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

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

There are 159280 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.

The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#107002 Jan 11, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
Viable population and diversity are at issue.
With the three brother model, we get most likely issues of inbreeding and thus infertility.
Ah, screw it. Let's just solve the matter with invisible Godmagic, ain't no problem too big!
KAB

United States

#107003 Jan 11, 2013
Usuallyunique wrote:
<quoted text>
Well you know he/she's christian and not a Jehovah's Witness. What else is there?
So let's see:
Mazhere is Member of FALSE religion(Not JW)......Check
False Religion is "Babylon the Great"(according to JWs)...... Check
"Babylon the Great" is a puppet of Satan(according to JWs)....Check
That about does it.
I don't know that Maz is a "Bible" Christian.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#107004 Jan 11, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
You evolutionists are pinned on a point of science that relates to the fossil record. I claim the fossil evidence supports creationism particularly where it matters in cetacea and aves.
If the best you can do is side wind away with the same old evolutionary drone and background noise, then put simply you fall to jelly when it comes down to it.
Now explain to me why Ichthyosaurus is classified as a reptile. If you can't then you can take a ticket and stand at the end of the line of loosers that like to think they talk science but actually talk twoddle. "Where is your proof?" these evos demand and quack and then when it comes down to it they want to talk about everything but ans scurry off like rats back to philosophy. Get over yourselves you evolutionists!
Now stop flapping away with your mythical theropods and explain why Ichthyosaurus is classified as a reptile with all those mammal and cetacean traits.
I hope someone has done better than you.
I see. So when you get bored, bollixed or boxed in, you decry the "evos" for making erroneously speculative and unqualified assertions.(Hint, hint)
1) the jaw hinge construction, 2) the connection of skull to vertebra, 3) the construction of the ear (reptiles 1 bone, mammals have 3), 4) the shape of the vertebrae are cyclindrical and cup shaped - completely different than cetaceans, but common with side to side swimmers 5) the number of vertebrae.

"...scurry off like rats back to philosophy"?
Your entire premise begins with "In the beginning, God created..."

heavens and earth (the universe and one planet. one ocean, no land)
photons (day/night)
atmosphere
land and seas
flowering plants
the sun, other planets and stars (the rest of the universe)
marine animals and birds
land animals (simultaneously wild and domestic)
humans.

In that order.
How can you not acknowledge any of the many glaring FUNDAMENTAL errors in this proposal?
KAB

United States

#107005 Jan 11, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Then do your own research. We'll wait.
So your side wants to make a point, and you want me to do the research to find your data. Can anyone MF trusts help him to recognize his faulty reasoning here?

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#107006 Jan 11, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>It most certainly was. If not, why fake a skull? He wanted to be recognized, evolution desperately needed evidence. It was the perfect 42 year scam!!! Evolution still needs evidence, thus the many other scam attempts.
His motivation was as you correctly state, personal recognition. He wanted fame for himself and glory for Great Britain. Evolution was the vehicle, not the destination.
Just as with you, being INCAPABLE of distinguishing the difference because your investment in promoting Creationism over scientific inquiry is personal, not selfless. It's all about the motivation. What is mine, you might ask? Entertainment.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#107007 Jan 11, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
So your side wants to make a point, and you want me to do the research to find your data. Can anyone MF trusts help him to recognize his faulty reasoning here?
LOL! Are you now cutting and pasting from posts TO you?
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#107008 Jan 11, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>HAHAHA...you don't even know emperically that the earth is a million years old. You weren't there to observe the origin of life, and all you do is spout what other have told you, that also weren't there and don't know.
And you don't know that the Earth is only 6000-10000 years old.

You weren't there to see your "god" magically poof the universe into existence.

All you do is regurgitate the words and ideas of some bronze age, goat herders who wrote a FAIRY TALE some 2300+ years ago.

