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

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

There are 141352 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!

#105972 Jan 2, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
The point we are trying to make is that Alice in Wonder land could also be true if you could support that claim. Common ancestors MAY be true, but you have not found any.
Your confusion around euglenas is your problem not creationists.We are sure evos will make it fit somehow even if you have to take a hammer to it to do so. Much the same as mythical theropds with modern avian feet and a plethora of descendants that predate their ancestors, there is always an evo story to tell.
The other little fact I'll let you in on off topic is that many researcher have also had a gut full of big bang theory based on mysteries and geocentric models are now available despite the struggle and the Copernican philosophy naturalists are guided by.
http://wallacegsmith.wordpress.com/2010/10/22...
Remember, many of your very own evolutionary researchers are saying....
"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"
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Ado...
Hence the evolutionary penchant...
I publish, therefore I exist, even though I do not have any clue what I am talking about.
Nope. The claim was made that it's IMPOSSIBLE for plants and animals to be related via a common ancestor. I want to see the evidence that supports this claim.

What is a euglena? Is it an animal? Is it a plant?

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#105973 Jan 2, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It should concern you that, knowing as you do that it's out there, you just can't seem to find it. The only way you can prove it's out there is to provide it like I do.
It's already been proven, just because you don't endorse it makes no diference to me.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#105974 Jan 2, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
There is nothing in Psalm 104:5 that requires Earth to be the center of the universe. The verse simply assures that Earth is permanent.
Earth is permanent? Really? I don't suppose you have evidence that Earth will exist into eternity, do you?

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#105975 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.
Would this mean that the research papers from places like AiG, ICR, and DI were also false?? Of course.
KAB

United States

#105976 Jan 2, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
So why did you use that if it's a fallacy? If that's your "standard" for evidence, then you have double standards.
I didn't use it. I responded to someone else's use of it, sarcastically drawing attention to the fallacy.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#105977 Jan 2, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
..and so say all of us.
I note Thomas is still going to try to convince me I am an ape by mentioning mammamals some of which 'poofed' a placenta into existence and because we have eyes and breathe we are all related. As if we have never been down that road nor heard of it.
Too bad that most current published research findings are false.
I doubt evolutionists care.
Peace and good will to you!
The only thing you ever repeat is "god dun it," you present no evidence to your assertion, and the sad thing is that you think your assertion is an actual answer.

Care to give an actual answer of how humans became human?

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#105978 Jan 2, 2013
Why do we grit our teeth, beat our fists, or stamp our feet when we're angry?
It doesn't hurt the other person one bit.
You can posit a red man with horns to explain this, but somehow, it makes better sense to me to explain it in terms of evolution.

Animals with fangs capture prey with their fangs.
Animals with paws capture prey with their paws.
It is perfectly logical, therefore, to say that our inner brains are telling us to capture prey with our fangs and with our paws.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#105979 Jan 2, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>1....if it proved that no designer was necessary, then no scientist would be necessary.
People put water into freezers to make ice, therefore water freezes because someone makes it freeze.
marksman11 wrote:
2....abiogenesis and human from non-human evolution are absolutely related. Chemicals, or the building blocks of life, had to somehow mix, with what ever other ingredients are necessary, to change into...or EVOLVE into life.[
When two hydrogen atoms meet an oxygen atom, they EVOLVE to become water? Chemistry is evolution. That's what you're saying. Chemistry = Evolution.
marksman11 wrote:
You guys try to keep it seperated because you have no observable evidence at all for abiogenesis, which then sheds a bad light on the validity of human from non-human evolution.
Just like the theory of gravity doesn't explain the origin of mass, therefore the theory of gravity is invalid. Biodiversity isn't the same as life arising, any more than gravity is the same as matter arising. While one might depend on the other occurring, that doesn't mean the theory of one must explain the other. Otherwise, you've got a bigger problem with science than simply the biological sciences. It's all of physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, cosmology...pretty much anything other than simply making shit up.
marksman11 wrote:
If it is found that a divine designer is absolutely necessary for the origin of life, then there is no need for evolution. To tie the two together makes both appear even weaker than they already are. You guys are trying unsuccessfully to avoid that.
As soon as you demonstrate that a divine designer is absolutely necessary for the origin of life, AND as soon as you demonstrate that every species we see was created separately and that we are not related to chimps or gorillas or dogs or, yes, tobacco plants based on something more than "nuh uh!" we'll accept your version of reality. Without evidence, it's just you making shit up, which is something you're legendary for.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#105980 Jan 2, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I'm just trying to determine where you stand.
I take it that you agree with the classification system in that we're mammals, but not that we're primates.
Is that correct?
Peronally, for me, I am not an ape. I am a human being. Apes are not human beings.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#105981 Jan 2, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
Why do we grit our teeth, beat our fists, or stamp our feet when we're angry?
It doesn't hurt the other person one bit.
You can posit a red man with horns to explain this, but somehow, it makes better sense to me to explain it in terms of evolution.
Animals with fangs capture prey with their fangs.
Animals with paws capture prey with their paws.
It is perfectly logical, therefore, to say that our inner brains are telling us to capture prey with our fangs and with our paws.
I don't do those things when I get angry.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#105982 Jan 2, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
The only thing you ever repeat is "god dun it," you present no evidence to your assertion, and the sad thing is that you think your assertion is an actual answer.
Care to give an actual answer of how humans became human?
http://youtu.be/OvmvxAcT_Yc
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#105983 Jan 2, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
The only thing you ever repeat is "god dun it," you present no evidence to your assertion, and the sad thing is that you think your assertion is an actual answer.
Can I play? You have no observable evidence to counter that GOD might just actually did do it. IFGod didn't do it, show us observable evidence of what did, and let us test and replicate it.
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Care to give an actual answer of how humans became human?
GOD created us that way.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#105984 Jan 2, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Peronally, for me, I am not an ape. I am a human being. Apes are not human beings.
Ape is a group of species, not a specific species. Our species is part of that group. It's not rocket science here.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#105985 Jan 2, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I don't do those things when I get angry.
Congratulations, you have overcome your basic instinctual behavior in that regard. Care to work on your "monster in the shadows" one now?

