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

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

There are 161077 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

#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.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#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.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#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.

Level 1

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#107250 Jan 13, 2013
"You believe in a naturalistic origin to life, even though the scientific Law of Biogenesis says that is impossible, and has never been observed violated in a lab nor nature. So just to make a point, there is your first act of faith. That the Law of Biogenesis has been violated, and that the origin of life occurred naturally."

"The generation of life from non-living material is called abiogenesis, and has occurred at least once in the history of the Earth,[4] or in the history of the Universe (see panspermia), when life first arose."
I know I used wikipedia, but that is part of the same law that you are using against me. This does say that the law was broken at first, but it is still a fact that life began on its own. Just like the "something-can't-come-fro m-nothing" argument, the law does not mean a supernatural being had to do it just because the law doesn't support it, it just means we should accept this fact because evolution, dating of the earth, and MANY other scientific facts disprove the christian god and any deity so we can't prove how life first got here but we can be sure it wasn't jepus christ's dad or whatever the fuck you fuckfaces dwell on. And this is indeed where you could say we rely on theories. There is evidence for how life could start on its own and the universe too. Science has come to explain so much about our universe, and to sit here and mock it by saying we believe in more than religion. And even if you think I'm wrong here, it also means that allah could have done it, or any other god that is similar and my point on being on this website is to open people's minds and understand where we come from. Also, we can't disprove any deity. We cannot disprove allah, we cannot disprove venus, we cannot disprove any supernatural idea because supernatural things have nothing to do with the real universe. Sorry to offend you, but religion was made up my man. It is fundamental christian belief that the earth is 6000-10000 years old, noah put 16000 animals including whales, fish etc on a boat safely and 7 billion people and 5000 ethnic groups came form noah's family of 8, and adam created 'sin'(which, by the way, makes no sense because 'free will' or overcoming instincts shows that we don't have a choice but have a choice to do bad things)... annddd the fact that his creations of life are SEPARATE, PERFECT, and in HIS image: what happened to separate? The fact that there is interspecies breeding PROVES a mistake in his PERFECT/SEPARATE creation. And it also backs up common ancestry/evolution. I know a threw a whooole lot of shit at you there, but this shit is fun!

Level 1

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#107251 Jan 13, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I You believe in a naturalistic origin to life, even though the scientific Law of Biogenesis says that is impossible, and has never been observed violated in a lab nor nature. So just to make a point, there is your first act of faith. That the Law of Biogenesis has been violated, and that the origin of life occurred naturally.
"The generation of life from non-living material is called abiogenesis, and has occurred at least once in the history of the Earth,[4] or in the history of the Universe (see panspermia), when life first arose."
I know I used wikipedia, but that is part of the same law that you are using against me. This does say that the law was broken at first, but it is still a fact that life began on its own. Just like the "something-can't-come-fro m-nothing" argument, the law does not mean a supernatural being had to do it just because the law doesn't support it, it just means we should accept this fact because evolution, dating of the earth, and MANY other scientific facts disprove the christian god and any deity so we can't prove how life first got here but we can be sure it wasn't jepus christ's dad or whatever the fuck you fuckfaces dwell on. And this is indeed where you could say we rely on theories. There is evidence for how life could start on its own and the universe too. Science has come to explain so much about our universe, and to sit here and mock it by saying we believe in more than religion. And even if you think I'm wrong here, it also means that allah could have done it, or any other god that is similar and my point on being on this website is to open people's minds and understand where we come from. Also, we can't disprove any deity. We cannot disprove allah, we cannot disprove venus, we cannot disprove any supernatural idea because supernatural things have nothing to do with the real universe. Sorry to offend you, but religion was made up my man. It is fundamental christian belief that the earth is 6000-10000 years old, noah put 16000 animals including whales, fish etc on a boat safely and 7 billion people and 5000 ethnic groups came form noah's family of 8, and adam created 'sin'(which, by the way, makes no sense because 'free will' or overcoming instincts shows that we don't have a choice but have a choice to do bad things)... annddd the fact that his creations of life are SEPARATE, PERFECT, and in HIS image: what happened to separate? The fact that there is interspecies breeding PROVES a mistake in his PERFECT/SEPARATE creation. And it also backs up common ancestry/evolution. I know a threw a whooole lot of shit at you there, but this shit is fun!
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#107252 Jan 13, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I see you are already ahead of me.
Nah, just ahead of the fundies. Which is all I need to be.

