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

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

There are 151492 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

#106253 Jan 5, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Strawman attempt there, well, it's better than most of your strawmen.
If you had a circle that was off by anymore than one degree, it's not s circle, it's an arc. Different matters entirely.
So you can split hairs, but we can't?(shakens head).....evolutionists, ya gotta love em.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#106254 Jan 5, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, finding evidence of the flood in tree rings may indeed be hopeless.
KAB, submerging trees by over a mile of water for a year would kill just about all of them.

If your flood occurred you should be able to find evidence for a massive tree death world wide. It may not be preserved everywhere, but some of it still should be in existence only a few thousands of years after the fact.

Of course we know there was no flood. Forget the geological evidence. You cannot even respond to the genetic evidence that we see everywhere today.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#106255 Jan 5, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, there HAVE been assumptions about species based upon a single tooth, or other miniscule bone fragments.
However, the vast multitude of anthropological evidence is based upon much more complete sets of evidence. You mentioned Rudolfensis and the controversy surrounding the original discovery and reconstruction of the fossil fragments found. The mere fact that fossil bones were found of that age (about 1.9 Million years old) is a miracle in and of itself.
That the details of those fossil fragments were called into question (age, cranial capacity, and exact reconstruction of these fragments) does not mean anything other than science is attempting to correct itself. Or did you think that your preacher had any input as to this "controversy"?
More about H.rudolfensis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_rudolfensis
You have accused scientific studies of being wrong more often than right. Then you cite as proof of this assertation....a scientific study.
Meanwhile, you have provided NO evidence whatsoever for a Biblical Creation scenario.
Then again....nobody else has, either.
This so called science is attempting to correct itself is exactly the hand wave that demonstratres clearly that evos do not know what they are talking about and supports research that suggests research is biased.

I suggest if chimps evolved you should be able to provide evidence of it, evos have questionable fossil reconstructions and changing scenarios that change to support anything, and one half of the fossil evidence missing.

1. Creationist predictions and claims are continuing to be validated with 80% of the genome being found to be functional and the expectation that 100% of the genome likely to be functional.
This continuing validation comes after evolutionists shoved junk dna down creos throats as proof TOE was true, there was no designer and creos were idiots. Now they scurry off in denial, suggest TOE never did or could make a prediction around non coding dna and deny that yet another evolutionary claim and irrefutable evidence for TOE is about to be thrown into that huge rubbish bin of evolutionary delusions past!
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketsc...

Continued next post....

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#106256 Jan 5, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>So you can split hairs, but we can't?(shakens head).....evolutionists, ya gotta love em.
The fact that you cannot see the difference is what makes you a sad person.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#106257 Jan 5, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, either a projection or assumption. Many skeptics want to know, we crave knowing things, it's one of the reasons we seek out evidence. The term skeptic is applied to us because since we don't buy anything without there being evidence, we become skeptical of all claims. We are also, like scientists, very quick to admit when we don't know something. You see not knowing as a weakness, but admitting it is a strength that you cannot muster. So why are you so scared of admitting that you don't know?
You sure do have a convoluted view of yourself. 1...You're not a skeptic because if you were you would be challenging atheist claims on the origin of life. You are not a skeptic, you are a biased dilusional atheist. 2.....whether you admit it or not, you exercise faith everyday. You believe there is no GOD, but you don't "know" that to be true. It is a faith based belief, and don't get me started on how human from non-human evolution is a faith based belief. 3.....You ask, " why are you so scared of admitting that you don't know?".....are you insane? I'M THE ONE ADMITTING FROM JUMP STREET THAT MY BELIEFS ARE FAITH BASED!!!!! Are you really this out of touch?

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#106258 Jan 5, 2013
Continued

2. Creationists predictions around vestigial organs are continuing to be validated by evolutionists finding that these left over functionless organs do indeed have function. This validation comes after evolutionists found function in these organs and had to toddle off and redefine the definition of vestigial to reflect ‘a different’ function.
http://www.naturalnews.com/022914_appendix_gu...

3. Fossil evidence that is more in line with creationism then TOE. The Genesis account was the oldest account published that suggests the alignment of the fossil record from plant s to creatures of the sea, then land animals and lastly mankind. Evos were not the first to come up with this line up. Whales and birds are the only ones that evos have out of biblical alignment . Surprise, surprise they have been having trouble with these two ever since. Evos are still confused over whale bones found in strata dated to 290mya and have had to invent mythical theropods to wear a reversed hallux although not one single theropod ever found has modern avian feet. The data supports creationism and the hubris supports TOE.
http://www.ehow.com/list_7182299_fossils-foun...
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v417/n68...

