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
103,821 - 103,840 of 134,501 Comments Last updated 3 hrs ago

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105832
Jan 1, 2013
 
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm just going to address this. Not a single thing you mentioned had to do with "creation theory." You didn't answer the question. Answer the question.
Maz never makes an real attempt to answer the question. It is always lies and misdirection.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105833
Jan 1, 2013
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Mankind is capable of projection.
You, however, prefer to be called an ape.
Ape!
That's Mrs. Ape to you.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105834
Jan 1, 2013
 
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
I wonder how we were able to mate and produce fertile offspring with them if you are right and if we are not related??
I would suspect that Maz reproduced in fine creationist fashion by laying there quietly and obediently for the full 15 seconds.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105835
Jan 1, 2013
 
MIDutch wrote:
<quoted text>
Still LYING through your teeth, eh, Malarkeyman11.
You still destroying children's futures with these LIES of yours?
BTW talking animals like Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck are part of YOUR side of the SCIENCE vs bronze age FAIRY TALES "debate", are they not? It IS you "fundamentalist christian creationists" who have a talking snake and a talking donkey as part of your "science", don't you?
I would say that they are not limited to one talking jackass.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Lagrangian L2

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105836
Jan 1, 2013
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Neither do I have sufficient faith to be an evolutionist. It appears to be more plausible to evoke a deity than to suggest dirt could morph itself into a complex factory of reproduction.
I also do not care that evos support TOE. However this attitude of superiority is perplexing and totally false.
They never offer an appropriate response when they are backed to the corner and then defer to philosophy as the escape route.
If only they could be honest about it, we could all have a proper discourse with them, but this is virtually impossible with most.
Hey Mazzie, how’s tricks…?
We know that every scientific organization on earth supports the ‘theory’ of evolution and that about 95%+of individual scientists support it.

We also know that the ‘theory’ has been around now for 150+ years and despite hundreds, maybe thousands, of attacks by individuals, and institutions, it has stood strong and shown to be irrefutable.

The only ones that are attacking evolution nowadays are the religious evangelical fundamentalist wacko’s. Mainstream Christianity has pretty much accepted that evolution is true. They are able to look at the evidence and make logical and rational decisions based on real facts.

You are a Biblical literalist apparently and think the earth is only 6,000 years old, that there was a world-wide flood, that the Hebrews were in Egypt for 400+ years and made a magical Exodus out of there, and all the other magical things the Bible writes about. Most of those Biblical stories HAVE been falsified and we know they are not true…we know they are myth, and have the evidence to back it up.

So you just keep doing your rants against reality and truth, keep trying to fool people by lying for Jesus, and we will sit back and laugh at you. Your God is non-existent and your religion is false and not very people friendly…and you my friend grate on my nerves with you supercilious attitude.

With love,
the wordofme

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Lagrangian L2

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105837
Jan 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
That's Mrs. Ape to you.
:-)

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Lagrangian L2

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105838
Jan 1, 2013
 
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I would suspect that Maz reproduced in fine creationist fashion by laying there quietly and obediently for the full 15 seconds.
What!....does she really have a Ho-Ha ??
KAB

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105839
Jan 1, 2013
 
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Yada, yada, yada....
Was it Thumper's father who is credited with saying that if your back is to the wall just type a mindless expression (i.e., the equivalent of nothing at all)?

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105840
Jan 1, 2013
 
MazHere wrote:
Faith is no problem for evos, but it seems they are the only ones permitted to operate by faith.
Evolutionists operate by faith. However, they will struggle if it is pointed out to them.
Compare the process whereby most people become religionists with the process whereby most people become Evolutionists and one will see that your accusation is unfair.

If the preaching is fervent enough and if the choir music is beautiful enough, people will answer an altar call and become religionists.

