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

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

There are 143949 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

#105910 Jan 2, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
marksman, if my diagnosis and solution for pedophilia is "creepy," what do you suggest instead?
Don't base the validity of religious beliefs on your interests in sexual perversions.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#105911 Jan 2, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
When we stroke a dog or a cat, our inner brains tell us that we are inspecting a juvenile for lice. Likewise, when we stroke another human being, our inner brains tell us the same thing. Of course, we lost most of our fur long ago, but our inner brains don't know that.
You are joking, right?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#105912 Jan 2, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false.
The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Ado...
This article says a similar thing.
Learning from our GWAS mistakes: from experimental design to scientific method (2012)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3...
So although evolutionists can present mountains of papers, I suggest are biased and contrived, it appears their credibility is fairly challenged by evolutionary researchers, not just me. The only difference is they still believe 'it all evolved', and I do not.
I mentioned the issue in an earlier post - that this is a problem of false positive association common in epidemiological studies.

When you look through a data set looking for associations, you are sure to find them, but they do not establish cause and effect and are often just the luck of the draw. One famous case of a false positive was the false reading that hormone treatment (HRT)for older women was healthy.

Every day you read some spurious junk in a newspaper about carrots being associated with higher levels of ingrown toenails or some such nonsense...

But my point is, this criticism does not apply to the kind of biological and genomic research we are looking at with evolution. The case mentioned in your study was looking for genetic associations with Alzheimers. Now, how is that related to evolutionary theory?

Now, can you take something that is such as -

mitochondrial haplotype analysis to show migration patterns and the nested hierarchy of racial differences in the mitochondial DNA?

how about the variation shown in the non-functional portion of cytochrome-c, which shows an excellent nested hierarchy across virtually all living things (which happens to agree with other similar analyses and with the pattern of the fossil record)?

how about the famous Lenski experiments showing adaptation and evolution of the ability to digest citrates? Or its wild counterpart, the discovery of bacteria that had learned to digest nylonase? If you say "its just adaptation" I will agree with you, but then, why should such adaptation stop at some predefined barrier as anti-evolutionists suggest? What is evolution except for a continual series of such adaptations?

So how are the above findings prone to the specific sort of statistical defects your articles are discussing? I do not see it, so it looks to me like the form of your argument is "some types of research are prone to false positive associations, therefore all research is suspect".

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#105913 Jan 2, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>No, what you see is that you haven't thought this thing through, like you thought you had.<quoted text>No, what it proves is that nature can not produce life without a designer to organise and guide it. Again, you have not thought this through. If nature can not produce life, and a deity is not needed, then a scientist is needed. So who produced this living scientist that is going to produce the first life?
Gottcha!!!!!!!
Nope. If the scientist is merely recreating the conditions that could have existed naturally, then "lab-life" would not prove a designer is necessary. Quite the opposite. It would demonstrate that given the right conditions, life could spontaneously arise.

