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

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

There are 154610 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.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#107729 Jan 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Who is questioning the gradual accumulation of variations over time?
Mazhere is.
Acc. to Maz it's all devolving and going extict or braindead.
Maz strives to be an example of proving that man is the intelligent pinnacle of creation and at the same time that braindeath is setting in.
Maz is in other words doing her stinkiest best to live up to the creationist paradigm.
KAB

United States

#107730 Jan 16, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Your claim is that there is some magic limit on the iterative process of adaptation preventing it from going past a certain point (mythical, not observed).
At the same time we have both the evidence of the fossil record showing a progression of anatomically similar but changing organisms over long periods (observed), following the rule of divergence with modern patterns as we go back (observed) AND convergence with contemporary patterns in the record (observed) so that what look very different today such as:
birds and reptiles or
mammals and reptiles or
lobe finned fish and amphibians or
humans and apes
can be tracked back to converging lines in the record as per...
(archie and 30+ dino-avian species to date: convergence)
(therapsid "mammal-like" reptiles: convergence)
(eusthenopteron, tiktaalik: convergence)
(various australopithecus, habilis, erectus, heidelbugensis, sapiens: convergence)
and this pattern is repeated wherever we look.
Not only that, but the observed pattern is totally inconsistent with the hypothesis of ex-nihilo creation of all types followed by merely extinction and minor variation.
On top of that, the non-selected elements of the genome follow the SAME nested hierarchy as the fossil record (observed)- repeatedly, independently, over multiple instances. Powerful independently corroborating evidence.
That means YOU have to explain why adaptation magically stops at some point. We do not have to explain why what IS observed should merely continue, especially when all the other evidence shows it has done in the past!
I claim no magic. I claim design as a designer. I could design such a limiting mechanism. Do you deny a designer could do that?

You have no data continuum between the types. You have discontinuities.

Do you think you could organize a broad spectrum of variety into a pattern of relationships? I certainly could.

The genome drives the expression. They are not independent.

Design accounts for all of the above, including the discontinuities.
KAB

United States

#107731 Jan 16, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The creationist paradigm in a nutshell:
"All plants and creatures were created in their substantially modern forms at nearly the same time, but many (such as dinosaurs) went extinct between Creation and now."
That's it, right?
In which case the expected fossil record should be:
All substantially modern types represented at the lowest levels, with a gradual reduction in types seen as we move from ancient times to the present.
That means the Ediacaran and Cambrian should be chock full of dinosaurs, monkeys, angiosperm plants, birds, Ichthyosaurs, elephants, therapsids, sheep, turtles, and grasshoppers, then the next layers should have gradually fewer species and no new ones (apart from some minor statistical anomaly where one or two of the species escaped fossilisation at all in the earliest strata).
Instead we see whole Classes absent from earlier strata, and appearing in an order consistent with evolution.
Even a one-eyed person could see this. You are speaking from total blindness if you think that the fossil record support creation.
You got the paradigm wrong, as far as the Bible is concerned. Read Genesis chapter one very carefully, allowing the words/phrases/sentences/paragr aphs on the page to have their full range of legitimate possible meaning. Maybe then you will begin to discern your error.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#107732 Jan 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Is anybody contributing to this forum arguing that scientists don't make mistakes? I know they do. That's why I always want to examine/analyze/scrutinize the data, to identify any mistakes/weaknesses/shortcomin gs/oversights/omissions. The other side of the aisle generally content themselves with conclusions and look no further.
Any publications are peer-reviewed. And even before publication the actual conclusions and method are discussed thoroughly, which makes some peolple miss dead-lines.
The scientific process of pree-viewed scrutiniy insures that mistakes will be picked up on.
If nothing was done wrong in the method employed during the excavation of a fossil and dting methods but some mistake creeped in later use of the statistical method, that will be picked up on.

Science is a selfcorrecting proces.
That is why we do not throw tantrums or throw all research out of the window.
And usually we have read what led up to the conclusion.
If we find no fold we can quote it without any qualms.