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#105986 Jan 2, 2013

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#105987 Jan 2, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Can I play? You have no observable evidence to counter that GOD might just actually did do it. IFGod didn't do it, show us observable evidence of what did, and let us test and replicate it.<quoted text>GOD created us that way.
Well, where is your evidence that your god is there? I still see none, so provide evidence to your assertion and then provide an answer that your assertion explains.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#105988 Jan 2, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
One thing they have also never come close to refuting is how is it possible for the two genders to evolve at the same time. That the two genders would evolve exactly at the same time, with the working organs needed, in place and ready, to procreate. How could the genders evolve, for millions of basic kinds, at the same time, to procreate? Their excuse is always they evolved from asexual species, but never how, why, where, when. Just THEY DID!!! Amazing!!!
This has recently become one of Duane Gish’s hits and I try to keep up with Duane Gish.
So it is important that I tackle this one.

As for your question, we don’t have the fossils to say where and when, but I’ll take on how and why. We can answer this question the same way we answer the what-good-is-half-an-eye question, because in both cases, we have species in each stage living today.

The first stage, as you may guess, is the asexual stage. We all seem to agree that there are asexual species living today, so we shall proceed to the next stage.

For the second stage, we have three options. We can have each member take on both functions. To put this in college dormitory slang, each member will be a “morphodyte.” Or, we can enable each member to change back and forth at will. Both models are represented by plant and animal species living today. Or, we can reproduce both sexually and asexually. This method is practiced by the slime mold amoeba. They tend to go the sexual route when resources get scarce.

At this point, the gametes, or the germ cells which unite with other germ cells, are not clearly identifiable as eggs and sperms. During the third stage, this identification gradually takes place.

At this stage, the gender of the individual could be determined not genetically, but environmentally. The gender of an insect could depend on its diet during the larval stage. The gender of an amphibian or reptile could depend on the temperature during incubation.

The fourth stage, of course, is the stage which we live in now.“It’s a boy!”“It’s a girl!” If we went the morphodyte route, everyone lost one function or the other. If we went the click-on-click-off route, everyone clicked one way and stay there. If we went the double-threat route, everyone dropped one method and kept the other.

Lest we pat ourselves on the back for reaching the finish line, let us remember that we still carry male boobies as vestigial organs.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#105989 Jan 2, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Can I play? You have no observable evidence to counter that GOD might just actually did do it. IFGod didn't do it, show us observable evidence of what did, and let us test and replicate it.<quoted text>GOD created us that way.
We don't have to disprove that God did it. You have to prove God did it. Your claim, your burden of proof.

And, you still have no idea what needs to be observed or replicated. Your misunderstanding of the scientific method continues uninterrupted. Good for you, retard.

Level 2

Since: Feb 12

Roseville, CA

#105990 Jan 2, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Would you please just give us specific data proving evolution so we can believe in it instead? Short of that, everyone's entitled to his choice of religion, right?
KAB, you believe that life on Earth was destroyed in a flood 4000 years ago right? How can dendrochronologists count tree rings thousands of years through that time? Did God come down and put a plastic bag over them?

The best part about the bible, is that it's all scriptured inspired. You can't ignore a single comment or in this case a flood. But, I have already debated this with JWs, and they all in fact stated that the trees could live under 30000ft of water for a month. And jehovah had a resurrection of the insects. O and just recreated all of the flora/fauna in every other part of the world. Like a platypus. Or a venus flytrap.

Then what was the point? Why couldn't he have just zapped the bad guys?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#105991 Jan 2, 2013
Usuallyunique wrote:
<quoted text>
KAB, you believe that life on Earth was destroyed in a flood 4000 years ago right? How can dendrochronologists count tree rings thousands of years through that time? Did God come down and put a plastic bag over them?
The best part about the bible, is that it's all scriptured inspired. You can't ignore a single comment or in this case a flood. But, I have already debated this with JWs, and they all in fact stated that the trees could live under 30000ft of water for a month. And jehovah had a resurrection of the insects. O and just recreated all of the flora/fauna in every other part of the world. Like a platypus. Or a venus flytrap.
Then what was the point? Why couldn't he have just zapped the bad guys?
Gah! You gave him a way to avoid asking your perfectly valid question. You know he'll ignore all the relevant and valid portions of your post, make up some lame excuse to a few points, then pull an ad hom. It's how the dishonest game they play.

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 45 min lozzza 19,050
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 47 min Chimney1 164,217
How can we prove God exists, or does not? Tue Gillette 84
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) May 25 UncommonSense2015 178,616
has science finally debunked the 'god' myth? May 24 UncommonSense2015 10
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) May 24 Chimney1 1,871
News British Ban Teaching Creationism As Science, Sh... (Jul '14) May 23 Swedenforever 159
More from around the web