Of course, I grant that this is, for now, a hypothetical discussion. But who cares? The validity of evolution does not rest on abiogenesis, nor on the big bang, nor dark matter, nor any other science other than that which establishes an Old Earth i.e. geology and radiometric dating.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#105914 Jan 2, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Is it? It looks like what TR is saying is that a real problem, this evil of pedophilia, can be traced to some real explanations and that there are discoverable reasons why some men's sexual proclivities are warped in this way. This kind of understanding can lead, possibly, to real solutions to the problem. A real solution that might remove the urge in the first place.
On the other hand, your proposed answer, I am guessing, goes something like this: man has Original Sin and has to control his bad urges and beg forgiveness from Christ for the bad things he has thought and done.
It might be one solution, but it does not get to the core. Its more of a traditional control solution based on the fact that nobody had any real idea why some men do bad things, so they put a label on it, called it bad, and told men than unimaginably painful punishments would await them for all eternity if they did not control themselves.
Modern science including evolution can explain a lot about our behaviors and help us understand them and where necessary modify them. That last bit has been the role of religions in the past - controlling human behavior in a way that makes civilisation possible. I am not one for grand social experiments that ignore the accumulated wisdom of the past. We saw where utopian communism and hippy free love delusions got us.
However, really understanding ourselves rather than just slapping a label on things has got to be a good thing, and if this knowledge is used wisely should lead to good outcomes in the future. You will note that TR's posts contained a lot of scientific support for the value of the traditional family structure.
You seem to think that christianity is a structure to deal with society in certain ways. It is not that at all. Christianity is an individual who accepts Jesus Christ atonement on the cross for the forgiveness of their sins. THey are still what ever they were before. GOD most often changes them for his use in his plan, but that usually has nothing to do with your science, or your opinions on philosphy, or your opinions concerning the real world. If you are trying to base religious validity on it's effect on society, then you are barking up the wrong tree. Christian life is about serving GOD, not serving society in ways others think it should be.
I mentioned the resurrection of Jesus to TR. That is the validater. Christianity rises and falls in the resurrection. Wanna see Christianity crumble? Disprove the resurrection. it's been 2000 years with critics ripping and tearing at everyside. Go for it.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#105915 Jan 2, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I am having trouble posting. If this is a double. I apologize in advance.... Thanks for your gracious comments in other posts.
Cladistics is prefered because your tree is not working, and is quite a mess. Did Linnaeus predict whales would be classified as tetrapods? Did he set up for the 3 domains of life or just 2?
The fact that I can separate man from ape demonstrates it is arbitrarily about, if one is seeking similarity or difference.
I suggest Hierarchies are a mess.. Sorry!
Aves...
http://www.bio.fsu.edu/James/Ornithological%2...
Your cited article is offering alternative possible family trees for the original ancestors of modern birds. Would we expect that to be immediately obvious, especially given that all their close relatives, the dinosaurs, are long gone? This article is debating the exact attachment point, which can only be surmised from the patchy fossil record.

Yet evolution does explain the 30+ species of feathered dino-avian fossils that are so convergent (between early birds and contemporary dinosaurs) that they demonstrate the general point. The Creationists argue among themselves as to whether the venerable Archaeopteryx, the first of these finds, was really a bird or a therapod dinosaur. They argue because they insist on the eternal separation of Kinds, while the fact that they cannot agree which Kind Archie belongs to just supports convergence!

My point was that the original Linnaean system was based only on comparative anatomy and did NOT assume evolution. But evolution based classification agrees with that system remarkably well. Meaning the system is not arbitrary, but an objective classification system which evolution (but not ex-nihilo Creation) explains remarkably well.
Cetacia, where we all know dna contradicts morphology and morphology is all there is in fossils.eg whales/hippos/pigs.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.13...
Sorry, how does Cetacean DNA contradict morphology? And what are you going to do with Ambulocetus etc? Just try to throw them in the same "flood bin" that therapsids, archosaurs, tiktaalik, Homo habilis, archaeopteryx and microraptor, eohippus, and miacids all get conveniently tossed into? Yes, the ones that show unmistakable evidence of convergence in the fossil record?
The system is arbitrary for the reasons I have already outlined in mankind. I am also able to choose suites of traits that equally separate man from other primates, let alone chimps. It IS therefore arbitrary.
No, I don't think so. You can list the distinctive traits of Man, as a separate species. Then you can list all the things he has in common with apes. Then in common with monkeys, then primates, then mammals, then vertebrates. Its not arbitrary at all - its a rigid nested hierarchy.
Old bible writers already had the basic outline sorted, anyway, so I do not understand the point you are trying to make.
Apart from confusing bats with birds, whales with fish, and claiming some insects had four legs? Not bad, but hardly "infallible".
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#105916 Jan 2, 2013
Whisgean Zoda wrote:
Kind of funny that you would use that Shakespeare quote cuz let me tell ya something brother, I have seen and experienced shit that you would NOT believe and could not explain if you had experienced them for yourself.
As for what else I "assume", it's not an assumption, it's called a fact. There's more than enough data to refute the possibility that the genetic code was randomly constructed. It's all about the codons and the way the genetic code clusters certain amino acid assignments.
And we agree. Chemistry is not random. That's why two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom have a habit of making water, not helium, argon, or tomato soup.
Whisgean Zoda wrote:
What you hinted at in your question to me is what sounds like the hypothesis of Biosynthetic Expansion. Yes, I'm also aware of the circumstantial evidence supporting it but hell, I can give you lots of circumstantial evidence of God too.
And we can give lots of circumstantial evidence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Whisgean Zoda wrote:
The problem is the precise and detailed hypotheses about which amino acids entered the code in what order have proved more than problematic.
However the theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis, not a theory. And it's currently being researched by numerous scientific organisations across the world. But it has no bearing on the validity of the theory of evolution.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#105917 Jan 2, 2013
MazHere wrote:
Evos are still confused over whale bones found in strata dated to 290mya