To scrutinize data you must first understand it KAB.
You are lacking in that department, nevermind how much data we've thrown your way.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#107733 Jan 16, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, the caution is obviously because there is no fossil evidence contemporary with the tracks of any creature that could have made that print. Therefore it is premature to claim whether it is a bird, or something with a foot structure similar to a modern bird's. Any scientist would be an idiot to claim that birds had to exist at that time on the basis of one set of birdlike footprints.
But don't let that stop you Maz. You go right ahead and jump to the conclusions you need.
Now, lets say that the footprints turn out to be the first in a pile of evidence that does push back the origins of bird evolution? So what? Ask yourself, how far back would falsify evolution? The birds would have to appear before any possible antecedents. That would be, based on skeletal anatomy, after the archosurs and some time during the period of the dinosaurs. Does your precious footprint falsify that? No, didn't think so. Just more of your empty flapping from the edges like a crotchety old muppet.
Actually there is fossil evidence like proto avis 75 million years prior to arch, it's just that the fossils were poor.

Evolutionists have built entire life stories off the back of a single bone or fragmented skull, as well as footprints, so don't try to pass your handwaves around in front of me. Remember Lucy. She has been given human feet on the back of FOOTPRINTS, and that is good enough for you. Funny how that seems to smack of hipocricy in light of your comment.

So don't let being a hipocrite stop you either!

What happens if bird ancestry changes to your theory? Nothing. I have said TOE is based on flavour of the month and not science and it is. The fact that 'anything goes' and your obvious knowledge of it, again supports that claim. Evos can make as may false predictions and claims as they wish and still the evolutionary juggernaught will continue and is virtually unfalsifiable for the same reason. You could have common ancestor in the precambrian and that would not falsify TOE. Thanks for bringing that up again.

Despite your constant struggling, one set of well defined and clear footprints dated to the time of Pangea is excellent evidence for my view as much as you hate it. We are fortunate to have found even these considering the process of fossilization is rare.

So indeed this is not about falsifying the unfalsifiable. I cannot falsify your mythical theropod. Neither can you falsify that they are modern bird footprints. All I can do is poke fun at you like you do at creos.

It is about demonstrating that despite the hollow background noise that evos make indeed there is support for a creationist paradigm. You can struggle and do cartwheels and demand a higher level of substantiation than evos have ever had for anything and be hipocrites and go around in circles for months. Sure you can!

What you can't do with validity is say these footprints and protoavis fossils are less an evidence for me than you lot with your Laetolli footprints, one lone metatarsel, and inventing a mythical theropod to wear uncomfortable data.

I am sorry that you hate it so much. But struggle as you may these modern bird footprints ARE good evidence for birds being dated to over half way back to the Devonian.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#107734 Jan 16, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>T
There is no line. Any more than there was a sharp line when "Latin changing into French" was crossed. Its was a gradual process.
Nice analogy.

Consider it stolen.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#107735 Jan 16, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
Mazhere is.
Acc. to Maz it's all devolving and going extict or braindead.
Maz strives to be an example of proving that man is the intelligent pinnacle of creation and at the same time that braindeath is setting in.
Maz is in other words doing her stinkiest best to live up to the creationist paradigm.
Having nothing of substance, nor intelligent to say would be why you like to shoot off your mouth.

Keep justifying your own existence on this thread if it helps you sleep at night.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#107736 Jan 16, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
{groan} Deja Vu all over again.
You really need to get some new material, Marky. Throwing out the same crap every few months is nothing more than spam.
Perhaps more like "déjà moo" - we've seen this bull before...

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#107737 Jan 16, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually there is fossil evidence like proto avis 75 million years prior to arch, it's just that the fossils were poor.
Evolutionists have built entire life stories off the back of a single bone or fragmented skull, as well as footprints, so don't try to pass your handwaves around in front of me. Remember Lucy. She has been given human feet on the back of FOOTPRINTS, and that is good enough for you. Funny how that seems to smack of hipocricy in light of your comment.
So don't let being a hipocrite stop you either!
What happens if bird ancestry changes to your theory? Nothing. I have said TOE is based on flavour of the month and not science and it is. The fact that 'anything goes' and your obvious knowledge of it, again supports that claim. Evos can make as may false predictions and claims as they wish and still the evolutionary juggernaught will continue and is virtually unfalsifiable for the same reason. You could have common ancestor in the precambrian and that would not falsify TOE. Thanks for bringing that up again.
Despite your constant struggling, one set of well defined and clear footprints dated to the time of Pangea is excellent evidence for my view as much as you hate it. We are fortunate to have found even these considering the process of fossilization is rare.
So indeed this is not about falsifying the unfalsifiable. I cannot falsify your mythical theropod. Neither can you falsify that they are modern bird footprints. All I can do is poke fun at you like you do at creos.
It is about demonstrating that despite the hollow background noise that evos make indeed there is support for a creationist paradigm. You can struggle and do cartwheels and demand a higher level of substantiation than evos have ever had for anything and be hipocrites and go around in circles for months. Sure you can!
What you can't do with validity is say these footprints and protoavis fossils are less an evidence for me than you lot with your Laetolli footprints, one lone metatarsel, and inventing a mythical theropod to wear uncomfortable data.
I am sorry that you hate it so much. But struggle as you may these modern bird footprints ARE good evidence for birds being dated to over half way back to the Devonian.
Flavor of the month makes no sense and is highly inaccurate. But considering the source, why should I be surprised.

