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

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

There are 151419 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.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#105727 Dec 31, 2012
MazHere wrote:
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.
Abiogenesis, of course, is not essential to evolution.

But further - there is no "faith" required here. Scientists are looking for how it could have happened naturally. If they succeed, well and good.

Until you can provide an actual reason why the physics and chemistry preclude the possibility, then it remains physically possible. Therefore not a leap of faith, merely a valid avenue of scientific research.

You on the other hand have already made a leap of faith, pretending to know the answer to these questions by invoking your magical God.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#105728 Dec 31, 2012
Thomas Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a new one on me.
When did religionists say that?
It's in the Bible...I forget where exactly, I'll have to do some tracing and get back to you.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#105729 Dec 31, 2012
Found it. Genesis 30:37

37 Jacob, however, took fresh-cut branches from poplar, almond and plane trees and made white stripes on them by peeling the bark and exposing the white inner wood of the branches. 38 Then he placed the peeled branches in all the watering troughs, so that they would be directly in front of the flocks when they came to drink. When the flocks were in heat and came to drink, 39 they mated in front of the branches. And they bore young that were streaked or speckled or spotted.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#105730 Dec 31, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
If you were more familiar with the Bible, you would realize that the vast majority of "Christians" aren't!
Hey KAB....square this with reality:
"37 Jacob, however, took fresh-cut branches from poplar, almond and plane trees and made white stripes on them by peeling the bark and exposing the white inner wood of the branches. 38 Then he placed the peeled branches in all the watering troughs, so that they would be directly in front of the flocks when they came to drink. When the flocks were in heat and came to drink, 39 they mated in front of the branches. And they bore young that were streaked or speckled or spotted."
NIV
KAB

Wilson, NC

#105731 Dec 31, 2012
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently it was KittenKoder who said there were 68,000 errors in the Bible. That in no way changes the falsehood of your own statement. You cannot point to tens of thousands of errors, so you cannot point to tens of thousands of debunkings.
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
You demonstrate that your criteria for determining validity is entirely arbitrary and faith based. After perusing many pages, I've found that what you apparently advance as "providing what you can find" is in fact nothing but Biblical references, criticism of word choices and vague recriminations of basic facts (Whitehead and Russell proved 1+1=2 in a mere 300 pages) and non-existent data (as in flood evidence) as being unverified. In short, your posts are consistently "dataless" sniping from behind a firewall of denial and faith.
<quoted text>
The world wide flood IS debunked. Pi does not equal 3. It is EXTREMELY unlikely that Jesus was born of a virgin birth, though I can think of at least one scenario (involving neither swallowing a watermelon seed nor a stork) where it could be possible. Noah could not have built a vessel to contain all the animals two by two. A man cannot survive 3 days in the belly of a live, swimming fish. Serpents and donkeys have never been able to form human speech. There is ample evidence that man and civilization existed long before the account of the Garden of Eden.
It would appear that despite professing an air of objectivity and critical thought, it's the Creationist Crowd that's got nuthin.
Again, I have NOT pointed to tens of thousands of debunkings.

Thanks for not a single example of any of your assertions against me.

Beyond that, you made the mistake of touching the 3 rail of these exchanges, the thoroughly discredited Pi assertion, making it clear that data will not change you, at least, apparently, for now.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#105732 Dec 31, 2012
The Dude wrote:
Also can someone tell me that if spirit creatures could take ANY form at all then what the FRAK would they need ventriloquists for?
Answers on a postcard to: Dr Chase Meridian, Arkham Asylum, Gotham City, USA.
Whacko. Is that a technical term?
Who stated that the spirit creatures NEEDED ventriloquists? What logical fallacy is it when one reasons that if someone is capable of something then he has to use it whenever he can?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#105733 Dec 31, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
If you were more familiar with the Bible, you would realize that the vast majority of "Christians" aren't!
Are you saying that the vast majority of the people who think they are Christians actually are not Christians?

I always thought so, KAB. You know, the Bible forbids eating pig meat, but there they all are, scoffing down their breakfast bacon! And Jesus said, nothing of the Law is invalid, so frankly I do not understand this pig eating business by so called Christians.

Also they do not cut the throats of their daughters on the front step if they misbehave. That is part of the Law Jesus swore he upholds too, isn't it? Shouldn't they be cutting their slut daughter's throats as the Law commanded?

