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

Full story: Asheville Citizen-Times

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 ...
Comments
104,201 - 104,220 of 134,049 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Wahroonga, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106216
Jan 5, 2013
 
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Your 'initial statement':
<quoted text>
Post #106055
How in the world would I misunderstand that?!?!
Not that it's any of your business, Maz, but I am an Agnostic. Meaning: I have no position on whether or not there is a Supreme Being. Should evidence be presented for said deity, I'll weigh this evidence at that time. In the mean time, I'll rely on the data that DOES present itself that God (IF he DOES exist) left for us to examine.
You would like to present the science behind the ToE as being flawed. For sure, it's not PERFECT, but despite your protests to the contrary, there BILLIONS of individual pieces of data that belie your hand-waving dismissal of the subject.
Meanwhile, you ONLY have 'faith' to promote for your views.
Questions:
~Do you believe the Universe is less than 10,000 years old?
~Do you believe that Adam was (literally) made from the dust of the earth, and that Eve was made (literally) from Adam's Rib?
~Do you believe that a talking snake tricked them into eating a 'forbidden fruit'?
~World-wide flood?
~Man living in the belly of a 'great fish' for 3 days?
etc?
You are an idiot.

My statement was

"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 [Emphasis mine]. You shouldn't have any trouble believing in God."

Clearly I am saying that something that is mysterious, unable to be seen, controls the universe is the same description one may use for a God. You have no trouble believing in dark energy because these boofheads tell you it is there hence you should have no trouble believing in God.

Dark energy is just another example of the faithful making up rubbish to save a theory from falsification, yet again.

I do not believe in dark energy and there are geocentric models that do not require such a mystery.

Science is not qualified to talk to God and the only reason you want to misquote me is because you are a gobsmacked and clueless evolutionist.

Evolutionists publish and therefore believe they exist, even though they have no idea what they are talking about with their background noise of confusion and instabily.

"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...

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Wahroonga, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106217
Jan 5, 2013
 
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>*sigh*
Hopeless.
You are actually the hopeless one, not KAB, because no matter how many times I put up research that suggests tree ring dating is invalid you lot keep quacking about it.

"The primary conclusion is that the research has invalidating flaws, which are obvious upon inspection. The underlying issue is that the system under which tree-ring research generally is conducted lacks transparency."

http://www.informath.org/ATSU04a.pdf

It appears ring dating methods are about as credible as your evolutionary myth.

Evolutionists publish, therefore they believe they exist, even though they have no idea what they are talking about.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106218
Jan 5, 2013
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
You are actually the hopeless one, not KAB, because no matter how many times I put up research that suggests tree ring dating is invalid you lot keep quacking about it.
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
So what does the bristlecone pine sequence show in the appropriate timeframe from about 4 to 5 thousand years ago?


Pardon my mentioning it, but doesn't KAB belong to your lot?
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>"The primary conclusion is that the research has invalidating flaws, which are obvious upon inspection. The underlying issue is that the system under which tree-ring research generally is conducted lacks transparency."
http://www.informath.org/ATSU04a.pdf
It appears ring dating methods are about as credible as your evolutionary myth.
Evolutionists publish, therefore they believe they exist, even though they have no idea what they are talking about.
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...

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Wahroonga, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106219
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...
Here is another one that thinks he knows the power of God when researchers in many fields themselves have no idea what they are talking about.

Does it make you evos feel better to turn to philosophy than talk observed science?

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Wahroonga, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106220
Jan 5, 2013
 
I can't see former post so sorry if a repost..

Kong said

"Meanwhile, you ONLY have 'faith' to promote for your views.
Questions:
~Do you believe the Universe is less than 10,000 years old?
~Do you believe that Adam was (literally) made from the dust of the earth, and that Eve was made (literally) from Adam's Rib?
~Do you believe that a talking snake tricked them into eating a 'forbidden fruit'?
~World-wide flood?
~Man living in the belly of a 'great fish' for 3 days?
etc?"

You may like to notice the thread topic. Once we establish that evolutionists do not have many facts at all, we can then go over what has been observed and how that better supports creationism. This would be the 4th time at least and you have been a part of that unsucessfully I might add. eg with your 3 digit ghost handed dinosaur without a reversed hallux and continually squarking I have not presented evidence, as if an evolutionist would know what evidence should look like.

Evolutionists do not have many facts at all. You do have much misrepresentation and flawed research.

