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 (Page 5,185)

Showing posts 103,681 - 103,700 of127,149
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“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

Topanga

|
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.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105690
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"
Actually he is referring to the concept called abiogenesis. And I have now since addressed the flaws in his post, just as everyone else on here had already done so MANY YEARS earlier (no exaggeration). You will now also ignore those flaws and continue to bash the same old straw-man.

For years too?

Probably.

Now is it sinking in why creationism doesn't ever get anywhere in the scientific community?

If you want to cry now, by all means.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105691
Dec 31, 2012
 
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Of course, we should believe you. After all you've only been lying like an sob for three years solid now.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105692
Dec 31, 2012
 
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Did it just a few posts back. Everyone else did it years back. All you got is Godmagic did it different. Well maybe. Not very honest of you to demand we falsify non-falsifiable claims is it?

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Wahroonga, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105693
Dec 31, 2012
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
The theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis.
Chemistry is not random.
Argument from incredulity is invalid.
It's been YEARS, Markie.
Oh here we go.

And how does this waffle and speculation meet the criteria of having a result that can be repeatedly demonstrated in the lab? It doesn't.

All you are doing Dude is what you always do, evade and come up with non related speak and steer the conversation into the never never land of evolutionary waffle. You were not asked to give your theoretical assertions on the matter. We all can make assertions. Bla Bla about chemistry is just the same rant as the rest of it.

The facts are very simple if one gets those evogoggles off for a minute. LOOK!!!!

THERE IS NO NO NO (in case you missed it) EVIDENCE THAT LIFE CAN ARISE WITHOUT THE HAND OF GOD or by natural processes.

Now, that is the fact and struggle as you may the fact remains the fact. That FACT is that TOE in its entirety is based on a myth that evolutionists are unable to demonstrate and have faith in, but nothing more. There is no need to run all over the place like the lost appealing to reels of rhetoric.

When you lot finally morph all this waffle into a repeatable experiment then you will have your evidence. For the moment, regardless of all your words around chemisty, you still do not have evidence that life can arise into a complex factory of reproduction via natural processes. It really is very simple. All the convolutions you can present will not deter from this fact of the matter, TOE at the moment is based on a wishlist not evidence..

That is the point and it is an unavoidable one for you evos.

If a creationist presented the same level of nothing that you try to offer as evidence, we get laughed at.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105694
Dec 31, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Is intelligence needed to create life?

Go ask a plant.
MazHere wrote:
PS. I really can support ventriloquism as being real.
So what?(shrug) Where does the Bible state that it was a hidden ventriloquist throwing his voice to the lizard? Why do you NEED ventriloquists when you already have shape-changing magical energy spirits who can change into any form? And then why did God punish the lizard?

Are you SERIOUSLY telling us that your god was STUPID enough to be fooled by a ventriloquist? Or did it just REALLY hate lizards?
MazHere wrote:
I really can support energy poofing into matter.
GREAT! Then just give us ONE example of a human magically poofed into existence by God without sexual reproduction in an objective scientific manner.

Thanks in advance.
MazHere wrote:
What you can't do is defend this waffle you call a theory in relation to one single event, the deterioration of the genome.
There is no need to defend against what does not exist.
MazHere wrote:
Evos here on this forum appear to be a total waste of thead space.
That does seem to be your attitude. Probably has something to do with the fact you keep skipping all the posts that demonstrate you wrong.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105695
Dec 31, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps you could try giving him an answer, instead of evasion. That would be a novel idea! Ever heard of it?
Wow! You come up with that all by yourself?!? Perhaps one day you'll take your own advice.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 103,681 - 103,700 of127,149
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
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.

•••
•••
•••
•••