http://www.ehow.com/list_7182299_fossils-foun...
Totally unconvincing. You can't do better than that?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#105918 Jan 2, 2013
Whisgean Zoda wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it'll just prove that life requires some kind of "creator".
But not necessarily intelligent.

For example, the fact that humans can put seeds in a plant pot is not evidence that every single plant on Earth was planted by people. Likewise, a scientific experiment mimicking a natural environment is not evidence that the environment was intelligently designed. Here is the difference:

Scientists deliberately putting protiens together to make a retrovirus would be an example of deliberate intent to make that organism.

Scientists recreating the environment that enabled abiogenesis to occur and letting the... "ingredients" if you like, for lack of a better term, generate life naturally is NOT an example of deliberate intent to make that organism. Just like a wind tunnel is not evidence of wind motions being "designed", but merely an attempt to recreate natural environments.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#105919 Jan 2, 2013
MazHere wrote:
I am not a JW and I don't particularly care how old the cosmos is. However your dating methods are another topic altogether and leave much to be desired.
That is why you fail.
MazHere wrote:
Dirt miraculously and unstubratiatingly organized itself into a complex factory of reproduction instead of some higher intelligence do a similar thing but on a larger scale. Actually, your scenario sounds the more non-plausible.
In your uneducated opinion. However your position is the one with no evidence nor mechanisms. Also abiogenesis is not relevant to the validity of the theory of evolution. 5 months and you still aren't able to deal with that.
MazHere wrote:
Your entire cosmology was overturned with an expanding universe and dark energy, a powerful and unknown mystery is invented to hand wave that away because previous cosmology was falsified.
Yes, science adapts to new evidence. And you still have no explanation for the fact that the math model of dark energy fits with observable astronomical phenomena when calculations are applied. "God just made it that way!" is as scientific as you can get.
MazHere wrote:
This published paper appears to support much of what creationists have been suggesting all along. It is backed by cited commentry.
There are no science papers that support magic Jews period.
MazHere wrote:
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false.
Then all your arguments for the past 5 months are false. QED.
MazHere wrote:
Evolutionists require at least as much faith as any creationist, and likely more!
Which is why you constantly run away to another topic instead of deal with our posts that demonstrate you wrong and demonstrate evolution to be scientific.
MazHere wrote:
I don't think it is me that is doing the lying around here.
That's because you don't think.(shrug) You just lie, and get tripped up on your own lies. Leaving behind an incoherent mishmash of nonsense backed up with nothing but delusions of grandeur. Apparently you're the greatest scientist on Earth. And all you're capable of is getting thrashed by a bunch of geeks on some insignificant forum on the internet.

Just promise me that in 20 years time, if we're all still alive and haven't been run over or bludgeoned to death by the holy hordes of Big J's big comeback, just promise that you will still use the same user-name. And we'll take a look at reality and see just how far creationism and evolution has come in the meantime.