I am happy to go through my 6 points with you again as an example of support for creationism in general for at least the 4th time. What few 'facts' there are tend more to support creationism. It is not specifically about the bible.

I am happy to talk about the philosophy of why I believe in God and being special and what God can or cannot do, that has nothing to do with TOE as there are theist evolutionists, apparently to your surprise.

The Bible is the only spiritual text where the composers did not take glory for themselves. This itself is almost a miracle given human nature. This is also the way one differentiates those spiritual texts that claim to represent God and those that do not. I am happy to philosophize as to why the God of the bible and NT are supported.

You cannot refute my interpretations of magic or observation because evolutionists only have flawed research in many related fields to offer in challenge to me.

If you wish to divert into such philosophies, all realms that science is not able to speak to at present such as deities and their abilities, and IF there are alternative dimensions etc, then I am happy to discuss what God, a powerful inorganic life form, may or may not be able to do, if you prefer.

We can't use your algorithmic magic because it is all flawed. We could use creos algorithmic magic, but you would struggle. So we are left with talking philosophy or strickly only speaking to what is observed in life and the wet lab.

So which would you like to discuss? Philosophy or science?

The Darwin crowd, don't appear to have many facts at all. That is sustained.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Lagrangian L2

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106221
Jan 5, 2013
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
The "piece of wood from the ark?" I saw that too. lol
It seems that for a while there was a small industry in making 'Ark Artifacts'. A guy named Ron Wyatt really make a living in religious stuff. He supposedly found the Ark, the location of Sodom and Gommorrah, the Tower of Babel, the site of the Red Sea crossing, the crucifixion site of Jesus, and many other things related to Christianity. He truly was the 'Liar for Jesus' king.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106222
Jan 5, 2013
 
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
It seems that for a while there was a small industry in making 'Ark Artifacts'. A guy named Ron Wyatt really make a living in religious stuff. He supposedly found the Ark, the location of Sodom and Gommorrah, the Tower of Babel, the site of the Red Sea crossing, the crucifixion site of Jesus, and many other things related to Christianity. He truly was the 'Liar for Jesus' king.
He is the perfect example of the scam that is christianity. The snake oil.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106223
Jan 5, 2013
 
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.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106224
Jan 5, 2013
 
MazHere wrote:
You are actually the hopeless one, not KAB, because no matter how many times I put up research that suggests tree ring dating is invalid you lot keep quacking about it.
"The primary conclusion is that the research has invalidating flaws, which are obvious upon inspection. The underlying issue is that the system under which tree-ring research generally is conducted lacks transparency."
http://www.informath.org/ATSU04a.pdf
It appears ring dating methods are about as credible as your evolutionary myth.
Your post and attached link have nothing to do with this discussion. Are you too stupid to see that?

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Wahroonga, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106225
Jan 5, 2013
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
He is the perfect example of the scam that is christianity. The snake oil.
Which could not be worse than the snake oil of TOE and its flawed and biased data and over 150 years of twoddle.

Only the ignorant stereotype creationists and Christians together and suggest their airy fairy hubris has any more merit.eg theist evolutionists, gaians, and those that are spiritual in any way and are also evolutionists, and those stupid enough to think science with its flaws and limitations as well as the quacking so called historical intelligencia, is qualified to speak to anything at all.

One that is prepared to stupidly stoop low enough to jump from TOE's lack of facts and flawed data to lumping creationists and Christains together is about as biggoted, ignorant and stupid as they come. You continue to amaze me with your constant ability to demonstrate how ignorant you are.

This is what the apes have finally come to creationists!

You therefore, must be a bitter and twisted ape that knows stuff all facts about evolution!

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Wahroonga, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106226
Jan 5, 2013
 
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
Your post and attached link have nothing to do with this discussion. Are you too stupid to see that?
I am glad you agree. Go tell that boofhead Kong and these other sidewinding ignorant evolutionists that have lost the thread topic and now want to chase their own tails and creationists tails taliking about philosophy.

There are stuff all facts to be known in TOE which is mostly based on flawed and biased data.

"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 peer reviewed research and many others appear to agree with me despite evos convenient evogoggles. You evos have got a long way to go before any of this rubbish of yours will be seen as empirical anything, let alone evidence.

Evolutionists publish and therefore believe they exist even though they do not know what they are talking about past the background noise of confusion and bias.

