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

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 ... Full Story
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#106181 Jan 4, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>No they can't because I am a amature magician. Magicians don't have anything to do with the supernatural at all. They deal with illusion, and slight of hand. <quoted text>Would you expect anything else? People don't control supernatural things. Only GOD does that, and I'm quite sure he doesn't need the Amazing Randi's money, or approval.
The Bible disagrees with you. According to that, people controlled supernatural things. At least in the old days.

Otherwise what would be the point of killing witches?

You realise that if you are then claiming that witches are nothing more than magicians then you should be stoned to death according to your own belief system, right?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#106182 Jan 4, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>John 1
"1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."
So the "explanation" is Goddidit with magic cuz the Bible sez so?

Notice it didn't mention in the slightest how DNA might work?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#106183 Jan 4, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>You use your labels, and I'll use mine. I am a human being. Apes are not. You say you share a common ancester with apes. I do not. You have no observable, testable, or replicatable evidence to prove such a wild claim.
Actually we do. You just said that it wouldn't be necessary if Goddidit with magic. Which may even be true. But that doesn't change the fact we have observable testable replicatable evidence.
marksman11 wrote:
I don't need such.
You don't need anything since you have no argument.

All you got is "OH NO IT ISN'T!" (shrug)
marksman11 wrote:
Tell me along the evolutionary line where non-human apes crossed the line becoming human. I bet you can't tell where that line even is. When apes evolved into humans, what evolved? What changed that they were suddenly human? What line was crossed? Show me this line.
Our claim has been the complete opposite of this for 3 years, ever since this thread started. There never has been a "sudden line" because there isn't one. There is no sudden line with ancestry in the same way there is no sudden line on a colour spectrum.

So how come you still argue against a caricature 3 years after you've been told a million times that's not how it works?

Yup, you're just another dishonest fundie liar for Jesus whose ego is so huge they think God will forgive them for constantly ignoring the 9th Commandment.

You and Mazzy were bunkies at fundie prep school, weren'tcha?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#106184 Jan 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The Bible records something "talking" which inherently can't talk. Ventriloquism is one way to do that. Apparently at least one spirit being knew how to work that.
Apparently at least one lizard knew how to talk. There is no mention of sneaky shape-changing spirits engaging in ventriloquism to make it appear that the lizard could talk. The lizard simply talked.

But to be honest both proposals are just as dumb as each other, so I don't know why you're even bothering making up apologetics for this one.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#106185 Jan 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Since you won't (can't?) identify the BILLIONS of facts, they shall, for the purpose of interaction here, remain imaginary, so no response needed.
I did identify them. You ignored them.

Keep lying, Kabby.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#106186 Jan 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The bristlecone pine won't die until you provide the data, and regarding the data you did provide, maybe it wasn't predominantly rainwater.
Doesn't matter if it was rain water, salt water, fresh water, beer water or platypus-popcorn water. No one survived which is why we are not even here talking about it.

Well uh, unless we apply a VERY liberal application of invisible Jewmagic that is.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#106187 Jan 4, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
KAB wrote:
Have you examined the ring sequence from about 4 to 5 thousand years ago for the flood ring?
ChromiuMan wrote:
Again (still) you have no data, no facts, no examples, no studies, no links. Instead, you challenge others to find them for you.
Yup. Bible is assumed true and he demands everyone else does his own homework for him.
Thomas Robertson wrote:
We have to say one thing for MazHere.
At least she tries.
No she doesn't. Hence the constant goal-post moving, repetitions, evasions, and inherently contradictory assertions. And like Markie, she is aware she's doing it.

Perhaps she tried 5 months ago before she got hammered. After that it's been nothing but a show.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#106188 Jan 4, 2013
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
An anomalous ring.
Would that be one that's thinner or thicker than the norm?
KAB

Oxford, NC

#106189 Jan 4, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
He was challenged to perform this exact experiment. He weaseled out of it my claiming the correct salinity of the water could not be determined.
And no, KAB, I'm not going to bother to go back and quote you. You're a demonstrated liar and you're not worth the time.
You could at least quote me to confirm the liar assertion, but of course you won't.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#106190 Jan 4, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Gee, I wonder what data they used??
I can assure you it's data derived from the Bible in conjunction and harmony with physical and other documentary data. If you want we can review it one step at a time, so you can scrutinize it every step of the way.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#106191 Jan 4, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>There isn't one.
Therefore...
Tree rings apparently provide no way of identifying the flood.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#106192 Jan 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
Would that be one that's thinner or thicker than the norm?
It would be different. And the rings subsequent to an event would be different from those preceding it.

