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

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

There are 162962 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.

marksman11

Asheville, NC

#105774 Jan 1, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
You DO know that we ARE related to great apes...don't you??
No, and you don't either. You can not show any observable evidence to show that we are any kin to apes at all. A fused chromosome? Refuted long ago. Retroviruses? Also refuted long ago. They hunt for comfort zones to rest in and since apes and humans were CREATED with similar DNA....it is expected to find them in the same places in these genomes. You don't know we are kin to apes. You BELIEVE THAT we are kin to apes because some like minded zero told you it was true. What you have here is a faith based belief....not science.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#105775 Jan 1, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>No, and you don't either. You can not show any observable evidence to show that we are any kin to apes at all. A fused chromosome? Refuted long ago. Retroviruses? Also refuted long ago. They hunt for comfort zones to rest in and since apes and humans were CREATED with similar DNA....it is expected to find them in the same places in these genomes. You don't know we are kin to apes. You BELIEVE THAT we are kin to apes because some like minded zero told you it was true. What you have here is a faith based belief....not science.
Lame excuse to ignore the evidence.

DNA says we are, therefore we are until some evidence suggest otherwise.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#105776 Jan 1, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Abiogenesis, of course, is not essential to evolution.
In order for your atheism to be valid, of course evolution and abiogenesis, or spontainious generation is completely related. In order for evolution to occur, first life must exist. Abiogenesis says that these random "chemicals" must mix themselves together some how, add some kind of imaginary energy source, and these things then EVOLVE or change into life!!! Evolution, if abiogenesis to be true, has to begin, even before life does. THese things must EVOLVE into life. Of course, you won't admit that abiogenesisi has never, in the history of the planet, been observed in a lab nor nature. Currently abiogenesis is a fantasy. Just another creation myth. Much like the nortic creation myth that has humans coming from salt blocks that some cosmic cow is licking.
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
No, it remains a fantasy, unsupported science, currently envalid hypothesis, or even wild guess, and then take your pick for to accept any of them requires faith.
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text> Therefore not a leap of faith, merely a valid avenue of scientific research.
THen tell me you reject the hypothesis of abiogenesis until it is proven. Tell me that, because to say otherwise demands that you accept it's validity on faith. Do you reject abiogenesis at this point? Yes or no? Or do you accept it in faith?

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#105777 Jan 1, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Lame excuse to ignore the evidence.
DNA says we are, therefore we are until some evidence suggest otherwise.
A minor quibble, if I may: not just evidence, but better evidence. And more of it.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#105778 Jan 1, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>A minor quibble, if I may: not just evidence, but better evidence. And more of it.
Granted, your standard is higher than mine.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#105779 Jan 1, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
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
It is very easy to explain. IT was a supernatural event. GOD blessed Jacob for his obedience. Why didn't you post your verse in context?

31 “What shall I give you?” he asked.

“Don’t give me anything,” Jacob replied.“But if you will do this one thing for me, I will go on tending your flocks and watching over them: 32 Let me go through all your flocks today and remove from them every speckled or spotted sheep, every dark-colored lamb and every spotted or speckled goat. They will be my wages. 33 And my honesty will testify for me in the future, whenever you check on the wages you have paid me. Any goat in my possession that is not speckled or spotted, or any lamb that is not dark-colored, will be considered stolen.”

So they weren't born speckled or spotted because they bread infront of these sticks, but because Jacob was being blessed by GOD, and punishing Laben for his treatment of Jacob.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#105780 Jan 1, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>In order for your atheism to be valid, of course evolution and abiogenesis,...
Nope. For atheism to be valid there simply has to be a lack of evidence for any specific god. Do you have any evidence for your god yet?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#105781 Jan 1, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>It is very easy to explain. IT was a supernatural event. GOD blessed Jacob for his obedience. Why didn't you post your verse in context?
31 “What shall I give you?” he asked.
“Don’t give me anything,” Jacob replied.“But if you will do this one thing for me, I will go on tending your flocks and watching over them: 32 Let me go through all your flocks today and remove from them every speckled or spotted sheep, every dark-colored lamb and every spotted or speckled goat. They will be my wages. 33 And my honesty will testify for me in the future, whenever you check on the wages you have paid me. Any goat in my possession that is not speckled or spotted, or any lamb that is not dark-colored, will be considered stolen.”
So they weren't born speckled or spotted because they bread infront of these sticks, but because Jacob was being blessed by GOD, and punishing Laben for his treatment of Jacob.
That actually weakens your case and demonstrates a severe lack of intelligence in your god. So meh, if you want the whole thing, your god looks like a sadistic fool even more.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#105782 Jan 1, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>In order for your atheism to be valid, of course evolution and abiogenesis, or spontainious generation is completely related. In order for evolution to occur, first life must exist. Abiogenesis says that these random "chemicals" must mix themselves together some how, add some kind of imaginary energy source, and these things then EVOLVE or change into life!!! Evolution, if abiogenesis to be true, has to begin, even before life does. THese things must EVOLVE into life. Of course, you won't admit that abiogenesisi has never, in the history of the planet, been observed in a lab nor nature. Currently abiogenesis is a fantasy. Just another creation myth. Much like the nortic creation myth that has humans coming from salt blocks that some cosmic cow is licking.<quoted text>No, it remains a fantasy, unsupported science, currently envalid hypothesis, or even wild guess, and then take your pick for to accept any of them requires faith.<quoted text>THen tell me you reject the hypothesis of abiogenesis until it is proven. Tell me that, because to say otherwise demands that you accept it's validity on faith. Do you reject abiogenesis at this point? Yes or no? Or do you accept it in faith?
You're underthinking. Let me try baby-talk.

