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

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Iquique

#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

#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

#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

#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

Australia

#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

Australia

#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

Australia

#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

#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

#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

#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

#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

#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

Australia

#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

#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

#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.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#106236 Jan 5, 2013
Sorry, that citation is Matthew 24:37-39.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#106237 Jan 5, 2013
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
No evidence of a flood.
What would flood evidence be?

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#106238 Jan 5, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed biologists have no regulatory body that makes them keep up to date.
I have posted many articles the last 2 days that suggest exactly the same thing.
"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...
Your researchers are biased in favour of grant monty and making headlines!
This research is peer reviewed and the commentary from researchers with more credentials than you have commented in that link provided. You boofhead!
"That seemingly inconsequential action turned the project in an entirely unexpected direction. As they looked at the three annotations side by side, the team noticed that they were not identical. In fact, less than half the genes were identical in all three annotations. Campbell was astounded. The annotations were different, and there was no way to know which one was biologically correct."
http://www3.davidson.edu/cms/x36469.xml
The results were published and this is the sort of algorithmic magic your myth is based on.
“Expression analysis is one of the most commonly used methods in modern biology,” says Whitehead Member Richard Young.“So we are concerned that flawed assumptions may affect the interpretation of many biological studies.”
http://wi.mit.edu/news/archive/2012/whitehead...
Of course this one suggests they have found the answer, as usual,..COME FORWARD OH MIGHTY GRANT MONEY.....
None of these are misinterpreted you boofhead. You just don't mind demonstrating you are a desperate evo that actually has no clue.
So now we see evolutionists being the ones to NOT except the uncomfortable facts of their own so called science.
Evolutionists publish, therefore they believe they exist. Now the best you evos can do is ridicule, talk philosphy, and continue on with the background noise of confusion and flawed data.
The above is an example of evolutionists empirical evidence turning to dust, however creationists will never expect an evo to admit to it. That's on top of all the hammering of data to suit your paradigm, and have faith in as much hand waving ability as God.eg theropods with avian feet and dark energy.

Evos also are heading toward the light lead by faith and have few facts.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#106239 Jan 5, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
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.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#106240 Jan 5, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
So if we can identify a tree which died somewhere in the flood timeframe would that confirm the flood?

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
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 4 min Chimney1 173,871
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 18 min Chimney1 116,737
The Satanic Character of Social Darwinism 1 hr Chimney1 522
Need clarification on evolution 1 hr The Dude 11
New review critical of "Origins" 1 hr DanFromSmithville 30
The problem of evil and hate (Oct '13) 2 hr Chimney1 349
Can the universe be God's brain? (Jun '07) 8 hr susanblange 65
•••

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••