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

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

There are 164988 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.

LowellGuy

United States

#106078 Jan 3, 2013
MazHere wrote:
Response to Kong.
Science is not qualified to speak to such things as deities. You don't have any trouble accepting dark mater do you? Dark matter is a mysterious powerful force that seems to control the universe, is unexplainable and unseen. This appears to describe God. You shouldn't have any trouble believing in God.
I have already supplied research that suggests most research findings are false. I can present a plethora of them, Kong. There is not enough thread space to post them all.
"But that's what happened. A paper published this week in the journal PLoS One by Campbell, Associate Professor of Mathematics Laurie Heyer, a Danish colleague, and the 10 undergraduates in his fall 2008 "Laboratory Methods in Genomics" course explains their discovery that computer-based annotations of genome sequences agree with each other less than 50% of the time."
http://www3.davidson.edu/cms/x36469.xml
“The different results we saw from different methods of gene expression analysis were shocking, and led us to reinvestigate the whole process on several platforms,” says Jakob Lovén, postdoctoral reseacher in Young’s lab and co-author of the Cell paper.“We then realized that the common assumption that cells contain similar levels of mRNA is badly flawed and can lead to serious misinterpretations, particularly with cancer cells that can have very different amounts of RNA.”
http://wi.mit.edu/news/archive/2012/whitehead...
You havn't forgotten have you that there are theist evolutionists. I don't accept TOE because it is rubbish, not because I am a theist.
In actual fact the best evidence that there is a God is that despite all the rhetoric around the demonic Copernican principle, indeed mankind is special on the earth being the only species that can make meaning of the universe, and earth is the only planet with life found on it, AND we also happen to be in the centre of the universe according to models that don't rely on mysteries.
The upshot is that from here on anything you present from that mountain of what evos call evidence is now challenged and likely flawed.
Does your God do things that affect demonstrable reality? You know, is the natural world ever in any way influenced by your God?

Level 2

Since: Feb 12

Roseville, CA

#106079 Jan 3, 2013
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
No problem. Give a date for the Flood.
Flood is dated by all fundamentals at 4,360 years ago.

Well within the range of many trees that were alive before, during, and after.

Level 2

Since: Feb 12

Roseville, CA

#106080 Jan 3, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I won't try to tell a Norse mythologist that he is wrong. He is allowed his beliefs without attack. I would debate him if he attacked my beliefs, just like the ones in this group have.<quoted text>That is true and GOD will handle it in the afterlife. I'm not trying to save you. I'm trying to save those that you try to drag with you. I could say the same for you, why battle creationist? In the end, it doesn't matter. More so in your case than mine. I like to keep up with atheististic views so if I run across someone who is truly searching, Hopefully I'll have an answer for them. I know what's coming next.....all evolutionists aren't atheists. I know, but I'd say all atheists are evolutionists. They have to be.<quoted text>I fix it myself.<quoted text>THen you were ignorant for leaving it. The bible says without faith it's impossible to please GOD. Faith is awesome...you ought to admit it sometime.
I only disagree with creationists. I think that their teachings are just too absolute and narrow minded. Most importantly, they are a dead end, a dead end that ended many centuries ago. We can't move on until some people open their minds just an inch. Also few creationist keep it to themselves, KAB goes door to door and tells people they are going to die and they are wrong.

If KAB is a real Jehovah's Witness, he/she would allow a young child die based on their unique interpretation of God's commandment to not consume blood. I know, I've seen it. I was in the hospital(My dad was on the Blood Committee)JW Parents refused to allow their 4 year old to have blood who got hurt in an accident. He would've lived. Now that I have kids it makes me want to puke.

I also recognize showing scientific facts to creationists is futile. It's like you showing us scriptures to prove your points, we don't buy it and it doesn't really hold any sway. It didn't work on me.

Have you ever thought what in the world motivates someone who doesn't believe? You have something to lose, we don't.
Here it is:

A full explanation of how we got here, and why.
A personal relationship with the creator of the Universe.
Have the assurances that God will protect you and your family.
Go to heaven, or live on a paradise on Earth(KAB)
Most importantly, you get to spend the rest of eternity with your loved ones. I would do anything to have that. I really would. You have no idea.