Evolution is the demonstrable fact that life forms change over time, and change a lot over a lot of time.

Says nothing about what started life in the first place.

Atheism is simply the observation that there's no evidence for any deity, and therefore no reason to believe in one.

Abiogenesis says that, since there's no evidence for a deity (much less one deciding to "poof" life into existence), the processes involved are most likely natural. No magic required.

BTW, what are you going to say when life is actually formed in a lab?
My prediction: "That doesn't count,'cos God didn't do it. Besides, where did you get the chemicals?"

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#105783 Jan 1, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Granted, your standard is higher than mine.
I've been working, 24 of the last 32 hours.

I might be a tad testy.

Sowwy...
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#105784 Jan 1, 2013
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.
But that is word games. The fact remains that PE was established to explain the fossils that appear in the Cambrian, that appear as if they "suddenly existed" without any preexisting ancesters. Without PE, these findings support creationism, so PE was invented, and then supported, to save face even though PE has never been observed or replicated. PE is no more science based than human from non-human evolution. It isn't observable, testable, or replicatable which is demanded by the scientific method for a valid theory. PE, like human from non-human evolution is nothing more than a faith based philosophy that can't be scientifically verified.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#105785 Jan 1, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a new one on me.
When did religionists say that?
Religionists don't. It's a fabricated atheist ploy, much like the bible says that Pi is 3. THe bible never mentions Pi, it just measures a round bowl. Just another deceptive frbrication.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#105786 Jan 1, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>
BTW, what are you going to say when life is actually formed in a lab?
My prediction: "That doesn't count,'cos God didn't do it. Besides, where did you get the chemicals?"
True or false. If the origin of life is replicated in a lab, does that not support the fact that an intelligent designer is necessary? You wanna disprove GOD? Show us the origin of life produced by nature, not in a lab. All the lab does is support intelligent design and that it must be a controled process. I can't wait for scientists to replicate the origin of life in a lab. It will prove the validity of intelligent design, but it'll never happen.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#105787 Jan 1, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Evolution and abiogenesis are related topics. For biogenesis to occur, or the Law of Biogenesis to be violated, these "building blocks" and an energy source, had to come together, OR EVOLVE for life to begin. Abiogenesis and evolution are innerwoven together.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#105788 Jan 1, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>I've been working, 24 of the last 32 hours.
I might be a tad testy.
Sowwy...
It's okay, they won't even produce my lower standard. So why not?
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#105789 Jan 1, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Lame excuse to ignore the evidence.
DNA says we are, therefore we are until some evidence suggest otherwise.
DNA does not say we are. DNA explains why we are what we are, That is merely a biased interpretation. If we share 98% of our DNA with some apes, then why aren't we 98% indentical? Why can they not build roads, and machines to drive down them, with computors that can park them, at air ports where they can fly around the world, in tubes with TV's and air conditioners......etc?
They can't even speak the words, "Want a nanner?"

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#105790 Jan 1, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>DNA does not say we are. DNA explains why we are what we are, That is merely a biased interpretation. If we share 98% of our DNA with some apes, then why aren't we 98% indentical? Why can they not build roads, and machines to drive down them, with computors that can park them, at air ports where they can fly around the world, in tubes with TV's and air conditioners......etc?
They can't even speak the words, "Want a nanner?"
Identical would require a clone, that's 100% identical DNA required to look the same. 1% difference is a few million different genes, your perspective is lacking, this isn't like roulette where each 1% is a single number. 1%= millions of differences in the genome.

You are less than 0.0001% different from your parents, do you look exactly like them?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#105791 Jan 1, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>DNA does not say we are. DNA explains why we are what we are, That is merely a biased interpretation. If we share 98% of our DNA with some apes, then why aren't we 98% indentical? Why can they not build roads, and machines to drive down them, with computors that can park them, at air ports where they can fly around the world, in tubes with TV's and air conditioners......etc?
They can't even speak the words, "Want a nanner?"
Oh, and where's your evidence that something else did it? Still waiting.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#105792 Jan 1, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean like dark matter
Demonstrable, just not understood.
MazHere wrote:
and abiogenesis abviously.
You think abiogenesis never occurred? Has there ALWAYS been life on Earth? If yes, then you're right. If no, then abiogenesis occurred. The exact mechanism isn't fully understood. Just like the exact nature of dark matter isn't fully understood. That doesn't mean what you think it means.

It doesn't matter if we UNDERSTAND something. If we can DEMONSTRATE it, we can work on figuring it out. If we CAN'T demonstrate it, it's just as good as not being real (e.g., your God).
MazHere wrote:
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.
I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what you're saying. Anybody got a "Captain Caveman - English" dictionary?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#105793 Jan 1, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>DNA does not say we are. DNA explains why we are what we are, That is merely a biased interpretation. If we share 98% of our DNA with some apes, then why aren't we 98% indentical? Why can they not build roads, and machines to drive down them, with computors that can park them, at air ports where they can fly around the world, in tubes with TV's and air conditioners......etc?
They can't even speak the words, "Want a nanner?"
Gorillas can say lots of things.

And, understand lots of things.

http://youtu.be/CYD6KZsOjxw

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 Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 8 min Eagle 12 - 32,429
Mathematicians PROVED evolution IMPOSSIBLE! 53 min Simon 767
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 1 hr Eagle 12 - 1,314
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr 15th Dalai Lama 78,469
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) Aug 13 Science 222,113
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... (Jan '17) Aug 5 yehoshooah adam 4,381
News Intelligent Design Education Day - Dallas Aug 2 John B 4
More from around the web