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

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

There are 168816 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

Macclesfield, UK

#107230 Jan 13, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It's ironic that in your effort to support evolution you describe a design process. Go figure. Open YOUR eyes!
What design process? What are the mechanisms behind it and the evidence for them?

I can has data?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#107231 Jan 13, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>i have no idea what you are taking about.
Wow.

Markie's first example of honesty on this thread?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#107232 Jan 13, 2013
MazHere wrote:
Then comes the interpretation of that data, be the data flawed or not.
We have different interpretations of the same data.
Yup. And somehow your interpretation is always "right", even though ours passes the scientific method and yours doesn't, and you claim all data is "flawed" anyway. Unless it demonstrates invisible Jewmagic.

Although uh, I'm still not quite sure how it does demonstrate that despite all your many incoherent rants...

:-/
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#107233 Jan 13, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
So you reckon you have falsified your evolutionists and their work on the deteriorating genome do you?
Nope. We falsified you.

Months ago.

That's why all you can do is repeat the same old incorrect points without ever providing a valid rebuttal.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#107234 Jan 13, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>From your very own link!
"Charles Dawson gave British palaeontology what it had craved for so long: A British ancestor; a missing link from the home counties."
Like I said, he gave them what they didn't have, but really wanted.
"CRACK!!! IT'S OUTTA HERE!!!"
It was found to be fake by using science you reject.

Crack. It's outta here.

But who cares when you can just use the Black Knight approach, just like our pal Maz?(shrug)
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#107235 Jan 13, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Again I sugest that Kong is intentionally leading the forum astray.
Evos have many classifications that mean absolutely nothing. Ichy is one of them. It is a bunch of organisms thrown together for convenience. eg Indohyus that appears with hooves and toes.
There are 80 species of Ichy and Kong is intentionally refering to those that suit him. Many are reconstructed from crushed fragments according to an evo paradigm. eg rudolfensis.
Within this shamozzle of a taxon there are varieties that do have a blow hole.
Here is a book where you can see the writer also argiung for the mammalian placental traits and single blow hole that Ichy displays, pg317. Blue whlaes have a double blow hole. The reason evos do not always call it a blowhole is obvious.
http://books.google.com.au/books...
Yes some species of reptile have live births which further demonstrates these classifications you lot use are useless. The jaw shows, they also most likely fed on fish, and a few of the larger species had heavy jaws and teeth that indicated they fed on smaller reptiles
If you think a dolphin head and beak looks like a reptile, all I can say is I do not argue with the insanely delusional.
The same goes for the single fenestra which is a mammal trait found in whales, humans and Ichy, but not reptiles.
Warm bloodedness belongs to Ichy, man, whale and birds, not reptiles.
Ichy appears to be most likely a variety of cetacean and shares no more reptilian traits than cetacean today.
No, it's a fish. Come ON, Maz!
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#107236 Jan 13, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I is NOT a misunderstanding to state that research highlighted a DETERIORATING genome.
Now you can struggle, offer your apologies with 'likely', suggest I can't read English any better than you and still the results will say the same thing.
AND more importantly this data, without the hubris to explain it in evolutionary terms and turn evidence for creation into an evolutionary mystery of liklihood , actually supports a creationist paradigm better than an evolutionary one. Would you guys not have loved for your research to demonstrate the genome was coping well in expelling deleterious mutations? Well it isn't Too bad for you evos, as usual.
And how exactly does our current population expansion fit with your claims and the Noah scenario then?

And remind us once more of the proposed date based on observable mutation rates of genetic critical mass leading to inevitable and irrevocable population decline?

And even if we pretend you could do any of this for a moment, what does it matter when all we need do is propose the EXACT same solution as you do for all your numerous problems that you've been unable to address for 6 months?

That solution of course being MAGIC.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#107237 Jan 13, 2013
Stefooch wrote:
Debating evolutionists are fruitless for they are blind to the truth but still we debat. Debating creationists are also fruitless because they have the truth. If i die and I was wrong thats it but if an atheist dies and was wrong what then?
They spend an eternity getting lightning bolts shoved up their azz by the Almighty Zeus. Duh.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#107238 Jan 13, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
What design process? What are the mechanisms behind it and the evidence for them?
I can has data?
Didn't you read the post to which I was responding? It was right in front of you on the same screen. What type of process did he use for his analogy?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#107239 Jan 13, 2013
Stefooch wrote:
It doesn't take a creationist to seriously question evolution. Why have there been so many assumptions in the case of evolution and zero evidence (because what you claim to be evidence is in fact your interpretation of the exact same evidence creationists look at)
The difference being the creationist "interpretation" doesn't pass the scientific method like evolution does.
Stefooch wrote:
Why does the theory of evolution change so much but true creationists that believe in the bible stick to their story.
Because science takes new evidence into account as it comes in. That's why Newtonian mechanics was replaced by Einstein's relativity, which is in turn being replaced by quantum mechanics.