;-p

Level 1

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#107253 Jan 13, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>We don't say GOD did it because we don't understand the universe or life, we say GOD did it because we DO understand this universe and life.
Oh so you DO understand this universe? Tell me the origin of life and universe! and then prove it! oh wait, you can't and you DON'T UNDERSTAND THE UNIVERSE!!! this is my point!! we can't test or observe something that happened billions of years ago, but we can gather evidence! And no scientific validation says we can't come up with a theory we can't observe. You truly are out of your league on science.

Level 1

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#107254 Jan 13, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks.
That disqualifies me on two counts.
There is evidence that whales evolved from ungulates,
and I'm not absolutely sure.
Suppose we found a fossil succession from ichthyosaurs to whales.
Suppose we found DNA similarities between ichthyosaurs to whales.
Suppose we found whale embryos which go through a stage in which they resemble ichythyosaurs.
And suppose we heard an explanation of how this evidence overshadows the evidence that whales are descended from ungulates.
Then I will suggest that whales are descended from ichthyosaurs.
But I'm not going to make that statement just to get MazHere to stop insulting me.
PS I see that you're a newcomer.
Welcome aboard!
Aight cool. Some people on here need to step in a science class or meet a monkey because they are so retarded thinking they can use science against us. They tweak the meanings of scientific laws and then blow each other. I hate people
KAB

Wilson, NC

#107255 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.
Here's Smitty's original post with my initial response,

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

What kind of process would you say he describes for his analogy?

BTW, I didn't ignore any of his points. I chose to make only one observation.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#107256 Jan 13, 2013
MazHere wrote:
In the end when any point is debated to its conslusion it is easy to see that the data better aligns with creationism than evolution, even though it is most likely flawed.
You mean that's the direction this debate is headed?
I thought it was going around in circles!

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#107257 Jan 13, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's Smitty's original post with my initial response,
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TFA...
What kind of process would you say he describes for his analogy?
BTW, I didn't ignore any of his points. I chose to make only one observation.
An observation of no real significance. It is no different that analogizing avian flight with that an airplane. Would you then have us believe that you think there are little pilots inside the heads of birds.

Geez you stupid.

I wonder what you will see first if you ever open your eyes.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#107258 Jan 13, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Maz, when are you going to start to defend the creationist paradigm?
We are waiting. So far all you have done is to misinterpret a few papers and to quote debunked creationists.
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 of TOE, 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 has ended up in that huge rubbish bin of evolutionary delusions past!
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketsc...

2. Creationists predictions re vestigial organs being functional 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 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 plants 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...

So far these 3 and the next 3 remain sustained.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#107259 Jan 13, 2013
4. Creationists expect to find data that supports a limited ability to adapt. 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 and may be a consequence of the fall. 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 and life evolves despite all cos. The data supports creationism and the additional assumptions 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.

Go slap your self because your flawed data and over 150 years of instability and change demonstates evolutionists truely have no idea what they are taking about.

Lililth_Satans_B ore
Level 2

Since: May 12

Bellevue, WA

#107260 Jan 13, 2013
a never ending sea of christard stupids

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#107261 Jan 13, 2013
MikeHockertz wrote:
<quoted text>
"The generation of life from non-living material is called abiogenesis, and has occurred at least once in the history of the Earth,[4] or in the history of the Universe (see panspermia), when life first arose."
I know I used wikipedia, but that is part of the same law that you are using against me. This does say that the law was broken at first, but it is still a fact that life began on its own. Just like the "something-can't-come-fro m-nothing" argument, the law does not mean a supernatural being had to do it just because the law doesn't support it, it just means we should accept this fact because evolution, dating of the earth, and MANY other scientific facts disprove the christian god and any deity so we can't prove how life first got here but we can be sure it wasn't jepus christ's dad or whatever the fuck you fuckfaces dwell on. And this is indeed where you could say we rely on theories. There is evidence for how life could start on its own and the universe too. Science has come to explain so much about our universe, and to sit here and mock it by saying we believe in more than religion. And even if you think I'm wrong here, it also means that allah could have done it, or any other god that is similar and my point on being on this website is to open people's minds and understand where we come from. Also, we can't disprove any deity. We cannot disprove allah, we cannot disprove venus, we cannot disprove any supernatural idea because supernatural things have nothing to do with the real universe. Sorry to offend you, but religion was made up my man. It is fundamental christian belief that the earth is 6000-10000 years old, noah put 16000 animals including whales, fish etc on a boat safely and 7 billion people and 5000 ethnic groups came form noah's family of 8, and adam created 'sin'(which, by the way, makes no sense because 'free will' or overcoming instincts shows that we don't have a choice but have a choice to do bad things)... annddd the fact that his creations of life are SEPARATE, PERFECT, and in HIS image: what happened to separate? The fact that there is interspecies breeding PROVES a mistake in his PERFECT/SEPARATE creation. And it also backs up common ancestry/evolution. I know a threw a whooole lot of shit at you there, but this shit is fun!
So here we go again with another new boofhead joing the thead waffling on aver the samee rubbish you lot have for the past 6 months with no ability to defend you science, flawed data, change, inconsistency, falsifications to offer in his defence.

We have been through this a dozen times and you evos cannot refute a word of anything based on the crap you call empitical evidence.

Interspecies breeding is evolutionists problems seeing as all evolutionists have to offer is 'shit' because they can't define anything. So we don't mind at all!

It is actually great to see bigoted morons join the thead because I like to demonstrate how stupid you are.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#107262 Jan 13, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
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 of TOE, 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 has ended up in that huge rubbish bin of evolutionary delusions past!
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketsc...
2. Creationists predictions re vestigial organs being functional 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 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 plants 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...
So far these 3 and the next 3 remain sustained.
I must be Monday, the Maz show is starting again. Is Jesus Christ proud of your lies?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#107263 Jan 13, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
So here we go again with another new boofhead joing the thead waffling on aver the samee rubbish you lot have for the past 6 months with no ability to defend you science, flawed data, change, inconsistency, falsifications to offer in his defence.
We have been through this a dozen times and you evos cannot refute a word of anything based on the crap you call empitical evidence.
Interspecies breeding is evolutionists problems seeing as all evolutionists have to offer is 'shit' because they can't define anything. So we don't mind at all!
It is actually great to see bigoted morons join the thead because I like to demonstrate how stupid you are.
Do you speak English?

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#107264 Jan 13, 2013
MazHere wrote:
4. Creationists expect to find data that supports a limited ability to adapt. 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 and may be a consequence of the fall. 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 and life evolves despite all cos. The data supports creationism and the additional assumptions 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.
Go slap your self because your flawed data and over 150 years of instability and change demonstates evolutionists truely have no idea what they are taking about.
More Maz Confusion. All this has been refuted with solid scientific evidence. Maz is just Lap Dancing for Jesus. Like us, Jesus knows you are a liar Maz.

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 Defending the Faith: Intelligent design vs. 'Go... 31 min 15th Dalai Lama 436
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 44 min Honest 67,777
Why Are There No Transitional Animals Today? (Mar '09) 1 hr Honest 928
Curious dilemma about DNA 1 hr Dogen 448
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 5 hr River Tam 28,721
What does the theory of evolution state? 7 hr River Tam 186
News Alabama science literacy threatened by antiscie... 13 hr Subduction Zone 3
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 14 hr Regolith Based Li... 221,400
More from around the web