I have never heard of a person becoming an Evolutionist that quickly. I used to know a biologist who delievered speeches and debates on the topic. He won some believers, but not that easily. He has occasionally been approached by an interested party after a speech or debate. He would give the person a suggested reading list and contact information. The interested party would usually declare himself or herself an Evolutionist only after diligent reading and several letters written back and forth.
KAB

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105841
Jan 1, 2013
 
Thomas Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Compare the process whereby most people become religionists with the process whereby most people become Evolutionists and one will see that your accusation is unfair.
If the preaching is fervent enough and if the choir music is beautiful enough, people will answer an altar call and become religionists.
I have never heard of a person becoming an Evolutionist that quickly. I used to know a biologist who delievered speeches and debates on the topic. He won some believers, but not that easily. He has occasionally been approached by an interested party after a speech or debate. He would give the person a suggested reading list and contact information. The interested party would usually declare himself or herself an Evolutionist only after diligent reading and several letters written back and forth.
The way it works with the true religion (i.e., the religion of the truth) is that one analyzes/scrutinizes every point and joins with those who are most in harmony with what is true as best it can be known (Acts 17:11).

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105842
Jan 1, 2013
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The way it works with the true religion (i.e., the religion of the truth) is that one analyzes/scrutinizes every point and joins with those who are most in harmony with what is true as best it can be known (Acts 17:11).
so you are reinterpreting your own book to suit you, it's still just an assertion and not evidence. Evidence on here demonstrates you don't analyze anything that is evidence opposing your myths, end of story.
KAB

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105843
Jan 1, 2013
 
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey Mazzie, how’s tricks…?
We know that every scientific organization on earth supports the ‘theory’ of evolution and that about 95%+of individual scientists support it.
We also know that the ‘theory’ has been around now for 150+ years and despite hundreds, maybe thousands, of attacks by individuals, and institutions, it has stood strong and shown to be irrefutable.
The only ones that are attacking evolution nowadays are the religious evangelical fundamentalist wacko’s. Mainstream Christianity has pretty much accepted that evolution is true. They are able to look at the evidence and make logical and rational decisions based on real facts.
You are a Biblical literalist apparently and think the earth is only 6,000 years old, that there was a world-wide flood, that the Hebrews were in Egypt for 400+ years and made a magical Exodus out of there, and all the other magical things the Bible writes about. Most of those Biblical stories HAVE been falsified and we know they are not true…we know they are myth, and have the evidence to back it up.
So you just keep doing your rants against reality and truth, keep trying to fool people by lying for Jesus, and we will sit back and laugh at you. Your God is non-existent and your religion is false and not very people friendly…and you my friend grate on my nerves with you supercilious attitude.
With love,
the wordofme
It should be noted for the record that you asserted a lot but provided no data for anything. Maz has provided data in response to which your side has provided none. Any here who are seeking the truth can easily see the difference.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105844
Jan 1, 2013
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It should be noted for the record that you asserted a lot but provided no data for anything. Maz has provided data in response to which your side has provided none. Any here who are seeking the truth can easily see the difference.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_soci...

The rest is on the forum for all to see.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105845
Jan 1, 2013
 
These next two posts are dedicated to MazHere, to marksman11, and to anyone else who thinks that Evolution is a blind faith.

HOW I BECAME AN EVOLUTIONIST

About twenty years ago, when I started to write a paper on pedophilia, nothing was farther from my mind than Evolution and Creationism. In fact, none of my library sources ever mentioned Evolution and Creationism. However, everything I learned pointed in that direction. Let me explain.

I learned that sexual abuse offenders tend to be the youngest in the family, having grown up with no younger children to nurture.(That is what Bernard wrote in 1975 and Raboch & Raboch wrote in 1986.).) I learned that offenders tended to grow up lacking contact with cross-sex peers.(That is what Goldstein, Kant, & Hartman wrote in 1973.) I learned that offenders tended not to have children of their own.(That is what Bernard wrote in 1975.) I learned that fathers and stepfathers who have cared for their children since infancy are found disproportionately seldom in incest studies.(That is what Kaufman, Peck, & Taguiri wrote in 1954

In an extended family dwelling, it is unlikely that a child will ever want for a younger child to nurture. A child with no younger siblings to nurture will at least have younger cousins to nurture. It is also unlikely that a child will ever want for experience with cross-sex peers. A child with no cross-sex sibling will at least have cross-sex cousins.
It is also unlikely that an adult will ever want for children to nurture. An adult with no offspring to nurture will at least have nieces and nephews to nurture. This led me to the conclusion that we are programmed for life in an extended family, and that we switched to the nuclear family system too fast for Evolution to catch up.