So go ahead and tell us how gravity is in grave doubt.

Creationists on the other hand do NOT stick to the Bible (there's no such thing as a Biblical literalist, except me maybe), and like to come down on both sides of an argument to cover all bases. That's why Maz is referencing old Earth data and young Earth apologetics at the same time and claiming they are still both a "problem" for the theory of evolution.

In short, creationists are simply dishonest lying scumbags for Jesus who don't give a frig about the 9th Commandment.(shrug)
Stefooch wrote:
Nieche is the only atheist that was worth respect. He said that life itself is will to power, nothing else matters. Now even though he didn't believe in God he saw that man was LOST yet some atheists still believe that there is hope for humanity . People assume creationists just quote creationists and that they are stupid.
And the vast majority of them are. The rest are merely dishonest.
Stefooch wrote:
Why have there been so many hoaxes of evidence for evolution, because atheists want to believe what they believe. I dont have enough faith to be an atheist.
Those hoaxes were exposed by evolutionary scientists using evolutionary science you reject. For example, Marksman and Maz both take issue with carbon dating, despite it being used to demonstrate that Piltdown was a fraud. Therefore if they had any intellectual honesty they would claim that Piltdown is a genuine fossil of a once living organism. For they prefer to tarnish evolution by proxy rather than falsify it with scientific evidence. Or rather BECAUSE they know that it is supported by scientific evidence. Like thus:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...

Also, what has atheism got to do with evolution?

Well, I'll tell ya - NOTHING.

Zip. Zero. Nada. Nowt. Not at all. Not even a ickle tiny widdle bit.

Evolution is NOT atheism. It makes NO theological claims. Even some religious people, including Christians, accept evolution. And as it happens evolution is accepted by pretty much every major scientific institution in the world.

But uh, for some reason a few mooks on the internet seem to know better than the entire scientific community because the scientific community is unaware that this internet mook just so happens to be the greatest scientist of all time and was able to figure out everything that they couldn't.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#107240 Jan 13, 2013
Stefooch wrote:
<quoted text> I told you that I use fallacies but listen my first 2 lines where subjective because even though you debate me you will never change my mind but even though I debate you I will never change your mind.
But if what you believe is right we both die and become ground. Fine we're even. But let's say we both kick the bucket now and I am right, I won't see you in hell because its dark there and pain is everywhere. That is OBJECTIVE because I am not saying that you theory is wrong but there's a chance that you'll have eternal regret. Me on the other hand it can end positive or i become dirt.
Pascal's Wager. OH NOES!!!

:-(
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#107241 Jan 13, 2013
Stefooch wrote:
<quoted text> I see anger in what you say yet i never said you where wrong i just asked an honest question,(what if,) well since you are to dull to think like an open minded person I will put myself in an atheist's shoes. Atheist : there is no evidence for god so why should i care. I dont like the rules the other humans are making, I want to kill people because there is no absolute truth. Well that is a bit extreme actually a lot extreme but where do you draw the line of moral code. Now, say I am an atheist And IF just if christians are right and I die. I would regret my whole life. Remember JUST IF!!
And what if Ra is real and you're wrong? Your eternal soul will end up in the belly of a croc with a lion's azz.

Now let's put ourselves into the theist's shoes. This is a bit extreme of course, but it's only fair since you decided to use the example of an extreme atheist:

There is a god so why should I care about anyone else? I dont like the rules the other humans are making, I want to kill people because there is absolute truth. God commands me to kill all infidels, just as it commanded me to wipe out all the Amalekites, including men, women, children, animals, and plants. Oh, and we've gotte execute all gays. And witches, because everyone knows that magical witches are real, right? The Bible sez so. There is no such thing as good deeds, charity or morality because all morality is dictated to by the invisible sky-daddy and what he says goes no matter what. Therefore genocide is fine if he says so. And nothing I do will ever be good, and in fact I can't tell the difference between good and bad anyway really. In fact yes I can! It's called heaven and hell! If it keeps me outta hell and gets me into heaven then it "must" be good! And if it sends me downstairs then it "must" be bad. Keep in mind that merely questioning my religion will earn me a ticket downstairs because freedom of thought and critical thinking is discouraged and not tolerated. See, if the atheists are wrong and I die, then I "know" that my god is the "correct" one out of all of the many many thousands of gods that have been proposed over the millenia, even though I have no evidence and only believe in it because that's what my local priesthood says.