Sheesh, I see your point. As for True Scotsmen wearing kilts, well, that can't be right either. Must be something in Leviticus about cross dressing!

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#105734 Dec 31, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, I have NOT pointed to tens of thousands of debunkings.
Thanks for not a single example of any of your assertions against me.
Beyond that, you made the mistake of touching the 3 rail of these exchanges, the thoroughly discredited Pi assertion, making it clear that data will not change you, at least, apparently, for now.
Obviously, Pi equaled exactly 3 when the GOD inspired lines were written, and the irrational extension of pi since then is a cumulative result of the Fall. Irrational numbers are Satanic.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#105735 Dec 31, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Who stated that the spirit creatures NEEDED ventriloquists?
Never mind. That line, all by itself, arouses an incredible optimism and a belly laugh in me.

Happy New Year.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105736 Dec 31, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
You are the perfect personification of of gobsmacked evolutionist standing their flapping away, speaking to all the hubris they can desperately defer to but unable to defend the simplest of challenges. So QUACK QUACK to you!

Now you're flapping on about the philosophy of condemnaton instead of answering a couple of, what should be, easy questions. Quack!

You evos been asked a simple question around the deteriorating genome and to make some prediction around non coding dna and functionality after my being challenged on it being evidence of a creationist paradigm, and strike me down if you evos want to chase your tails down any garden path except the ones I was challenged on.

Eventually Dude will be back, and when he does he will be made to continue his line of twoddle once again, now he has finally conceded the case for abiogenesis is no more established that the creationist Genesis.,and what a struggle that was!

The point here being, TOE is based on a leap of faith and is supported by further leaps of faith, but evolutionsists are unable to comprehend that factual statement. That is the thread topic, evos not understanding the hubris they themselves come up with, which obviously is not that hard for a creationist to demonstrate eg the deteriorating genome who cares, predictions around junk dna Ha Ha!, anything goes? Yes!.

Thank you for supporting this claim...

The evolutionary penchant is... I publish, therefore I exist, regardless of not having any idea what I am talking about.

Level 2

Since: Feb 12

Roseville, CA

#105737 Dec 31, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Just to emphasize your datatless error ridden ways, there was no 1976 one, and for the one that was, everyone was not totally sure it was going to happen. I specifically spent my time drawing attention to the fact that the Watchtower had not stated the end would occur then. It was put in the "good chance" realm. Those who did not go beyond what was written (1 Corinthians 4:6) did not "cash out".
You're both right. The year was 1975, not 1976, and the Watchtower Society was only partially ambiguous on what was going to happen that year, but nonetheless it's still misleading.

"The published timetable resulting from this independent study gives the date of man's creation as 4026 B.C.E. According to this trustworthy Bible chronology six thousand years from man's creation will end in 1975, and the seventh period of a thousand years of human history will begin in the fall of 1975 C.E. So six thousand years of man's existence on earth will soon be up, yes, within this generation. So in not many years within our own generation we are reaching what Jehovah God could view as the seventh day of man's existence. How appropriate it would be for Jehovah God to make of this coming seventh period of a thousand years a sabbath period of rest and release, a great Jubilee sabbath for the proclaiming of liberty throughout the earth to all its inhabitants! This would be most timely for mankind. It would also be most fitting on God's part, for, remember, mankind has yet ahead of it what the last book of the Holy Bible speaks of as the reign of Jesus Christ over earth for a thousand years, the millennial reign of Christ. It would not be by mere chance or accident but would be according to the loving purpose of Jehovah God for the reign of Jesus Christ, the 'Lord of the Sabbath,' to run parallel with the seventh millennium of man's existence." Life Everlasting in Freedom of the Sons of God 1966 pp.26-30

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105738 Dec 31, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Never mind. That line, all by itself, arouses an incredible optimism and a belly laugh in me.
Happy New Year.
I am the one, that mentioned that due to these silly ones suggesting they are sp arrogant as to suggest the abilities of spirit creatures would be bound by what mankind can explain today. If that has any truth you may as well throw out all you BB cosmology right here and now.

After all, the best naturalists can offer around dark energy is that 'it' is speculsted to be a powerful force that controls the universe, that is unexplainable and unseen that was invented by those that require 'it' to be on faith alone and involves the existence of multiple dimensions and planes of existence.

Does that ring any bells for you? You have actually described GOD.

You have no trouble believing in dark energy, that's if you know what it is at all. Why should you laugh that I believe in a similar force that your physics are suggesting exists by faith alone to explain an expanding universe? The answer, I believe, is because many evos are strugglers that feel faith is only an option for them.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#105739 Dec 31, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
You are the perfect personification of of gobsmacked evolutionist standing their flapping away, speaking to all the hubris they can desperately defer to but unable to defend the simplest of challenges. So QUACK QUACK to you!
Now you're flapping on about the philosophy of condemnaton instead of answering a couple of, what should be, easy questions. Quack!
You evos been asked a simple question around the deteriorating genome
I have answered your questions in posts above. The "deteriorating genome" is your assumption, not empirically supported except where natural selection is lacking. In fact, experimental data shows that reintroduction of natural selection restores fitness.
now he has finally conceded the case for abiogenesis is no more established that the creationist Genesis.,and what a struggle that was!
Except that the creationist Genesis is already debunked empirically because the order is wrong, for starters, not to mention the timeline being absurd
The point here being, TOE is based on a leap of faith and is supported by further leaps of faith,
You wish - so you could claim parity to your own fables, but you fail. There is no point of faith in evolution.
That is the thread topic, evos not understanding the hubris they themselves come up with, which obviously is not that hard for a creationist to demonstrate eg the deteriorating genome
Not demonstrated, merely supposed, and falsified. Hubris? Well, OK.

We see here the last ditch shotgun effort to fire ineffectual bullets in every direction by the desperate Mazhere supporter of creationist pseudoscience, when confronted full on with a devastating killer blow to every one of her bullshit, parasitical and lying claims.

We await her return with more quote mines from honest science to further advance her case, which is in truth based on nothing more than her fear of death.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#105740 Dec 31, 2012
thewordofme wrote:
Found it. Genesis 30:37
37 Jacob, however, took fresh-cut branches from poplar, almond and plane trees and made white stripes on them by peeling the bark and exposing the white inner wood of the branches. 38 Then he placed the peeled branches in all the watering troughs, so that they would be directly in front of the flocks when they came to drink. When the flocks were in heat and came to drink, 39 they mated in front of the branches. And they bore young that were streaked or speckled or spotted.
What do you know about the chemistry of what took place in this situation?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#105741 Dec 31, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I am the one, that mentioned that due to these silly ones suggesting they are sp arrogant as to suggest the abilities of spirit creatures would be bound by what mankind can explain today. If that has any truth you may as well throw out all you BB cosmology right here and now.
What spirit creatures?
After all, the best naturalists can offer around dark energy is that 'it' is speculsted to be a powerful force that controls the universe,
No, they speculate that it helps ensure the consistency of gravitational effects on large scales. In spite of its evocative name, that is all.
that is unexplainable and unseen
No, unexplained is not a synonym for unexplainable. Very different.
that was invented by those that require 'it' to be on faith alone
no, that was hypothesised based on galactic gravitational behavior. Might be right or wrong, but that it all its about. Nothing to do with the mumbo jumbo you are trying to extrapolate from it.
and involves the existence of multiple dimensions and planes of existence.
You mean dimensions, which in physical and mathematical terms merely means another variable data value added to each point in space time, not anything mysterious.
Does that ring any bells for you? You have actually described GOD.
Nope. One would hope that of God exists, He is more than an added dimension in a hyper-Cartesian framework. But whatever lights your fire, Love.
You have no trouble believing in dark energy, that's if you know what it is at all.
Nobody "believes in" dark energy. Its a hypothesis. If it works, good, if not, not. Not anything like your primitive superstitions designed to fend off death awareness. Not even close.
Why should you laugh that I believe in a similar force that your physics are suggesting exists
Because there is nothing remotely similar about it.
In the end what we are laughing at is your deep intellectual dishonesty and cowardice.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#105742 Dec 31, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you saying that the vast majority of the people who think they are Christians actually are not Christians?
I always thought so, KAB. You know, the Bible forbids eating pig meat, but there they all are, scoffing down their breakfast bacon! And Jesus said, nothing of the Law is invalid, so frankly I do not understand this pig eating business by so called Christians.
Also they do not cut the throats of their daughters on the front step if they misbehave. That is part of the Law Jesus swore he upholds too, isn't it? Shouldn't they be cutting their slut daughter's throats as the Law commanded?
Sheesh, I see your point. As for True Scotsmen wearing kilts, well, that can't be right either. Must be something in Leviticus about cross dressing!
Jeremiah 31:31-33, Ephesians 2:15,16

As for the throat cutting you'll have to provide verses confirming that was the directive.