4. Beneficial mutations have an overwhelmingly negative effect due to epistasis. All the recent data supports this. Clearly this is evidence in support of creationism and an organisms inability to limitlessly adapt for billions of years. Evos have come up with many theoretical assumptions to explain this in evolutionary terms and why TOE is not falsified. Hence the data supports creationism and the hubris supports TOE.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...

5. All data suggests the genome is deteriorating. Again this is creationist support demonstrating that adaptation is limited. Again evos have to toddle off and come up with some story and convoluted hypothesis as to why a deteriorating genome does not falsify TOE. The data supports creationism and the hubris supports TOE.
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/1...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/...
http://www.naturalnews.com/021220_genetic_mod...

6. Evolutionary supports are derived from arbitrary and pick a box morphological and genomic homology that changes like the wind and biased algorithmic magic that is no better than any algorithmic magic a creationists can provide. This is supported by an evolutionary history of falsifications, instability and change.
http://www.nature.com/news/studies-slow-the-h...

None of the above links are to creationist sites, Some speak to published data. Many of the above links are to the actual peer reviewed work.

Conclusion: Creationist views are supported by research data. Evolutionary views are supported by excuses, hubris, rhetoric and pure speculation.

Further to that evo research is flawed and biased and the scientific method requires much improvement and is in no state to challenge anything.

Indeed evolutionists take evidence for creation and invent myths and biased data to support their background noise.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#106259 Jan 5, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Pardon my mentioning it, but doesn't KAB belong to your lot?
<quoted text>
Just to be clear, THIS is part of your opposition argument to the evolution "myth"?
(circa 2300 BCE)
"Noah was six hundred years old when the floodwaters came on the earth. 7) And Noah and his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives entered the ark to escape the waters of the flood. 8) Pairs of clean and unclean animals, of birds and of all creatures that move along the ground, 9) male and female, came to Noah and entered the ark, as God had commanded Noah. 10) And after the seven days the floodwaters came on the earth...."
"...For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. 18) The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19) They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20) The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits. 21) Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22) Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23) Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark...."
Honestly,
http://www.hark.com/clips/rzxkrqypqg-act-like...
Explain how the Bible's flood account argues against evolution.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#106260 Jan 5, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
Despite the protestations of Maz and Marksman, there ARE a plethora of facts and evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution.
For a while, I considered Anthropology as a career, and took courses in college in support of that goal. I have observed the evidence and came to my own conclusions based upon these observations.
One example: During one portion of a class, we observed a series of humanoid skulls. We studied these skulls by way of photographs of the original fossils, and models made from the casts of those fossils.
Although I have long forgotten which humanoid species were represented in this class, I recall holding in my own hands 5 or 6 of these skull models, noting and comparing the angle of foramen magnum (where the spinal cord enters the skull) in the different species represented.
No evidence for the Theory of Evolution?
Most of us know better.
Apparently, most of you don't have design experience.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#106261 Jan 5, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>

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.

Scientists all over the world accept that Adam and Eve as written in the Bible never existed.
psalms 118:8

It is better to take refuge in the LORD than to trust in man.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#106262 Jan 5, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>You sure do have a convoluted view of yourself. 1...You're not a skeptic because if you were you would be challenging atheist claims on the origin of life.
Atheists make no claim on the origin of life, scientists have some guesses but even they don't claim to know yet. Until you learn the difference between a claim and a denial of a claim, you will never leave that dark cave you call religion. Your claim has no evidence, thus it is dismissed.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#106264 Jan 5, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a mallard who resents being called a duck.
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Subphylum: Vertebrata
Class: Mammalia
Subclass: Theria
Infraclass: Eutheria
Order: Primates
Suborder: Anthropoidea
Superfamily: Hominoidea
Family: Hominidae
Genus: Homo (Human) or Pan (Chimpanzee)
It is only your false pride that stands between yourself and reason.
But of course it should be recognized by all that the foundations of faith are not grounded in reason, logic or rationality.
A specific date within the last few million years in which a broadly (un)defined line was crossed in the familial tree? Who says there is one? Will you tell me the exact date, lat. and long. Jonah was swallowed by the fish? Alright, something easier. What kind of fish was it? Cat(fish) got your tongue? Okay. How about... show me the ruins of Enoch? No? Maybe something even easier? Something you must contend occurred only a few thousand years ago and well within the history of civilization, like the exact location of the Tower of Babel or the first Temple of Solomon?
You are doging, and I asked first. You tell me where apes crossed the line from non-human to human, and what changed that caused the difference, and I'll answer everyone of your questions. Make certain that I won't go off running your rabbits because you are unable to defend you claims!! Now....go ahead and display your weakness by your inability to again being unable to define the difference between a non-human and a human. What evolved to cause this change in labeling?
KAB