Sorry for you loss. Keep trying.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#107738 Jan 16, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually there is fossil evidence like proto avis 75 million years prior to arch, it's just that the fossils were poor.
Evolutionists have built entire life stories off the back of a single bone or fragmented skull, as well as footprints, so don't try to pass your handwaves around in front of me. Remember Lucy. She has been given human feet on the back of FOOTPRINTS, and that is good enough for you. Funny how that seems to smack of hipocricy in light of your comment.
So don't let being a hipocrite stop you either!
What happens if bird ancestry changes to your theory? Nothing. I have said TOE is based on flavour of the month and not science and it is. The fact that 'anything goes' and your obvious knowledge of it, again supports that claim. Evos can make as may false predictions and claims as they wish and still the evolutionary juggernaught will continue and is virtually unfalsifiable for the same reason. You could have common ancestor in the precambrian and that would not falsify TOE. Thanks for bringing that up again.
Despite your constant struggling, one set of well defined and clear footprints dated to the time of Pangea is excellent evidence for my view as much as you hate it. We are fortunate to have found even these considering the process of fossilization is rare.
So indeed this is not about falsifying the unfalsifiable. I cannot falsify your mythical theropod. Neither can you falsify that they are modern bird footprints. All I can do is poke fun at you like you do at creos.
It is about demonstrating that despite the hollow background noise that evos make indeed there is support for a creationist paradigm. You can struggle and do cartwheels and demand a higher level of substantiation than evos have ever had for anything and be hipocrites and go around in circles for months. Sure you can!
What you can't do with validity is say these footprints and protoavis fossils are less an evidence for me than you lot with your Laetolli footprints, one lone metatarsel, and inventing a mythical theropod to wear uncomfortable data.
I am sorry that you hate it so much. But struggle as you may these modern bird footprints ARE good evidence for birds being dated to over half way back to the Devonian.
Danny Boy you have given up because you can see your waffle and endless evasion was not getting you anywhere, as I expected.

Evos won't let a few facts get in the way of their story telling.

Neither will evolutionists let hipocricy get in the way of their ego.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#107739 Jan 16, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Flavor of the month makes no sense and is highly inaccurate. But considering the source, why should I be surprised.
Sorry for you loss. Keep trying.
Says an idiot that thinks Nature is a creationist site!

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#107740 Jan 16, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Danny Boy you have given up because you can see your waffle and endless evasion was not getting you anywhere, as I expected.
Evos won't let a few facts get in the way of their story telling.
Neither will evolutionists let hipocricy get in the way of their ego.
Maz, I don't have to give up when I am the winner. But you keep dreaming. It is apparently the world you live in. The only hypocrisy and ego parading is from you.

As usual you continue to jump to conclusions. It is sad really and even sadder considering you take such pride in your own pathology. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Bird-like tracks of an as yet undiscovered theropod until other evidence supports a different conclusion and nothing more. You and your conclusions are a twisted joke and you know it.

MazHair, Lying for Jesus.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#107741 Jan 16, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Says an idiot that thinks Nature is a creationist site!
Says an idiot that thinks it is OK to lie for God.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#107742 Jan 16, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I think you have a better shot at proving a world-wide flood than getting someone like Maz to act rationally.
You stick to chasing your tail around the unfalsifiale, because you are useless at anything else.

Yes inventing mythical theropods in total contradiction to any theropod ever dicovered of a multitude is evo rationality.

Handwaving away footprint data that is uncomfortable whilst using the Laetolli footprints to put feet on an ape is also rational and apparently non biased.