If my conclusions are correct, then pedophilia should be absent in other cultures where the extended family system prevails. Is such the case? It seems to be absent in cultures in which boys and girls are free to associate with each other. Such cultures include the Trobriand tribe of Melanesia (which Malinowski wrote about in 1927 and 1929) and the Muria tribe of India (which Currier wrote about in 1981).

However, there are societies which practice ritual sexual abuse of boys, and those are the societies which tend to separate the boys from the girls.(That is what Muensterberger wrote in 1967.)

Evolution seems to have provided us with a check against sexual attraction to children. Body parts which we find attractive in cross-sex adults tend to be smaller in children. For example, children have proportionately smaller genitals.

What are children endowed with instead? As Lorenz commented in 1943 and 1950, a large head and large eyes contribute to a child’s cuteness. If you look at cartoon characters, you will see that they are drawn with proportionately large heads and large eyes to contribute to their cuteness. Cuteness, in turn, evokes parental affection, and parental affection prevents a fatal case of merasmus.

And that, my friends, is how I came to embrace Evolution. And that was with no science teacher, no family member, and no other person pressuring me.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105846
Jan 1, 2013
 
HOW I CAME TO REJECT MAINLINE RELIGION

I’m still talking about my paper on pedophilia. I learned that pedophiles tend to hold an idealized image of children, as if they were emissaries of God.(This is what Segal & Stermac wrote in 1990). This caused me to ask the question what, then, is the true nature of children? Are they born in the image and likeness of God, as some religionists would have us believe? Or are they conceived in Original Sin, as other religionists would have us believe? Or are they born as blank slates, as John Locke would have us believe?

So then I asked myself four questions:

1. What is attractive to children and good for children?

In response to this question, I listed friends, healthy affection, outdoor exercise, and milk.

2. What is unattractive to children and harmful to children?

I listed sharp objects, high places, and wild animals.

3. What is attractive to children but harmful to children?

I listed excessive video and TV, junk food, illegal drugs, and playing in the middle of the street.

4. What is unattractive to children but good for children?

I listed schoolwork and penicillin shots.

If the God-created-man-in-his-own-ima ge proponents were right, there would only be answers for 1 and 2. 3 and 4 would be blank. If the Original Sin proponents were right, there would only be answers for 3 and 4. 1 and 2 would be blank. If John Locke were right, all four would be blank.

What, then, is the true nature of children? If you compare the items on these lists, you will see that the items in the first two lists are items which exist in nature, whereas the items in the last two lists are modern inventions. This leads me to the conclusion that children are born for survival in primitive times. If that doesn’t point toward Evolution, I don’t know what does.

Does this mean that children are superior to adults or inferior to adults? Neither. In an extended family, men, women, boys, and girls all play roles. Men, women, boys, and girls need men, women, boys, and girls, and in all sixteen permutations. We can not say that one age/gender category is better than another any more than we can say that one food group is more nutritious than another.

But let’s go back to the subject of pedophilia. If an adult attracted to children were to answer an altar call and commit his life to serving God, would that heal him of his malady? It doesn’t look like it. In fact, pedophiles tend to come from religious homes.
(That is what Toobert, Bartelme, & James wrote in 1959.)