And now what we have:

A blurry construct of how we got here.
That is all.

Tell me, why would we do this other than we just couldn't accept lying to ourselves anymore?
KAB

Wilson, NC

#106081 Jan 3, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Where did you dig "10% uncertainty" out of? Please describe how you arrived at that figure.
And Prometheus is only the one, single tree ring data that you insisted upon. The OVERLAPPING and multiple confirmation of dendrochronology from several million individual tree ring samples that composes the full record pushes back the data from tree rings quite a few millenia further.
Then there's ice cores, archaeology, geneology, anthropology, geology, and perhaps a few other disciplines that all point to the conclusion that your flood never happened.
Sorry KAB. Still no flood.
What do dendrochronologists say about extra rings? Also, have you examined the sequence from about 4 to 5 thousand years ago for the flood ring?
KAB

Wilson, NC

#106082 Jan 3, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
The Prometheus tree ring patterns overlap other fossilized tree ring patterns, so we actually have this type of data reaching back much earlier. Guess what? No flood within the last 9,000 years.
Still waiting for those "facts" y'all religies are hinting at.
Have you examined the ring sequence from about 4 to 5 thousand years ago for the flood ring?
KAB

Wilson, NC

#106083 Jan 3, 2013
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
So you'll claim that any piece of wood offered as evidence spans the wrong date.
It seems unlikely that something spanning continuously from an estimated 4 to 5 thousand years ago would miss the flood.
LowellGuy

Lowell, MA

#106084 Jan 3, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It seems unlikely that something spanning continuously from an estimated 4 to 5 thousand years ago would miss the flood.
Imagine if you had such evidence from various parts of the world, all showing flooding in the same year...why, that would be evidence! You think it exists, so you'd better get a-lookin' for it.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#106085 Jan 3, 2013
KAB wrote:
It seems unlikely that something spanning continuously from an estimated 4 to 5 thousand years ago would miss the flood.
Then there wasn't a Flood. Now we can move on.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#106086 Jan 3, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It seems unlikely that something spanning continuously from an estimated 4 to 5 thousand years ago would miss the flood.
Yes.

That's extremely unlikely.

Therefore...

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#106087 Jan 3, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, I'm not "escaping" anything.
I'd just like you to explain "Dark Matter, therefore God".
The theory of evolution needn't depend on me (at work, and under a deadline) to explain to Creo's the massive volume of, and the intricate nuances of Evolution. Besides, there are others that are much more knowledgable of it than I.
But I HAVE noticed that YOU have yet to provide ONE IOTA of evidence FOR Creationism/Intelligent Design.
Then again, nobody else in the history of Mankind has done so before, either.
The topic is not for me to present anything. The topic is about you guys lacking the facts of evolution. The research I presented suggests that evolutionist lack many facts and the ones they thought they had are now likely flawed.

There is no onus on the scientific community to pursue science. They want grants to say we publish and therefore exist and give us more money. Few care about the truth. This few will eventually bring TOE I unstuck I reckon.

So now you want to talk about God that I have stated and heaps have stated SCIENCE IS NOT QUALIFIED TO SPEAK TO GOD. Science cannot prove nor disprove God. You evolutionists have turned science into a mess. Evolutionist have thwarted progress and research with their dogmatic determination.

You lot have no idea what dark matter is so there is no point side winding about that either and chasing tails.

Like you, handwaving this away, is all that can be expected. There is no onus on biologists to keep up to date. There role is to support the company they work for with many agendas and I do not believe the truth is one of them.

I have spoken at length to support for creationism but, just like you are totally ignorant to your own research findings, I do not expect you or any evolutionist to know what evidence should look like if you fell over it.

Are you going to post up your silly dino with spastic hands and that laughable rubbish you posted up last time that didn't even have a reversed hallux? This is what I mean by being ignorant. Would you like me to put up my 6 points of support again for the 4 time seeing as you cannot defend TOE?

There is nothing that I could present as support for creationism that could possibly be worse than over 150 years of instabily and falsifications only to find that the majority of your research is flawed.

