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

Full story: Asheville Citizen-Times

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 ...
Comments
103,661 - 103,680 of 134,164 Comments Last updated 31 min ago
marksman11

Asheville, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105670
Dec 31, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105672
Dec 31, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

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

Wahroonga, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Wahroonga, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Lakeland, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Wahroonga, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Lagrangian L2

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Wahroonga, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Wahroonga, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105688
Dec 31, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
Are any of you going to explain how the deteriorating genome supports TOE better than a creationist pardigm?
Any time you wanna address people's actual posts instead of your imagined caricatures, Maz. Take yer time.
MazHere wrote:
Don't feel bad though, because your well credentialled researchers also have no clue.
Yup. Because you're a REAL scientist.

I guess that means you won't be referencing their unreliable data anymore.
MazHere wrote:
I am confrontational because I can't believe I am talking to adults.
Neither can we. I thought there was a minimal age limit on Topix but here you are, a pre-schooler trying to participate on a science forum.
MazHere wrote:
Every time I get on here the same crap ensues.
It's because you keep lying.
MazHere wrote:
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.
We don't. We don't meltdown either, that's why you're the one with a billion unaddressed posts to deal with.
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 and one that you have not repeatedly demonstrated in a lab.
The theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis. Also what do deities have to do with science?

Oh, that's right. Zip.
MazHere wrote:
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?
Yes, we understand you are unable to engage it.
MazHere wrote:
Most of you are not here to engage in scientific discourse.
Now, in this you are correct. We are merely here to provide scientific information that refutes your ridiculous posts. We do, the creationists leave them unaddressed and instead engage in ad-hom and long-winded rants that serve no useful purpose other than to vent your frustrations against the evil atheist scientists who never take your absurd dark-age religious beliefs seriously.
MazHere wrote:
Many are here as an excuse for their sorry lives and an open opportunity to ridicule a creationist.
Mirth is merely a side-effect of refuting reality-deniers.
MazHere wrote:
This fact is further exemplified by evos not addressing any questions creos ask even though I have attempted to address theirs.
As usual you have that the wrong way round.
MazHere wrote:
One point at a time you will not refute me with any substance.
Any amount of points at a time you like, substance has been provided. No counter-substance has been retorted due to the lack of consistency of the creationist position.
MazHere wrote:
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.
And we have refuted it. So far it remains unaddressed. You may recall the same happened 3 months ago. Did you really think the same would not happen here?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105689
Dec 31, 2012
 
Continued:
MazHere wrote:
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.
Your BLATANT racism aside, you have provided zero support and the claim has been falsified. Of course that can always be rectified with Godmagic, which is non-falsifiable. Hence not worthy of consideration.
MazHere wrote:
The data indicates deleterious mutations are accumulating in the genome, the interpretations come later. Is that simple enough?
Your "interpretations" are no longer relevant.
MazHere wrote:
How does this data align with TOE?
The pattern of ancestry.
MazHere wrote:
What mechanism has been proven or demonstrated to address this?
The same mechanisms of evolution you've been told about for months.
MazHere wrote:
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?
1 - Genetic ancestry is testable.

2 - Your "fall" contradicts "perfect function"

3 - It also relies on 2 magic people with extra-long longevity and extra long genomes for which you have zero evidence for.

4 - It also relies on an invisible magic Jew wizard poofing them into existence via mechanisms unknown for which you have no evidence for.

5 - It also relies on an arbitrary genetic (magic) barrier which prevents speciation.

7 - The reliance on magic ultimately being untestable and therefore unscientific.

8 - Since you already claimed on the other thread that the genome already had all the DNA it needed pre-built in this makes it possible for amoebas to evolve into humans, and indeed most other organisms on Earth due to its expansive genome. A flaw in your argument you keep overlooking.

9 - Time and time again we've refuted your claims and you prefer to rant rather than deal with rebuttals.
MazHere wrote:
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.
We've already done that. Months later you're still trotting out the same old apologetics as if none of it has been dealt with before. The scientific community had already dealt with it YEARS before you even considered popping up on the forum.
MazHere wrote:
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!
Why do you keep asking for what has already been provided?

De Nile.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••