It'll probably look very similar to today, and you'll still be whining about the big evil world-wide atheist Darwinist scientist evolutionist Gummint conspiracy.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#105920 Jan 2, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>You seem to think that christianity is a structure to deal with society in certain ways. It is not that at all. Christianity is an individual who accepts Jesus Christ atonement on the cross for the forgiveness of their sins. THey are still what ever they were before. GOD most often changes them for his use in his plan, but that usually has nothing to do with your science, or your opinions on philosphy, or your opinions concerning the real world. If you are trying to base religious validity on it's effect on society, then you are barking up the wrong tree. Christian life is about serving GOD, not serving society in ways others think it should be.
I mentioned the resurrection of Jesus to TR. That is the validater. Christianity rises and falls in the resurrection. Wanna see Christianity crumble? Disprove the resurrection. it's been 2000 years with critics ripping and tearing at everyside. Go for it.
If a person needed to believe in Christ's resurrection and forgiveness in order to live a good life, then a better society would be a useful side effect. I do believe that those anti-evolutionist Christians who are somewhat better than the craven "Pascal's Wager" bunch i.e. not simply showing a cowardly fear of death for themselves, are motivated by the honest belief that without Christian morals, society will crumble. And it is a common fault of utopian "modern" types to scoff at and ignore traditional morality and replacing it with unlimited experiments that end up being very destructive.

Luckily, though, I don't believe that even what is called traditional morality today comes from just the Christian tradition. Its fully infused with Enlightenment values which is why you no longer condone slavery or burning witches and you support the US Constitution which is a thoroughly modern document in spirit and practice.

The resurrection is not open to disproof nor to proof as its only testimony comes decades after the purported fact from inconsistent and unreliable sources. The intensity of conviction you site as evidence? Try hanging out with any modern cult and you will see the same thing. I knew people willing to die for Scientology!

But as you have heard before, its extraordinary claims that require extraordinary evidence. That is why i do not believe in the resurrection story. And I would be happy to leave you to your convictions if you guys were not trying to corrupt science!
LowellGuy

Lowell, MA

#105921 Jan 2, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>It is you guys that ignorantly demand proof. We creationists are honest enough to admit that our beliefs are faith based. We don't have to scientifically prove our beliefs. Science is not qualified to verify our beliefs. It is ignorant to even request scientific proof for beliefs rooted in a supernatural deity. Your premise is all wrong. You keep requesting we provide scientific proof, when our beliefs are beyond scientific verification. We are not like you. WE don't think like you. We don't want to think like you. We pity people that do think like you, and we teach our children not to think like you.
Yeah! You're right and that's that! Nyah!
LowellGuy

Lowell, MA

#105922 Jan 2, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Start with reading, "Who moved the Stone?", then examine the facts displayed in the gospels, then the history of the disciples, then start asking questions of why? WHy did the disciples die the deaths they died? Where were they when they died and why were they there? Were they alone? Why would they die these terrible deaths defending the resurrection of Jesus? Would you die alone for a lie? What changed Peter from the inability to even tell a little girl he was a follower of Jesus, to about 50 days later standing before the leaders of Israel and accusing them of killing the messiah? What gave him this change in courage? How did John go from a "Son of Thunder" to the apostle of love in one instant? What event changed him? What changed Thomas from doubting, to die in Madras India while trying to esablish a church there to proclaim the resurrection of Jesus? Attack this like the FBI would a murder case. Start here and then get serious. Your eternity depends on it.
When you start with the premise that the gospel stories are facts, you've assumed the validity of the claims before they've been verified. The claim is not evidence of the claim's veracity.
LowellGuy