I'd say that you are gobsmacked and obviously speechless on the thread topic, and now you are just hoping to score a few cheap points perhaps to save face.

The thread topic is "It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in the evolution debate". That is correct, and that statement is sustained.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#106088 Jan 4, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you thinking there would have been LIVING trees after your (nonexistant) flood?
I can't blame evolutionists for expecting a higher level of substantiation than they have ever been able to provide themselves, on the back of their flawed research and history of change and falsifications.

Your ring dating is flawed as well.

Archaeologists should not submit to this system. There might be temptation to accept a tree-ring date without supporting measurements, particularly when the date agrees with the archaeologists’ hypotheses.To accept such a date, however, implies
acquiescence to a system that does not have sufficient checks to insure its integrity.
http://www.informath.org/ATSU04a.pdf

IOW, a creo could say a crystal ball said so, and that would have more credibility than anything you can present right now.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#106089 Jan 4, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
The topic is not for me to present anything. The topic is about you guys lacking the facts of evolution. The research I presented suggests that evolutionist lack many facts and the ones they thought they had are now likely flawed.
There is no onus on the scientific community to pursue science. They want grants to say we publish and therefore exist and give us more money. Few care about the truth. This few will eventually bring TOE I unstuck I reckon.
So now you want to talk about God that I have stated and heaps have stated SCIENCE IS NOT QUALIFIED TO SPEAK TO GOD. Science cannot prove nor disprove God. You evolutionists have turned science into a mess. Evolutionist have thwarted progress and research with their dogmatic determination.
You lot have no idea what dark matter is so there is no point side winding about that either and chasing tails.
Like you, handwaving this away, is all that can be expected. There is no onus on biologists to keep up to date. There role is to support the company they work for with many agendas and I do not believe the truth is one of them.
I have spoken at length to support for creationism but, just like you are totally ignorant to your own research findings, I do not expect you or any evolutionist to know what evidence should look like if you fell over it.
Are you going to post up your silly dino with spastic hands and that laughable rubbish you posted up last time that didn't even have a reversed hallux? This is what I mean by being ignorant. Would you like me to put up my 6 points of support again for the 4 time seeing as you cannot defend TOE?
There is nothing that I could present as support for creationism that could possibly be worse than over 150 years of instabily and falsifications only to find that the majority of your research is flawed.
I'd say that you are gobsmacked and obviously speechless on the thread topic, and now you are just hoping to score a few cheap points perhaps to save face.
The thread topic is "It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in the evolution debate". That is correct, and that statement is sustained.
ROFLMFAO!!!

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#106090 Jan 4, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't blame evolutionists for expecting a higher level of substantiation than they have ever been able to provide themselves, on the back of their flawed research and history of change and falsifications.
Your ring dating is flawed as well.
Archaeologists should not submit to this system. There might be temptation to accept a tree-ring date without supporting measurements, particularly when the date agrees with the archaeologists’ hypotheses.To accept such a date, however, implies
acquiescence to a system that does not have sufficient checks to insure its integrity.
http://www.informath.org/ATSU04a.pdf
IOW, a creo could say a crystal ball said so, and that would have more credibility than anything you can present right now.
Still ROFLMFAO!!!

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#106092 Jan 4, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
The topic is not for me to present anything. The topic is about you guys lacking the facts of evolution. The research I presented suggests that evolutionist lack many facts and the ones they thought they had are now likely flawed.
There is no onus on the scientific community to pursue science. They want grants to say we publish and therefore exist and give us more money. Few care about the truth. This few will eventually bring TOE I unstuck I reckon.
So now you want to talk about God that I have stated and heaps have stated SCIENCE IS NOT QUALIFIED TO SPEAK TO GOD. Science cannot prove nor disprove God. You evolutionists have turned science into a mess. Evolutionist have thwarted progress and research with their dogmatic determination.
You lot have no idea what dark matter is so there is no point side winding about that either and chasing tails.
Like you, handwaving this away, is all that can be expected. There is no onus on biologists to keep up to date. There role is to support the company they work for with many agendas and I do not believe the truth is one of them.
I have spoken at length to support for creationism but, just like you are totally ignorant to your own research findings, I do not expect you or any evolutionist to know what evidence should look like if you fell over it.
Are you going to post up your silly dino with spastic hands and that laughable rubbish you posted up last time that didn't even have a reversed hallux? This is what I mean by being ignorant. Would you like me to put up my 6 points of support again for the 4 time seeing as you cannot defend TOE?
There is nothing that I could present as support for creationism that could possibly be worse than over 150 years of instabily and falsifications only to find that the majority of your research is flawed.
I'd say that you are gobsmacked and obviously speechless on the thread topic, and now you are just hoping to score a few cheap points perhaps to save face.
The thread topic is "It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in the evolution debate". That is correct, and that statement is sustained.
Maz, you silly twit.