Level 2

Since: Feb 12

Roseville, CA

#105743 Dec 31, 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.
Everyone has an ideology that blinds, or filters interpretations. The irony is that everyone was a creationist in years past and it was discoveries that persuaded many scientists to discard beliefs that were untenable with reality. Their original beliefs were certainly closely held, and undoubtedly painful to shed. It wasn't until mid 1800's that many scientists just couldn't take noah's flood seriously, even though europeans had been sailing around the world and seeing many different ecosystems for centuries at that point and noticing all of the distinct life forms.
Saying evolution isn't occurring is like saying its just a coincidence that heavy gold always ends up at the bottom of a gold pan. 80-90% of Australia's fauna is native. Not found anywhere else in the world. Does god force the gold into the bottom of the pan every time or make islands have uniquely native populations? Did god just magically mimic exactly what occur if you shake the pan or have isolated, unique breeding populations? No. Laws did. Laws that are unchanging, even over unfathomable amounts of time, laws that create a complex, repeating pattern that is discernible.
Evolution creates almost more questions than it answers, and that's why it's so painful and difficult for many believers to accept. Religions the world over fight evolution, because it blurs their soothing answers to why, in addition to how. Looking at the trends for the last several hundred years, creationists will certainly be put to sleep with the likes of Roman or Norse mythology.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#105744 Dec 31, 2012
Usuallyunique wrote:
<quoted text>
You're both right. The year was 1975, not 1976, and the Watchtower Society was only partially ambiguous on what was going to happen that year, but nonetheless it's still misleading.
"The published timetable resulting from this independent study gives the date of man's creation as 4026 B.C.E. According to this trustworthy Bible chronology six thousand years from man's creation will end in 1975, and the seventh period of a thousand years of human history will begin in the fall of 1975 C.E. So six thousand years of man's existence on earth will soon be up, yes, within this generation. So in not many years within our own generation we are reaching what Jehovah God could view as the seventh day of man's existence. How appropriate it would be for Jehovah God to make of this coming seventh period of a thousand years a sabbath period of rest and release, a great Jubilee sabbath for the proclaiming of liberty throughout the earth to all its inhabitants! This would be most timely for mankind. It would also be most fitting on God's part, for, remember, mankind has yet ahead of it what the last book of the Holy Bible speaks of as the reign of Jesus Christ over earth for a thousand years, the millennial reign of Christ. It would not be by mere chance or accident but would be according to the loving purpose of Jehovah God for the reign of Jesus Christ, the 'Lord of the Sabbath,' to run parallel with the seventh millennium of man's existence." Life Everlasting in Freedom of the Sons of God 1966 pp.26-30
Thanks for the quote (data). It was one of the things which kept me from being misled at the time. Of course, I've always read carefully, comprehended well, and been very good with the English language. I made efforts at the time to keep others from misleading themselves, but obviously many didn't "get/accept the memo".

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#105745 Dec 31, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you know about the chemistry of what took place in this situation?
It doesn't matter what the chemistry is. It doesn't work and that's enough to make it another thing wrong with the Bible and another little tidbit showing the Bible is merely a man-made book to try and back up a made-up religion....just like all the others
KAB

Wilson, NC

#105746 Dec 31, 2012
Why didn't anyone just simply provide data/analysis discrediting the human common ancestor timing research Maz cited in her latest round of activity? I was so looking forward to it. Please don't just provide slamming comments/assertions but no data/analysis.

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) 1 min Chazofsaints 40,719
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 2 min The Northener 201,563
The conscious God or the inanimate nature 9 min THE LONE WORKER 41
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 13 min _Susan_ 16,193
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 2 hr ChristineM 222
Scientists create vast 3-D map of universe, val... 3 hr Chazofsaints 18
News Book aims to prove existence of God (Nov '09) Wed ChristineM 96
More from around the web