Me personally, and I imagine for the VAST majority of people on our planet, I'll go with REAL logic, reasoning, the scientific method, observation, experimentation, scientific research, empirical evidence and the men and women who have studied it and worked with it pretty much EVERY DAY for the past 300+ years. And ALL, I repeat, ALL of it says your bronze age, goat herder FAIRY TALE is bullish!t where science and history are concerned.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#107009 Jan 11, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
Viable population and diversity are at issue.
With the three brother model, we get most likely issues of inbreeding and thus infertility.
Hi, Maat.

Where ya been?

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#107010 Jan 11, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, screw it. Let's just solve the matter with invisible Godmagic, ain't no problem too big!
http://www.labspaces.net/123139/Scientists_se...
To state it boldly: the three-brother postulate as practised by the denisovans and neanderthals clearly isn't viable.

(interesting website, with more discussion pieces)
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#107011 Jan 11, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
So your side wants to make a point, and you want me to do the research to find your data. Can anyone MF trusts help him to recognize his faulty reasoning here?
Oh, please. REAL scientific and historical research, data, information is EASILY found here in the information age. Just because YOU ignore, reject, dismiss, disparage and LIE about it all doesn't mean anyone other than you has faulty reasoning.

Heck, if you are so sure of your "data" why are you posting it here on an internet forum. Take it out into the wide world and use it to make some MONEY for yourself.

My guess, you won't because 1) you are too much of a coward and 2) the ONLY people who would pay you for it are ones who are as deluded as you are. Utter Cowturd, Jim the Failed Carpet Layer, Malarkeyman11, Shoobert, etc. come to mind. "Good creation scientists" are soooo hard to find.[/sarcasm]

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#107012 Jan 11, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
So your side wants to make a point, and you want me to do the research to find your data.
Will this help?
https://www.google.com/
KAB wrote:
Can anyone MF trusts help him to recognize his faulty reasoning here?
That you would actually get off your fat ass and do some research?
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#107013 Jan 11, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I have students that teach at universities now.
Yeah right, like anyone believes that. Which universities? Liberty? Bob Jones? Patriot? What subjects? Underwater basket weaving? Remedial English? Janitorial services?
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#107014 Jan 11, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I have students that teach at universities now. You?
You LIE about everything else. Chances are that this is just another one of your LIES.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#107015 Jan 11, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
[...]
Of the 2 scenarios on the table at present, I'd suggest evidence that supports a source of energy (God) having the ability to make the universe and mammals is at least supported in principle with lifeless matter and the universe. Life is matter, electrons protons, put into particular arrangements with electric charge (quantum mechanics). Your scenario of abiogenesis is not supported at all and should be the easier to demonstrate with todays laboratory technology. I am lucky to have anything, but I do, and that is more than you.
If an inability to exactly explain, and repeatedly demonstrate, the physics that brought life into being means a theory is non credible then you can also throw out your TOE with my creationism.
So I say that I actually have more evidence for my 'God did it' paradigm than your 'dirt did it' paradigm.
I suggest evolutionists not only lack any facts, but also much contrived data better aligns with creationism than TOE. eg fossil evidence for aves and cetacia, deteriorating genome, negative effects of accumulating beneficial mutations, validation of creationist predictions.
As has been pointed out allready: energy is matter and vice versa.
So either we and all we know are god or we can simply point god out.( The missing black matter would be the likely candidate.) Proof so to say.(What jesus has to do with anything remains elusive. And et's not forget the gap-theory, since the postulation of a world about ~5700 y.o. is just a handy tool. Nothing in the hebrew bible permits us to calculate precisely.)

You keep on about 'creationist predictions'...but all i read are vague speculations and a less than accurate understanding and interpretation of physics and biology.(A case of projection i'm sure.)
KAB

United States

#107016 Jan 11, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, I guess we could all be trapped in the Matrix. Oh well, since nihilism is the order of the day then this renders the whole conversation moot.(As if you were ever conversing anyway).
A simple acknowledgement that you can't provide any confirmation would have been sufficient.
KAB

United States

#107017 Jan 11, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
Viable population and diversity are at issue.
With the three brother model, we get most likely issues of inbreeding and thus infertility.
Most likely is not definite, right? Hey, 12 bison(?) managed it, and they weren't even thinking about it!

