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

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

There are 163079 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.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#106099 Jan 4, 2013
What's REALLY funny about our lil Maz is that he/she (?) tries to debunk the ToE by suggesing that 50% of all science research papers are wrong.

His/Her evidence of this?

A FRIGGIN SCIENCE RESEARCH PAPER (that he/she is misrepresenting anyway).

And wouldn't the 50% rule that Maz projects be relevant also to his/her favorite science research paper by Sanford (genome deterioration) as well?

Meanwhile, Maz continues to pound out his/her weak arguments on a ....[wait for it]....COMPUTER.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#106100 Jan 4, 2013
MazHere wrote:
The topic is not for me to present anything. The topic is about you guys lacking the facts of evolution.
And we aren't.
MazHere wrote:
The research I presented suggests that evolutionist lack many facts and the ones they thought they had are now likely flawed.
Yes, you avoided the facts in order to present a rather generic critique which debunks itself with its own very premise. Well done!
MazHere wrote:
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.
Here's praying!
MazHere wrote:
So now you want to talk about God that I have stated and heaps have stated SCIENCE IS NOT QUALIFIED TO SPEAK TO GOD.
"God" isn't qualified to deal with reality according to every single one of its proponents.(shrug)
MazHere wrote:
Science cannot prove nor disprove God.
Bingo. Then we agree that your "scientific alternative" is completely irrelevant to science.
MazHere wrote:
You evolutionists have turned science into a mess. Evolutionist have thwarted progress and research with their dogmatic determination.
Baseless assertion.
MazHere wrote:
You lot have no idea what dark matter is so there is no point side winding about that either and chasing tails.
Not relevant to biology. Plus dark matter works.
MazHere wrote:
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.
IT'S ALL A CONSPIRACY!
MazHere wrote:
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.
We do. It looks just lika apologetics and that's all you give. And now you admitted you have no case.
MazHere wrote:
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?
No, we would like you to provide a counter to our rebuttals. Otherwise they still stand.
MazHere wrote:
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.
Pity you can't demonstrate it.
MazHere wrote:
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.
Projection.
MazHere wrote:
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.
You wish. Unfortunately Santa didn't deliver for you this year because you were on the naughty list. All I had to do was link to your posts and he said that he doesn't grant wishes for liars.

NAUGHTY!
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#106101 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.
Until you can demonstrate this your assertions are baseless.

Especially as you can't even decide whether you're a YEC or OEC.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#106102 Jan 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't seem to understand anything scientific or mathematical at all. How did you combine "4000 year old", "few hundred years ago", and "lived only 4,000 years" to get "4,100 years old by our time"?
You also didn't address the multiple rings in a given year possibility.
You don't get basic math.

How old is Abraham Lincoln?

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#106103 Jan 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you examined the ring sequence from about 4 to 5 thousand years ago for the flood ring?
Again (still) you have no data, no facts, no examples, no studies, no links. Instead, you challenge others to find them for you.
Submersion of a bristlecone pine tree for a month will not result in an aberrant tree ring, it will result in a dead tree.
This foray into disproving a ludicrous fairy tale is wasting everyone's time. If the Bible thumpers want to prove there was a flood, have at it - otherwise, it's just another of the *yawn* fantastical Genesis stories that never happened.

Has anyone ever heard of ANY evidence that the Earth was covered with water to a depth of at least 17,000 feet? Any whatsoever? In order for that to occur within 40 days would require a minimum precipitation rate of 212 inches of rain PER HOUR and would result in 3.3 TRILLION gallons of rainwater per square mile.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#106104 Jan 4, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Again (still) you have no data, no facts, no examples, no studies, no links. Instead, you challenge others to find them for you.
Submersion of a bristlecone pine tree for a month will not result in an aberrant tree ring, it will result in a dead tree.
This foray into disproving a ludicrous fairy tale is wasting everyone's time. If the Bible thumpers want to prove there was a flood, have at it - otherwise, it's just another of the *yawn* fantastical Genesis stories that never happened.
Has anyone ever heard of ANY evidence that the Earth was covered with water to a depth of at least 17,000 feet? Any whatsoever? In order for that to occur within 40 days would require a minimum precipitation rate of 212 inches of rain PER HOUR and would result in 3.3 TRILLION gallons of rainwater per square mile.
To be fair, I dont think you're including "The fountains of the deep" (of course there is no evidence that said fountains could produce a significant volume of water over the 40 days.....but you know what I mean).

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#106105 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.
Are you finished making a fool of yourself?

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#106106 Jan 4, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
To be fair, I dont think you're including "The fountains of the deep" (of course there is no evidence that said fountains could produce a significant volume of water over the 40 days.....but you know what I mean).
I was being MORE than generous in using Mt. Ararat + 15 cubits as the level of the waters. Everest is 29,000 feet. I'll let "The fountains of the deep" take the difference, if you insist.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#106107 Jan 4, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Again (still) you have no data, no facts, no examples, no studies, no links. Instead, you challenge others to find them for you.
Submersion of a bristlecone pine tree for a month will not result in an aberrant tree ring, it will result in a dead tree.
This foray into disproving a ludicrous fairy tale is wasting everyone's time. If the Bible thumpers want to prove there was a flood, have at it - otherwise, it's just another of the *yawn* fantastical Genesis stories that never happened.
Has anyone ever heard of ANY evidence that the Earth was covered with water to a depth of at least 17,000 feet? Any whatsoever? In order for that to occur within 40 days would require a minimum precipitation rate of 212 inches of rain PER HOUR and would result in 3.3 TRILLION gallons of rainwater per square mile.
How do you like your Earth? Boiled or fried?
KAB