What you do not understand is all the OBSERVED evidence suggests man and the earth is very special=GOD IS MORE LIKELY THAN NOT, and it is more likely life was created by the hand of God than evolved after 'poofing' into life of its own accord.

Another thing you do not understand is evolutionists are the ones too stupid to stay on topic, look at Kitten and Konk and the rest of them....

Evolutionists do not deal in facts, they deal in biased circular philosophical reasonings and appear to need more faith than creationists.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Wahroonga, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106227
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.
You mean you studies a plethora of reconstructed often single bones or a skull given an entire life story. Many were in fragments. One may reconstruct to any flavour of the month eg Rudolfensis and the Leakey major woopsie. You would have seen few complete or near complete fossils, of which even the few complete ones in the majority were not found colocated.

You mean you can refer to more flawed and self serving reasearch on brain size and rubbish that is likely flawed.

You mean you have no idea what the common ancestor of man and chimps looked like nor their dna, and have no fossil evidence for one entire half of this story.

If a creationist turned up with this laughable level of substantiation you would ahd have laughed at us. Well laugh at yourself!

You don't know anything. You only hope you do.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106228
Jan 5, 2013
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Which could not be worse than the snake oil of TOE and its flawed and biased data and over 150 years of twoddle.
Only the ignorant stereotype creationists and Christians together and suggest their airy fairy hubris has any more merit.eg theist evolutionists, gaians, and those that are spiritual in any way and are also evolutionists, and those stupid enough to think science with its flaws and limitations as well as the quacking so called historical intelligencia, is qualified to speak to anything at all.
One that is prepared to stupidly stoop low enough to jump from TOE's lack of facts and flawed data to lumping creationists and Christains together is about as biggoted, ignorant and stupid as they come. You continue to amaze me with your constant ability to demonstrate how ignorant you are.
This is what the apes have finally come to creationists!
You therefore, must be a bitter and twisted ape that knows stuff all facts about evolution!
Scientists working on refining the ToE aren't trying to sell anything.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106229
Jan 5, 2013
 
Does Maz think that latest article she quotes supports her in any way?

She should contact the writer. He would laugh in her face.

That article only shows why peer review and research continues after an idea is published. Publishing is only the first step in getting an idea accepted. Just because an idea is published does not automatically make it true. After 150 years of confirmation I don't think there is any serious scientist that would reject the theory of evolution.
KAB

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106230
Jan 5, 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.
If the patterns were uniformly pretty obvious, the dendrochronologists wouldn't seek numerous samples and use statistical analysis across a large number of rings to do their "matching". Also, the necessary downside of anything statistically determined is that maybe it's not. This becomes especially significant if there is independent contradictory info regarding the matter under investigation.
KAB

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106231
Jan 5, 2013
 
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
If there ha been a Flood, there would be a record in the rings of trees that were alive at the time.
How would that record be identified? I have so far found no relevant info regarding that in the dendrochronology literature.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106232
Jan 5, 2013
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
If the patterns were uniformly pretty obvious, the dendrochronologists wouldn't seek numerous samples and use statistical analysis across a large number of rings to do their "matching". Also, the necessary downside of anything statistically determined is that maybe it's not. This becomes especially significant if there is independent contradictory info regarding the matter under investigation.
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.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Wahroonga, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106233
Jan 5, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
Does Maz think that latest article she quotes supports her in any way?
She should contact the writer. He would laugh in her face.
That article only shows why peer review and research continues after an idea is published. Publishing is only the first step in getting an idea accepted. Just because an idea is published does not automatically make it true. After 150 years of confirmation I don't think there is any serious scientist that would reject the theory of evolution.
I love to see evolutionists is scarper and evasion mode.

The research supports what I assert exactly, evos have no idea what they are talking about as they have flawed and biased research to offer.

That most research is likely flawed IS exactly what that research and many other peer reviewed articles I can present susggest. The only difference is these evos still suggest 'it all evolved' despite having nothing but confusion and noise to support themselves with.
KAB

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106234
Jan 5, 2013
 
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
"Ventriloquism"?
Really?
Maybe card tricks, and juggling as well? Elvis impersonation act?
Where's God playing now? Branson, Mo? Vegas?
He's coming soon to a venue you may find too close for comfort (Matthew 24:7-9).

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106235
Jan 5, 2013
 
MazHere wrote:
Only the ignorant stereotype creationists and Christians together ...
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.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••