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#107018 Jan 11, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I have answered a multitude of questions and you fruit loops never answer mine.
Pyura chilensis is an invertebrate sea animal that resembles a mass of organs inside a rock. They often live in dense aggregations of population in the intertidal and subtidal coast of Chile and Peru. Similar in appearance to a marine rock structure, it is a filter feeder and eats by sucking in water rich in organic matter and filtering out microorganisms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyura_chilensis
The answer is it is NOT a rock. WOW, you hero, how difficult was that? Now you know.
Now piss off and answer my question.
What reptilian traits does Ichthyosaurus have?
I didn't ask a question. I made an assertion. Once again Maz shows us her baffling ability to completely fail to understand and comprehend what she reads.

I did answer your question. Others have answered your question. Evolution has given you the ultimate answer to your question. It is never enough. We give and we give and we give and you just take and want more. I don't know if I can go on with this relationship Maz. I think we need to see a couples counselor. I know Evolution thinks so and I believe the others will agree.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#107019 Jan 11, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
Gee! Wow! Zowie!
Madrone, how did you know MazHere wouldn't listen?
Since you posted this message, MazHere has misinterpreted one message, ignored all the others, and repeated one of her earlier posts for the umpteenth time.
You must be a prophet! A seer! A revelator!
Tell us where you live, so we can all bring you gold, myrrh, and frankincense!
<blush> I enjoy occasional periods of lucidity.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#107020 Jan 11, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Most likely is not definite, right? Hey, 12 bison(?) managed it, and they weren't even thinking about it!
Data?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#107021 Jan 11, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Well with enough whipping you finally had a go for once. Good!
Ok ... "HAD two pairs of limbs" does not distinguish Ichthyosaurus from cetacia because whales are supposedly tetrapods and also come from 4 limbed tetrapods. So this does not appear to be a reptilian trait anymore than cetacean have 4 'legs'.
As for digit like bones in flippers I am not sure what they are talking about. Is it not the digits in whale flippers that evos are always going on about.
Cetaceans (whales, dolphins, and porpoises) have a soft tissue flipper that encases most of the forelimb, and elongated digits with an increased number of phalanges (hyperphalangy).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17516431
The shoulder blades do appear to be different to current cetaceans from a quick look but the resulting pectoral arch resembles much that of the mammalian orni-thorhynchus.
Ichthyosaurus are varied and some have a single temporal fenestra like mammals and cetacean does. The pair of fenestra are a reptilian hallmark but a single one is not.
http://hydrodictyon.eeb.uconn.edu/people/schw...
These traits do not appear to make Ichthyosaurus any more reptilian than and any other cetacean.
Given warm bloodedness, live birth, blow hole, dorsel fin, looks like a porpoise etc I don't think Ichthyosaurus is any more reptilian than cetacean.
Can you or some evo please further clarify why these traits are seen as identifying these many varieties of Ichthyosaurus as being all reptilian as opposed to some being mammalian which some certainly appear to be?
And you continue to ignore the one difference that shows up in the one difference that has always been between reptiles and mammals. I see you skipped over my quote from the evolution of mammals that shows that reptile ears and reptile ear bones, which I have mentioned more than once, are different from mammal ears and mammal ear and jaw bones.

We had a couple of bones from our jaw change into ear bones long long ago in our past. That is all mammals. Including cetaceans. If the head, and especially the jaw area is well preserved a paleontologist can tell a mammal from a reptile at a glance.

It would take a "genius" like Maz to try to claim that ichthyosaurus is not a reptile.

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 Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 29 min Messianic114 1,868
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 33 min Cheech 27,263
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 48 min IB DaMann 58,055
News Intelligent Design Education Day Sun replaytime 2
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) Sun replaytime 219,597
News Betsy DeVos' Code Words for Creationism Offshoo... Feb 16 scientia potentia... 1
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) Feb 15 bofo 1,756
More from around the web