Lowell, MA

#105923 Jan 2, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>No, what you see is that you haven't thought this thing through, like you thought you had.<quoted text>No, what it proves is that nature can not produce life without a designer to organise and guide it. Again, you have not thought this through. If nature can not produce life, and a deity is not needed, then a scientist is needed. So who produced this living scientist that is going to produce the first life?
Gottcha!!!!!!!
You are assuming the answer in the question. Dishonest. The question is, how did life arise, not who created life. You don't get to assume the answer, because that allows you to stop your search for the explanation that fits the evidence. Your intellectual satisfaction with your easy answer has nothing to do with whether it's true or not. But, you don't care if it's true; you only care that you believe it, therefore everything else MUST be wrong. The universe is not obligated to conform itself to your ignorance.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#105924 Jan 2, 2013
MazHere wrote:
Life is here. The onus is on both of us to demonstrate, HOW it arises by natural processes if it did
Actually it's only on you. Evolution doesn't care if life was poofed by Jew magic. You know this. Evolution doesn't have to explain abio for the same reason gravitation doesn't have to explain the origin of mass.
MazHere wrote:
or how an organism can be instantly formed, by physics.
Hey, YOU'RE the creo. That's your job.
MazHere wrote:
My lack of understanding is no different than your own. It does not matter if you can present libraries of data and its interpretation because, likewise, so can creationists. Both can apparently challenge each other using their own assumptions of data.
Except ours passes the scientific method. Jewmagic doesn't.
MazHere wrote:
I have no problem converting to theistic evolutionism.
Of course you do. Otherwise you wouldn't put so much effort into denyiny reality. However theism is irrelevant to science.
MazHere wrote:
The thing to me in all sencerity, is that
You're a liar for Jesus period.
MazHere wrote:
I just would like to know in my lifetime but likely won't.
You are not important. An event 4 billion years ago that may have took hundreds of thousands or even millions of years will not be solved over night. I'm quite content even if we never find out. It has no bearing on evolution.
MazHere wrote:
I have other sources of faith in God that do not relate to the creation/evolution debate.
And they are utterly irrelevant.
MazHere wrote:
Indeed, one may take so many failed attempts to demonstrate this process of abiogenesis, in a controlled lab setting, where every possible scenario of nature can be mimicked, as evidence that it cannot be done by nature alone.
See my previous post to the new guy.
MazHere wrote:
So my paradign is based on 2 assumptions.
1 - Reality isn't real.

2 - Invisible Jewmagic.
MazHere wrote:
If one is an atheist
That's not relevant to science either. Got a beef with them? Go take it up with them.
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.
Life is chemistry. It occurs naturally. It has mechanisms. This is observed. The first organisms are microbial/bacterial in nature, and show gradual development in the fossil record. God IS possible. But there is no evidence. And unlike abio which is being researched at places such as the likes of Harvard, invisible Jewmagic is not scientifically testable.

Feel free to call Harvard and inform them of your amazing scientific insight so they can stop wasting their time researching and just put their hands together and preach invisible magic Jew vibes instead.
LowellGuy

Lowell, MA

#105925 Jan 2, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Statisics show that once you reach 1 in 10 to the 50th. power, you have reached statical zero possiblities of the event occuring. My number was beyond that.<quoted text>That is exactly the argument that those in here (unsuccessfully) try to make. They believe we are kin to tobacco stalks.
What are the odds that the ultimate authority for morality would command genocide, condone slavery, force women to marry the men who raped them, kill people for marital infidelity or working on the weekend, and care more about dress codes and what you eat than ending the dehumanizing practice of owning other people as slaves?
LowellGuy

Lowell, MA

#105926 Jan 2, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>You seem to think that christianity is a structure to deal with society in certain ways. It is not that at all. Christianity is an individual who accepts Jesus Christ atonement on the cross for the forgiveness of their sins. THey are still what ever they were before. GOD most often changes them for his use in his plan, but that usually has nothing to do with your science, or your opinions on philosphy, or your opinions concerning the real world. If you are trying to base religious validity on it's effect on society, then you are barking up the wrong tree. Christian life is about serving GOD, not serving society in ways others think it should be.
I mentioned the resurrection of Jesus to TR. That is the validater. Christianity rises and falls in the resurrection. Wanna see Christianity crumble? Disprove the resurrection. it's been 2000 years with critics ripping and tearing at everyside. Go for it.
If you were born in Saudi Arabia, you'd be just as zealous about the Koran being true.

