me? Nothing at all, but the vast majority of Christians believe in a virgin birth, ergo (and contrary to the duties as set by Torah) no nookie for Mr. & Mrs. Of Nazareth.
If you were more familiar with the Bible, you would realize that the vast majority of "Christians" aren't!

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) 4 min thetruth 43,139
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Thinking 18,492
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 3 hr It aint necessari... 912
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 4 hr Blitzking 204,731
Sun could not have formed as thought 5 hr Your Done 16
Current Education And Its Huge Flaws Mon Bren 1
Transfer Old iPhone Data to Samsung Galaxy S7 w... Mon CarLayshia 1
More from around the web