United States

#106108 Jan 4, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I am actually surprised Dude is game to show his face here. I am still waiting for his big hero reply re the deteriorating genome.
I have presented many papers that suggest the scientific method is flawed. It appears these evolutionists do not have a scientific approach to anything so we can forget expecting it.
Everything evolutionists use is flawed. Any idea will be moulded to suit the evolutionary paradigm, regardless of it being factual or not. Uranium and samarium 146 carbon dating, they are all flawed as well. I am not a YEC but they have some very good points.
"In what follows, much of the work that has been done in Anatolian tree-ring matching is reviewed. The conclusions are disturbing, and have implications for treering studies generally."
http://www.informath.org/ATSU04a.pdf
"Two of the solar system's best natural timekeepers have been caught misbehaving, suggesting that the accepted ages for the oldest known rock samples are off by a million years or more."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21644-a...
Dating methods are no better than the other flawed research that gets presented here KAB.
We know, many scientists know, I have presented research from many well credentialled evolutionists as well as peer reviewed pubications so these evos here should know, and still we can hear the background noise of evolutionary faith. Go figure!
Evos publish, therefore they think they exist. Too bad nothing else verifies their existence.
I recommend eliminating the vitriol (name-calling, subjective characterizations, etc.) from your posts. Leave all of that to their side. It does nothing to advance the truth, and that seems to be our common objective here. Let's stick to providing the best objective data we can from non-Creationist sources. You have provided some good stuff, the tree ring study being an example. Unfortunately, you let them not address the data and draw you away from it into the vitriol sinkhole. Keep the data in their face until they respond with data. If they don't/can't then your data stands, and they stand defeated even if they never acknowledge it. Meanwhile, we must always respond to their data with data identifying weaknesses/errors when appropriate. Also, always acknowledge the valid parts of whatever they present. Give credit where credit is due.
KAB

United States

#106109 Jan 4, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
In the amount of time you typed that, the entire solar system moved millions of miles through the galaxy. The galaxy moved millions of miles through the universe. That's not very permanent. If we draw too close to one of the black holes near us, we're gone before we know it. For a plan, this was the worst planet in the universe to put life on. There are many better ones we can see with our telescopes already, all capable of supporting life, and some probably already have it. If your god did plan this, it's one really bad plan.
And the dataless beat goes on.
KAB

United States

#106110 Jan 4, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Astronomers have determined that as our Sun is in its later stages of life (+/- 5Billion yrs), it will become a 'red giant' star, and expand to engulf the orbit of the earth, and our planet will be vaporized.
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php...
So much for 'permanence'.
Have astronomers ever been wrong?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#106111 Jan 4, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>And you are still unable to refute it. I'm showing myself to be correct about the myth of human from non-human evolution everyday, and you are showing yourself unable to scientifically refute me.
{yawn}

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#106112 Jan 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
And the dataless beat goes on.
So where is your data?

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#106113 Jan 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I recommend eliminating the vitriol (name-calling, subjective characterizations, etc.) from your posts. Leave all of that to their side. It does nothing to advance the truth, and that seems to be our common objective here. Let's stick to providing the best objective data we can from non-Creationist sources. You have provided some good stuff, the tree ring study being an example. Unfortunately, you let them not address the data and draw you away from it into the vitriol sinkhole. Keep the data in their face until they respond with data. If they don't/can't then your data stands, and they stand defeated even if they never acknowledge it. Meanwhile, we must always respond to their data with data identifying weaknesses/errors when appropriate. Also, always acknowledge the valid parts of whatever they present. Give credit where credit is due.
I see that you made a couple slight errors in your post. But I won't nitpick - it's merely all of it.
KAB

United States

#106114 Jan 4, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes you do, its in the JW's blue book
The "date" "in the book" is only a year, and that is a conclusion based on the best available data which is not necessarily conclusive.
KAB

United States

#106115 Jan 4, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you thinking there would have been LIVING trees after your (nonexistant) flood?
Yes, trees surviving thru the flood seems like a distinct possibility, especially extremely hardy trees like bristlecone pine high on mountain slopes.
KAB

United States

#106116 Jan 4, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>If it died 100 years ago, and was 4,000 years old at the time...
Think, boy, THINK!
And the "multiple rings in a given year possibility" is valid only or certain species in certain environments. These are NOT the species of choice for dendrochronologists.
Why did you not include the "few hundred years ago" data in your analysis? One of the best ways to arrive at a wrong conclusion is to leave some of the data out of the analysis, boy. Your side is especially adept and consistent at doing that. One could be led to wonder if it's intentional or just technical ignorance?
KAB

United States

#106117 Jan 4, 2013
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
Then there wasn't a Flood. Now we can move on.
How is a flood identified in a tree trunk?
KAB

United States

#106118 Jan 4, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Yes.
That's extremely unlikely.
Therefore...
See if we can identify the "flood ring".

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 ... 4 min Frindly 1,461
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 17 hr Agents of Corruption 222,271
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 20 hr u196533dm 32,462
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) Mon Dogen 78,757
Mathematicians PROVED evolution IMPOSSIBLE! Aug 19 Science 814
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... (Jan '17) Aug 5 yehoshooah adam 4,381
News Intelligent Design Education Day - Dallas Aug 2 John B 4
More from around the web