Science is not trying to discuss God. It never has.

It is brought up here because YOU guys are trying to insert Creationism/Intelligent Design crap into public school science classes and into government.

Now please explain your conclusions about "Dark matter, therefore God".
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#106093 Jan 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You're entitled to your opinion in spite of the data.
And the data is what you're not dealing with. So now give me no only evidence that the Bible mentioned ventriquists but also that they existed. Until then I maintain it was just a talking lizard just as the Bible said.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#106094 Jan 4, 2013
MazHere wrote:
Response to Kong.
Science is not qualified to speak to such things as deities. You don't have any trouble accepting dark mater do you? Dark matter is a mysterious powerful force that seems to control the universe, is unexplainable and unseen. This appears to describe God. You shouldn't have any trouble believing in God.
Hey Maz. Why you repeating arguments we already debunked? Again, thanks for admitting that your god is god of the gaps.
MazHere wrote:
I have already supplied research that suggests most research findings are false. I can present a plethora of them, Kong.
Actually you can't present anything as it's all false. Therefore everything you say is unreliable. According to your own rules.
MazHere wrote:
In actual fact the best evidence that there is a God is that despite all the rhetoric around the demonic Copernican principle, indeed mankind is special on the earth being the only species that can make meaning of the universe, and earth is the only planet with life found on it, AND we also happen to be in the centre of the universe according to models that don't rely on mysteries.
So the best evidence is merely your subjective opinion that we're "special"? BRILLIANT!
MazHere wrote:
The upshot is that from here on anything you present from that mountain of what evos call evidence is now challenged and likely flawed.
Translation: Maz can't debunk it and won't even try. But it doesn't matter since Maz already debunked his own position anyway.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#106095 Jan 4, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Maz, you silly twit.
Science is not trying to discuss God. It never has.
It is brought up here because YOU guys are trying to insert Creationism/Intelligent Design crap into public school science classes and into government.
Now please explain your conclusions about "Dark matter, therefore God".
God-of-the-gaps. The end.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#106096 Jan 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I see you've abandoned the scientific approach to a challenge.
On the contrary, I presented literally BILLIONS of facts supporting evolution. You are unable to address them. Maz hasn't since he was hit with it 5 or 6 months ago. On that same otehr thread not one other fundie has been able to for 12 months. Out in the real world where scientists do scientific world, no creo has been able to deal with it there for 30 years. Or 3,000, depending on how you look at it.

That's not our problem.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#106097 Jan 4, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
This above is the point Kong.
The thread topic is "It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in evolution debate".
I strongly suggest to all creationists and faithful evolutionists that the thread topic has been sustained.
Of course you do. That's because suggestions based on 3,000 year old myths are all you got. Your opinions however still have no basis on reality.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#106098 Jan 4, 2013
Usuallyunique wrote:
<quoted text>
Flood is dated by all fundamentals at 4,360 years ago.
Well within the range of many trees that were alive before, during, and after.
Not after. There would be no trees after.

In fact there would be no Earth after.

:-/

Meh, what the heck am I concerned about? All creo's have to do is just fix everything with Godmagic. Oh, look! Now we can has trees!

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 Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 51 min Fudge 3,465
No Evidence for Creation, a Global Flood, Tower... 2 hr Fudge 75
Time 2 hr THANKS 9
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr Frindly 84,105
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 10 hr ChristineM 223,191
Alabama people are the Anunnaki Fri Mrs parker science 1
Creationism is a Fantasy Fri Zog Has-fallen 7
More from around the web