Wilson, NC

#106265 Jan 5, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
That's just idiotic. There would have to be one tree, that existed since the beginning of life itself, and it would have to exist in every location on the land during this time for there to not need multiple samples.
The reasoning force is not strong in this one. Won't/Can't any of you comrades of Kitten assist her? I suspect she won't accept assistance from me.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#106266 Jan 5, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Explain how the Bible's flood account argues against evolution.
Of course the most recent human common ancestor being dated to 5000 years ago would have nothting to do with it. This is their own algorithmic magic that still asides with creationism and evos have to further invent living cohorts that survived to hammer it into TOE.

http://tedlab.mit.edu/~dr/Papers/Rohde-MRCA-t...

Like I have said many times these evolutionists would not know what evidence for anything looked like if they fell over it.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#106267 Jan 5, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
Despite the protestations of Maz and Marksman, there ARE a plethora of facts and evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution.
For a while, I considered Anthropology as a career, and took courses in college in support of that goal. I have observed the evidence and came to my own conclusions based upon these observations.
One example: During one portion of a class, we observed a series of humanoid skulls. We studied these skulls by way of photographs of the original fossils, and models made from the casts of those fossils.
Although I have long forgotten which humanoid species were represented in this class, I recall holding in my own hands 5 or 6 of these skull models, noting and comparing the angle of foramen magnum (where the spinal cord enters the skull) in the different species represented.
No evidence for the Theory of Evolution?
Most of us know better.
Then why can't you replicate the origin of life? You believe because you held skulls in you hands? Skulls don't show ancestry. They are just like fossils. They prove something once lived and is now dead, and left evidence that it once existed, but they don't show who their parents were, let alone their very distant ancestors. You're just taking mens words in faith and swallowing their beliefs just because they are like your own. IF they proved evolution was a big hoax, you would have dropped them like a hot rock.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#106268 Jan 5, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
In this forum, we have seen a few Creationists who stereotype Evolutionists are atheists together.
They have been reminded that all Christians are not Creationists, but it went in one ear and out the other.
It doesn't matter. A Christian can be wrong about something religious and still be riding the right bus.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#106269 Jan 5, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact that you cannot see the difference is what makes you a sad person.
Give me a break, I saw the hypocrasy of your post when you didn't even see it.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#106270 Jan 5, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>You are doging, and I asked first. You tell me where apes crossed the line from non-human to human, and what changed that caused the difference, and I'll answer everyone of your questions. Make certain that I won't go off running your rabbits because you are unable to defend you claims!! Now....go ahead and display your weakness by your inability to again being unable to define the difference between a non-human and a human. What evolved to cause this change in labeling?
Only evolutionists think they are apes and can't see they are a furless primate, that is an obligate biped, with the ability to draw on many traits to make meaning of the world and are the only species having this discussion.

I wonder if any evolutionist would like to claim some other species is having much the same conversation about the universe and the meaning of it.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#106271 Jan 5, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No. Is there a reason you ask this question?
Kitten reasoned(?) that the mark of the global flood in a tree ring record would be the death of the tree. I suspect you see how helpful looking for trees which died in that timeframe would be in identifying the global flood. Do you think you can help her?
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#106272 Jan 5, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheists make no claim on the origin of life, scientists have some guesses but even they don't claim to know yet. Until you learn the difference between a claim and a denial of a claim, you will never leave that dark cave you call religion. Your claim has no evidence, thus it is dismissed.
Come on, PLEASE USE YOUR BRAIN!!! By definition an atheist says there is no GOD, and thus the origin of life was not due to an intelligent deity? THAT IS ATHEISTS MAKING A CLAIM ON THE ORIGIN OF LIFE!!!! If you are open to the possiblity that GOD is the originator of life, then by definition you are an agnostic and not atheist. Now....start thinking, and present something challenging, and not easily refuted by your self hypocrasy.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#106273 Jan 5, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
In this forum, we have seen a few Creationists who stereotype Evolutionists are atheists together.
They have been reminded that all Christians are not Creationists, but it went in one ear and out the other.
All Christians, as defined by the Bible, accept that God created various lifeforms.

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) 1 min Dogen 205,215
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Chimney1 43,335
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 2 hr Thinking 18,596
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 13 hr ChristineM 917
Questions about first life 16 hr Upright Scientist 18
Carbon and isotopic dating are a lie Sat One way or another 16
evolution is correct. prove me wrong (Jul '15) Sat FallenGeologist 35
More from around the web