Yup, you sure sound "open-minded" alright.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#107242 Jan 13, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
..AND SO DO WHALES AND HUMANS HAVE ONE FENESTRA. High or low it is NOT TWO. 2 fenestra is a reptilian trait. So which species has one and a half?
These are all reconstructed to evolutionary paradigms any way. A crocodile has nostrils because it is not fully aquatic. Ichy was fully aquatic, gave live birth at sea, and even in evolutionary terms it makes not sense to select for a dud that's going to drown.
A mammal at this date, no matter what name you give it, supports creation and not evolution.
No, it's a fish. It supports the Cosmic Sheep from dimension Zog!
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#107243 Jan 13, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually even without showing an extensive list I can quate Joun Sandord a YEC
Which means he's a reality denier and invoking Sanford (you spelled it wrong) is in direct contradiction to all your claims about Icthy.

But who cares when your "scientific alternative" is an invisible Jewish magic wizard?

Hypocrisy, thy name is Mazcat.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#107244 Jan 13, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Well I admit sometimes I have to make obvious points over again
The only obvious things about 'em is their repetitious dishonest stupidity.(shrug)
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#107245 Jan 13, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
I hope you didn't take my 'learn to live with it' post as an admission of failure on my part.
On the contrary, you have made precious few valid points with regard to Ichty. You were correct about Ichthy's fenestrae. They have ONE pair on each side -- as least for the bulk of the specimens found. But you then wax on about this being proof of their Mammalian distinction. Wrong. As I have provided evidence for:
Euryapsida one high fenestra (above the postorbital and squamosal) protorosaurs (small, early lizard-like reptiles) and the marine sauropterygians and ichthyosaurs, the latter called Parapsida in Osborn's work.
Wiki has a good article (with references) about the finding and classification of Ichthy. A relevant snip:
"Perplexed by the creature, Home kept changing his mind about its classification, first thinking it was a kind of fish, then thinking it might have some kind of affinity with the duck-billed platypus (only recently known to science); finally in 1819 he reasoned it might be a kind of intermediate form between salamanders and lizards, which led him to propose naming it Proteo-Saurus. By then Charles Konig, an assistant curator of the British Museum, had already suggested the name Ichthyosaurus (fish lizard) for the specimen and that name stuck."
Continuing:
"In 1821 William Conybeare and Henry De la Beche, both members of the Geological Society of London, collaborated on a paper that analysed in detail the specimens found by Anning and others. They concluded that ichthyosaurs were a previously unknown type of marine reptile, and based on differences in tooth structure, they concluded that there had been at least three species."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Anning
So it seems that at a time when commercial whaling was rampant, and therefore the morphology of cetacea should be VERY well known (expecially for an assistant curator for the British Museum), it was vividly apparent that Ichthy was NOT a mammal, but a reptile.
Note also that the naming and the classification of Ichthy as a reptile was done some 4 decades before Darwin published.
If you are still adamant about Ichthy being a mammal, you will continue to be disappointed.
Or...you could strike your favorite Don Quixote pose, and persist in attacking those evil windmills.
Yeah, but that's because evolution isn't just a world-wide atheist Darwinist scientist conspiracy, it's a TIME-TRAVELLING world-wide atheist Darwinist scientist conspiracy!!! Don't you know anything?!?

>:-(
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#107246 Jan 13, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>What you are refuring to is a concept called Pascals Wager, and as you say, it is a very valid concept.
Uh, yeah. Sure it is. Because quite obviously your god is more likely than any one of 10,000 others, right?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#107247 Jan 13, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Didn't you read the post to which I was responding? It was right in front of you on the same screen. What type of process did he use for his analogy?
I read it. It did not provide any evidence or mechanisms of whatever design process you propose. As far as can be determined he used an analogy to explain his point. And like Maz, you ignored the point he made about nested hierarchies.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#107248 Jan 13, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
What design process? What are the mechanisms behind it and the evidence for them?
I can has data?
I made an analogy using the construction of some nondescript machine by different groups of people where the purpose of the machine was the same, and no group had a single plan for construction. KAB got full wood when he saw this and tripped over his scrotum trying to get to the keyboard to crow about how I used a description of design with purpose to describe a natural process. It was an analogy and whatever he thinks it means is in his own head and not in reality. At least he provided data this time. That was a nice change of pace for him. But not to be too hard on him, he couldn't really provide data for a global flood since it never occurred.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#107249 Jan 13, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
I read it. It did not provide any evidence or mechanisms of whatever design process you propose. As far as can be determined he used an analogy to explain his point. And like Maz, you ignored the point he made about nested hierarchies.
I see you are already ahead of me.

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr Samuel Patre 94,370
Why the Big Bang is ALL WRONG. 8 hr Endofdays 304
Beauty is the Lord's Golden Section 14 hr 15th Dalai Lama 3
Altruistic Behaviour negates the theory of Evol... 14 hr 15th Dalai Lama 29
Evolutionists are now called.. 'BUBBLE PEOPLE' 15 hr Rose_NoHo 44
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 15 hr Eagle 12 - 5,998
Evolution is an ANCIENT RELIGION 19 hr Davidjayjordan 5