I used to work in Silviculture. I've looked at lots of rings on stumps and in cores. The patterns are pretty obvious.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#106193 Jan 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
Tree rings apparently provide no way of identifying the flood.
If there ha been a Flood, there would be a record in the rings of trees that were alive at the time.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#106194 Jan 4, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently at least one lizard knew how to talk. There is no mention of sneaky shape-changing spirits engaging in ventriloquism to make it appear that the lizard could talk. The lizard simply talked.
But to be honest both proposals are just as dumb as each other, so I don't know why you're even bothering making up apologetics for this one.(shrug)
It's rather obvious that you need and are desperate to identify something for which there is no believable story, and will fight to the last keystroke to make it happen. First, Pi=3, and now this. Ventriloquism is a well known established reality. It's time to look in a new direction.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#106195 Jan 4, 2013
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
It would be different. And the rings subsequent to an event would be different from those preceding it.
I used to work in Silviculture. I've looked at lots of rings on stumps and in cores. The patterns are pretty obvious.
So what does the bristlecone pine sequence show in the appropriate timeframe from about 4 to 5 thousand years ago?

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Santorini Greece

#106196 Jan 4, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>

thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
“Also, don’t forget that we can disprove Adam and Eve now”

<quoted text>HAHAHAHAHAH..... I wanna see the observable evidence for that!!!!!!
Here is one from the Smithsonian Institute. Great site, I recommend checking out all the links within the site. If you follow the links you will also find the Paleoanthropological and archaeological evidence. Plenty of very good photography of skulls and bones that show the connections. The skeletal evidence has been around for decades, and it is fairly recently that DNA evidence has totally backed up the bones.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics

So here’s the deal….modern humans have been around for at least 200,000 years…this is accepted in the science community by almost everyone. DNA has recently been used to determine that ALL of the human bloodlines eventually go back to Africa. DNA has also found that we humans were able to (and did) mate with Neanderthals and produce fertile offspring. As a result of this, we humans today have a small percentage of Neanderthal blood in our veins.

This DNA connection proves that we are related to a past line of pre-humans such as Homo-ergaster, Homo-heidelbergensis, Homo-habilis, and Homo-erectus, etc. We are the last in the long line of Homo species.

DNA also does NOT support that the line of humans was ever down to just 2 individuals…nor 8 people (Noah’s Flood) either for that matter.

Could you tell me how one can pull the Adam and Eve story of the Bible from the above Facts?

Scientists all over the world accept that Adam and Eve as written in the Bible never existed.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#106197 Jan 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It's rather obvious that you need and are desperate to identify something for which there is no believable story, and will fight to the last keystroke to make it happen. First, Pi=3, and now this. Ventriloquism is a well known established reality. It's time to look in a new direction.
"Ventriloquism"?

Really?

Maybe card tricks, and juggling as well? Elvis impersonation act?

Where's God playing now? Branson, Mo? Vegas?

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#106198 Jan 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
So what does the bristlecone pine sequence show in the appropriate timeframe from about 4 to 5 thousand years ago?
No evidence of a flood.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#106199 Jan 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Would that be one that's thinner or thicker than the norm?
Thick or thin would be typical, anomalous would be ... a dead tree at that point. Salt kills plants that live on land, you can't avoid that fact.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#106200 Jan 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It's rather obvious that you need and are desperate to identify something for which there is no believable story, and will fight to the last keystroke to make it happen. First, Pi=3, and now this. Ventriloquism is a well known established reality. It's time to look in a new direction.
But your story makes no mention of ventriloquism, so you are either adding more to it than there is .... again ... or twisting it to mean something else ... again. Don't you get tired of making excuses for your myths being so wrong?

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
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 13 min Ooogah Boogah 127,885
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 21 min Ooogah Boogah 13,578
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 3 hr Dogen 89
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 16 hr DanFromSmithville 175,466
Ten Reason Why Evolution Is a Lie (Jul '09) 22 hr MikeF 1,902
More Theories to Disprove Creation Wed The Dude 64
Atheism - A Non Prophet Organisation (Mar '11) Tue The Dude 996

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE