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

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

There are 161478 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.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#105749 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.
Right. You start with the Bible being 100% true, and then you try to force everything to fit it, rather than following the evidence wherever it leads. And you say you love science.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#105750 Dec 31, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you know about the chemistry of what took place in this situation?
Better yet...why don't you demonstrate that putting a stick thusly stripped into the water trough of sheep will result in striped, speckled, or spotted offspring? Then, we can investigate why it happens. We don't have to explain what doesn't occur, because IT DOESN'T OCCUR.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#105751 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.
There is as much evidence for "spirit creatures" as there is for gorgons. Until there is EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, you're just talking about mythological creatures, and that's fine. Just don't treat them as anything other than.
MazHere wrote:
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.
Well, that's simply wrong on all counts. But, far be it from me to cast aspersions on either the scientific aptitude or honesty of a creationist.
MazHere wrote:
Does that ring any bells for you? You have actually described GOD.
Oh, so God is something that people made up to explain the universe around them? Seems you had an accidental moment of lucidity. I don't expect that to last.
MazHere wrote:
You have no trouble believing in dark energy, that's if you know what it is at all.
Well, you don't...that much is certain.
MazHere wrote:
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?
Because one is demonstrable though not fully understood, while the other is as demonstrable as the farts of a leprechaun.
MazHere wrote:
The answer, I believe, is because many evos are strugglers that feel faith is only an option for them.
Isn't it odd that rather than trying to raise your religious beliefs to the level of scientific rigor, you'd rather try to reduce science to the base level of religious superstition? Why not strive to be better, rather than bringing everything around you down into the muck?

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105752 Dec 31, 2012
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
There is as much evidence for "spirit creatures" as there is for gorgons. Until there is EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, you're just talking about mythological creatures, and that's fine. Just don't treat them as anything other than.
<quoted text>
Well, that's simply wrong on all counts. But, far be it from me to cast aspersions on either the scientific aptitude or honesty of a creationist.
<quoted text>
Oh, so God is something that people made up to explain the universe around them? Seems you had an accidental moment of lucidity. I don't expect that to last.
<quoted text>
Well, you don't...that much is certain.
<quoted text>
Because one is demonstrable though not fully understood, while the other is as demonstrable as the farts of a leprechaun.
<quoted text>
Isn't it odd that rather than trying to raise your religious beliefs to the level of scientific rigor, you'd rather try to reduce science to the base level of religious superstition? Why not strive to be better, rather than bringing everything around you down into the muck?
You mean like dark matter and abiogenesis abviously. You lot are trying to raise your philosophy and basing the entirely of anything you believe on mysteries and is the perfect proof that you as as faith based as any other philosophy.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105753 Dec 31, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
What spirit creatures?
<quoted text>
No, they speculate that it helps ensure the consistency of gravitational effects on large scales. In spite of its evocative name, that is all.
<quoted text>
No, unexplained is not a synonym for unexplainable. Very different.
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
Because there is nothing remotely similar about it.
In the end what we are laughing at is your deep intellectual dishonesty and cowardice.
What you need to get your head is that your entire belief system is based on mysteries, failed experiments and change, so don't be condescending to me. You have little to toot your horn about.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105754 Dec 31, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Whoops. Is this the same KAB who it still trying to justify the genocidal slaughter of every last Midionite (except the yummy young virgins)?
The same despicable, cowardly, dirty little piece of shit that cannot imagine how he, personally, would deal with one of the condemned, a little boy for example, by stabbing, strangling, or throwing off a cliff? By pretending that events back them were not real involving human life?
You make me sick, little cowardly turd, buffoon for Christ.
They can't say this to you.

Anything is better than being a huge FW and religious bigot such as yourself you hateful pan licker. If ever I have seen evidence for TOE it would be in a reject such as yourself.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#105755 Dec 31, 2012
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
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
Making the assertion is the easy part. Now provide data confirming it doesn't work. Thank you for at least confirming it's on the list of tens of thousands of purported yet unconfirmed Bible errors.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105756 Dec 31, 2012
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Right. You start with the Bible being 100% true, and then you try to force everything to fit it, rather than following the evidence wherever it leads. And you say you love science.
Evos start with TOE being 100% true and bootstapping is an example of it. No bootstrapping to assumptions = No ancestry.

In comparative genomics one can look to the differences or ignore them and grab at similarities. Guess which way that goes?

Now pubication of Genesis actually was the first to come up with much of what the fossil record should look like eg no life, plants, creatures of the sea, land animals, man last. Birds are out of alignment.

How about this...Modern bird footprints showing a reversed hallux dated to 212mya and more than half way to the Devonian have been discovered.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2466-an...

Can you please explain to us all how inventing a mythical theropod with modern avian feet, that is undiscovered and not even named is NOT an example of 'forcing everything to fit", as opposed to falsifying your current theory of the evolution of Aves, as this data should have done?

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#105757 Dec 31, 2012
I want to wish a SAFE, happy and prosperous New Year to all of you...It's been fun arguing with everybody.

:-)

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#105758 Dec 31, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Making the assertion is the easy part. Now provide data confirming it doesn't work. Thank you for at least confirming it's on the list of tens of thousands of purported yet unconfirmed Bible errors.
Bullsh!t

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#105759 Dec 31, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Evos start with TOE being 100% true and bootstapping is an example of it. No bootstrapping to assumptions = No ancestry.
In comparative genomics one can look to the differences or ignore them and grab at similarities. Guess which way that goes?
Now pubication of Genesis actually was the first to come up with much of what the fossil record should look like eg no life, plants, creatures of the sea, land animals, man last. Birds are out of alignment.
How about this...Modern bird footprints showing a reversed hallux dated to 212mya and more than half way to the Devonian have been discovered.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2466-an...
Can you please explain to us all how inventing a mythical theropod with modern avian feet, that is undiscovered and not even named is NOT an example of 'forcing everything to fit", as opposed to falsifying your current theory of the evolution of Aves, as this data should have done?
Are you STILL going on about that crap??