Science is equally valid everywhere.

Ever wonder why that is?

Of course not. You've been taught not to examine what you believe nor why you believe it.
LowellGuy

Lowell, MA

#105927 Jan 2, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I am having trouble posting. If this is a double. I apologize in advance.... Thanks for your gracious comments in other posts.
Cladistics is prefered because your tree is not working, and is quite a mess. Did Linnaeus predict whales would be classified as tetrapods? Did he set up for the 3 domains of life or just 2?
The fact that I can separate man from ape demonstrates it is arbitrarily about, if one is seeking similarity or difference.
I suggest Hierarchies are a mess.. Sorry!
Aves...
http://www.bio.fsu.edu/James/Ornithological%2...
Cetacia, where we all know dna contradicts morphology and morphology is all there is in fossils.eg whales/hippos/pigs.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.13...
The system is arbitrary for the reasons I have already outlined in mankind. I am also able to choose suites of traits that equally separate man from other primates, let alone chimps. It IS therefore arbitrary.
Old bible writers already had the basic outline sorted, anyway, so I do not understand the point you are trying to make.
And still..I am not an ape!
Look at this.... Rather than me try to challenge all, read this..
This published paper appears to support much of what creationists have been suggesting all along. It is backed by cited commentary.
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false.
The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Ado...
This article says a similar thing.
Learning from our GWAS mistakes: from experimental design to scientific method (2012)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3...
So although evolutionists can present mountains of papers, I suggest are biased and contrived, it appears their credibility is fairly challenged by evolutionary researchers, not just me. The only difference is they still believe 'it all evolved', and I do not.
Are you a mammal?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#105928 Jan 2, 2013
MazHere wrote:
Ok so you agree than abiogenesis is not estabished and therefore I do not have to explain my genesis.
Yes, we know. Abiogenesis is currently a scientific hypothesis. You being an invisible Jewmagic proponent on the other hand don't have to explain anything at all. "God just made it that way!"

That's it. You have nothing else to offer except anti-evolution creationist apologetics.
MazHere wrote:
Now of all the BS you spoke about pick one.
They ain't my problems. You have to pick all of 'em. It might not have been so bad if we hadn't already been doing this dance for over 5 months.
MazHere wrote:
Before we get to your great hero flapping about Noah and genome deterioration, let me begin by asking you do you also now concede
I have not conceded anything. I GAVE you abio on a plate. Life was magically poofed. It still has no bearing on evolution.
MazHere wrote:
after blowing much hot air, that the deterioration of the genome (accumulation of deleterious mutations) can run along side a fully functioning genome and the two being in situ at the same time do not contradict each other?
Let's do an ignorance test, before we go any further.
Then by all means explain your racist position. You haven't been able to do this so far. If you have done so in the meantime during the last 10 or 11 pages then all you need to is link to the page as I've had a day away or so.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#105929 Jan 2, 2013
.Thomas Robertson wrote:
When we stroke a dog or a cat, our inner brains tell us that we are inspecting a juvenile for lice. Likewise, when we stroke another human being, our inner brains tell us the same thing. Of course, we lost most of our fur long ago, but our inner brains don't know that.

Marksman11 said:
You are joking, right?

Either I am or Desmond Morris is.

Morris, D. 1986a. Catwatching. New York: Crown Publishers.

_____. 1986b. Dogwatching. New York: Crown Publishers.

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 Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 3 min Aura Mytha 174,068
News Intelligent design 15 min Critical Eye 25
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 41 min Critical Eye 20,904
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) Thu Igor Trip 178,702
Science News NOT related to evolution (Jul '09) Sep 2 macumazahn 1,248
News Pastafarians rejoice! Deep sea creature floatin... Sep 2 karl44 1
Satan's Lies and Scientist Guys (Sep '14) Sep 2 dollarsbill 14
More from around the web