And that, my friends, is how I came to reject mainline religion. And that was in an isolated rural village averaging 1 church for every 20 households.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105847
Jan 1, 2013
 
KAB wrote:
The way it works with the true religion (i.e., the religion of the truth) is that one analyzes/scrutinizes every point and joins with those who are most in harmony with what is true as best it can be known (Acts 17:11).
That may be the way that Acts 17:11 says to do it, but that's not how it's done.
A research team asked subjects the questions what church do you go to and why.
They got two answers the most often.
One answer was "It's conveniently located," the other answer was "We were lonely when we moved here and we were invited by a member of that church."
marksman11

Asheville, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105848
Jan 1, 2013
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Neither do I have sufficient faith to be an evolutionist. It appears to be more plausible to evoke a deity than to suggest dirt could morph itself into a complex factory of reproduction.
I also do not care that evos support TOE. However this attitude of superiority is perplexing and totally false.
They never offer an appropriate response when they are backed to the corner and then defer to philosophy as the escape route.
If only they could be honest about it, we could all have a proper discourse with them, but this is virtually impossible with most.
You are so right, and I'm glad you're here!!!
marksman11

Asheville, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105849
Jan 1, 2013
 
Thomas Robertson wrote:
HOW I CAME TO REJECT MAINLINE RELIGION
I’m still talking about my paper on pedophilia. I learned that pedophiles tend to hold an idealized image of children, as if they were emissaries of God.(This is what Segal & Stermac wrote in 1990). This caused me to ask the question what, then, is the true nature of children? Are they born in the image and likeness of God, as some religionists would have us believe? Or are they conceived in Original Sin, as other religionists would have us believe? Or are they born as blank slates, as John Locke would have us believe?
So then I asked myself four questions:
1. What is attractive to children and good for children?
In response to this question, I listed friends, healthy affection, outdoor exercise, and milk.
2. What is unattractive to children and harmful to children?
I listed sharp objects, high places, and wild animals.
3. What is attractive to children but harmful to children?
I listed excessive video and TV, junk food, illegal drugs, and playing in the middle of the street.
4. What is unattractive to children but good for children?
I listed schoolwork and penicillin shots.
If the God-created-man-in-his-own-ima ge proponents were right, there would only be answers for 1 and 2. 3 and 4 would be blank. If the Original Sin proponents were right, there would only be answers for 3 and 4. 1 and 2 would be blank. If John Locke were right, all four would be blank.
What, then, is the true nature of children? If you compare the items on these lists, you will see that the items in the first two lists are items which exist in nature, whereas the items in the last two lists are modern inventions. This leads me to the conclusion that children are born for survival in primitive times. If that doesn’t point toward Evolution, I don’t know what does.
Does this mean that children are superior to adults or inferior to adults? Neither. In an extended family, men, women, boys, and girls all play roles. Men, women, boys, and girls need men, women, boys, and girls, and in all sixteen permutations. We can not say that one age/gender category is better than another any more than we can say that one food group is more nutritious than another.
But let’s go back to the subject of pedophilia. If an adult attracted to children were to answer an altar call and commit his life to serving God, would that heal him of his malady? It doesn’t look like it. In fact, pedophiles tend to come from religious homes.
(That is what Toobert, Bartelme, & James wrote in 1959.)
And that, my friends, is how I came to reject mainline religion. And that was in an isolated rural village averaging 1 church for every 20 households.
Your premise is a silly one. You have no idea of every situation. 1....there are exceptions to everyone of your examples, and 2....it is silly to base the validity of a religion on examples of childrens individuality. Maybe you should search out the validity of the resurrection, rather than which children like milk. Frankly, I found your post creepy!
marksman11

Asheville, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105850
Jan 1, 2013
 
MIDutch wrote:
<quoted text>
Still LYING through your teeth, eh, Malarkeyman11.
You still destroying children's futures with these LIES of yours?
BTW talking animals like Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck are part of YOUR side of the SCIENCE vs bronze age FAIRY TALES "debate", are they not? It IS you "fundamentalist christian creationists" who have a talking snake and a talking donkey as part of your "science", don't you?
No, my science, unlike yours, demands observability, testing, and replication. THe talking snake and such are supernatural events that I take on faith. Birds can talk, so there! If you want to enter the fantasy world of Donald Duck and Micky Mouse, and Punctuated Equalibria, human from non-human evolution, abiogenesis, being kin to plants.....then that is your world. Not mine. I don't have time for ignorance like that.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105851
Jan 1, 2013
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
That's Mrs. Ape to you.
THank you for clarifying that Mrs. Ape.

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.

•••
•••