Give it a rest...it works, you lose.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#105760 Dec 31, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Evos start with TOE being 100% true and bootstapping is an example of it. No bootstrapping to assumptions = No ancestry.
In comparative genomics one can look to the differences or ignore them and grab at similarities. Guess which way that goes?
Now pubication of Genesis actually was the first to come up with much of what the fossil record should look like eg no life, plants, creatures of the sea, land animals, man last. Birds are out of alignment.
How about this...Modern bird footprints showing a reversed hallux dated to 212mya and more than half way to the Devonian have been discovered.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2466-an...
Can you please explain to us all how inventing a mythical theropod with modern avian feet, that is undiscovered and not even named is NOT an example of 'forcing everything to fit", as opposed to falsifying your current theory of the evolution of Aves, as this data should have done?
You DO know that we ARE related to great apes...don't you??

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#105761 Dec 31, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Evos start with TOE being 100% true and bootstapping is an example of it. No bootstrapping to assumptions = No ancestry.
In comparative genomics one can look to the differences or ignore them and grab at similarities. Guess which way that goes?
Now pubication of Genesis actually was the first to come up with much of what the fossil record should look like eg no life, plants, creatures of the sea, land animals, man last. Birds are out of alignment.
How about this...Modern bird footprints showing a reversed hallux dated to 212mya and more than half way to the Devonian have been discovered.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2466-an...
Can you please explain to us all how inventing a mythical theropod with modern avian feet, that is undiscovered and not even named is NOT an example of 'forcing everything to fit", as opposed to falsifying your current theory of the evolution of Aves, as this data should have done?
You DO know that you probably have a small amount of Neanderthal genes/blood in your body...don't you??

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#105762 Dec 31, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Making the assertion is the easy part. Now provide data confirming it doesn't work. Thank you for at least confirming it's on the list of tens of thousands of purported yet unconfirmed Bible errors.
Adam and Eve are on that list too.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105763 Dec 31, 2012
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
You DO know that we ARE related to great apes...don't you??
You are free to call your relatives anything you like.

As for me I am a mankind, homo sapiens. I am a primate that just so happens to also be a furless obligate biped with the unique ability to make meaning of the world and debate opinions and am the only species with this ability. How about you?

Which human characteristic did you miss out on?

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105764 Dec 31, 2012
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you STILL going on about that crap??
Give it a rest...it works, you lose.
Nothing works here except an evolutionists overactive imagination and ability to poof mythical theropds out of thin air.

Yeah, I am still on about it with this new lot to see them all equally make boofheads out of themselves as you did.

“Seriously guys...”

Level 3

Since: May 12

Regina

#105765 Dec 31, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
The existence of the genome and the genetic code divides living organisms from non-living matter. There is nothing in the non-living physico-chemical world that remotely resembles the reactions that are determined by a sequence (i.e., the genome) and codes between sequences (i.e., the genetic code) that occur in living matter.
Abiogenesis is a dead end. It's a dead end from various disciplines; Biologically, chemically, physically, and bioinformatically at least. There is absolutely zero chance life spontaneously formed through that method. Even Darwin lamented about how that idea had taken hold. He had NEVER proposed it as a scientific theory, he casually mentioned it in a letter to a friend, merely pondering the possibility.

Of course as you said, abiogenesis isn't essential to evolutionary theory.

“Seriously guys...”

Level 3

Since: May 12

Regina

#105766 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!
Yeah, they seem to like the pissed off God from the Judaic portions of the Bible and forgot all about the teachings of Christ.

“Seriously guys...”

Level 3

Since: May 12

Regina

#105767 Dec 31, 2012
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
You DO know that we ARE related to great apes...don't you??
Some more closely than others.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105768 Dec 31, 2012
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
You DO know that you probably have a small amount of Neanderthal genes/blood in your body...don't you??
I was not indicating that you and your relatives were neanderthals if that is what you want them to be. You called them apes.

What human characteristic don't you have seeing as you are still an ape.

You do not that APE is not a taxonomic classification and adult evolutionists are the only ones too stupid to pick the human out of a bunch of apes like a child can.

So that other loudmouth has disappeared. Perhaps you can show how this is not a demonstration of 'making it fit", or is that too difficult.

Is ridicule and blowing hot air the best you got.

Genesis actually was the first to come up with much of what the fossil record should look like eg no life, plants, creatures of the sea, land animals, man last. Birds are out of alignment.
How about this...Modern bird footprints showing a reversed hallux dated to 212mya and more than half way to the Devonian have been discovered.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2466-an ...

Can you please explain to us all how inventing a mythical theropod with modern avian feet, that is undiscovered and not even named is NOT an example of 'forcing everything to fit", as opposed to falsifying your current theory of the evolution of Aves, as this data should have done?

Smart ass comments and avoidance demonstrates evos have a long way to go before any of this rubbish should be passed off as a science. TOE, the Theory of Excuses.

Quick scurry off into absurdum. You may find Dude and that other condescending pan licker there.

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 Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 6 min yehoshooah adam 3,853
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Nohweh 30,608
Do alleged ERVs confirm common descent? 4 hr Dogen 110
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 5 hr Dogen 70,561
G-d versus Evolution? 11 hr Dogen 35
News Episode 2: The Birth of Climate Denial 12 hr Subduction Zone 7
The Subduction Zone class on Evidence. (Jun '13) 20 hr Out of the Night 78
More from around the web