Suggesting millions of amino acids placed themselves in just the righ place to produce a complex factory of reproduction is also meant to be rational. Is it?

Having varied tetrapods and pad prints suddenly appear in the fossil record and suggesting it all evolved 'because it had to" and the pads cannot be mammals because 'we said so', is also good rational science, Is it?

In whose world, Dan?

Listen pal, all you evos are doing is demonstrating what hipocrites you are!

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#107743 Jan 16, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I do, and Aves is the stronger. Once one gets past inconsistent dating (using carbon dating usless past 5000y)of whale fossils found in strata 290myo and Dans concerns with scientists ability to date anything, and evos having a mess of contradiction of their own, I'd say YES I have evidence if you call what you have evidence.
Shall I use creo dating, research, and dating and flood geology instead and watch evos throw a tantrum? I don't think so. I'm bored with that. Someone else can do that.
I'll stick to demonstrating that evos simply have no idea what they are saying in general and the observed data better aligns with creationism in general and my 6 points of creo support amount to better than anything you can present. Fossil evidence is number 3.
If anyone has the observed facts it appears to be creationists.
I think i can simply skip reading the other 6 pages left if it continues like this.

What those idea-less posters just presented you with is that you have an unsurpassable date gap between bird and whales!

For all your socalled claimed astuteness you can at times act incredible dence.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#107744 Jan 16, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
Mazhere is.
Acc. to Maz it's all devolving and going extict or braindead.
Maz strives to be an example of proving that man is the intelligent pinnacle of creation and at the same time that braindeath is setting in.
Maz is in other words doing her stinkiest best to live up to the creationist paradigm.
You must be one of those braindead quackers like Dude who took off after he realized what a zombie he was in suggesting the genome cannot be deteriorating while junk dna is functional.

I know you are not the example of the intelligent pinnacle of mankind, that's for sure.

However Yes, I am a furless obligate bipedal mammal primate, whose placenta did poof into existence without observed evidence for its evolution, just like evos demonstrate. And yes, it appears only homo sapiens are here having this discussion unless you would like to fess up to being non human.

None of this stops you lot of hipocrites using footprints to give Lucy human feet.

Evos won't let a facts get in the way of atheir story telling.

Evos won't let blatent hipocrisy get in the way of their ego, and you are a great example of same.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#107745 Jan 16, 2013
Just a funny reminder:
On the fifth day of Creation, we learn that God creates the fish of the sea and birds of the air. For this day, we made homemade bird feeders.(sic)
---
A day in the jewish i.e. hebrew story is no more than a day. Grammatically and by the fact of mentioning morning and evening. Since it was the intent to show just a week.

OEC are just evolutionists that try to reconcile myth with fact.
If nature is gods doing and paradigm (some churchfather made that statement that all now repeat without even knowing the origin.)then design belongs firmly in the realm of culture.
So a god of design is a cultural paradigm (yeah let's throw that word in everywhere.)

Ah well i could continue. i keep seeing the contradictions that christian creationists are apparently blind and deaf to.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#107746 Jan 16, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
You stick to chasing your tail around the unfalsifiale, because you are useless at anything else.
Yes inventing mythical theropods in total contradiction to any theropod ever dicovered of a multitude is evo rationality.
Handwaving away footprint data that is uncomfortable whilst using the Laetolli footprints to put feet on an ape is also rational and apparently non biased.
Suggesting millions of amino acids placed themselves in just the righ place to produce a complex factory of reproduction is also meant to be rational. Is it?
Having varied tetrapods and pad prints suddenly appear in the fossil record and suggesting it all evolved 'because it had to" and the pads cannot be mammals because 'we said so', is also good rational science, Is it?
In whose world, Dan?
Listen pal, all you evos are doing is demonstrating what hipocrites you are!
You better be nice Maz, I was thinking of dedicating my next book to you.

Seriously though, how can you post what you do and still have the temerity to challenge rational thought. It isn't like you use it yourself. Step back and see what you are shoveling. If if looks like shit and smells like shit, it is shit.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#107747 Jan 16, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
You must be one of those braindead quackers like Dude who took off after he realized what a zombie he was in suggesting the genome cannot be deteriorating while junk dna is functional.
I know you are not the example of the intelligent pinnacle of mankind, that's for sure.
However Yes, I am a furless obligate bipedal mammal primate, whose placenta did poof into existence without observed evidence for its evolution, just like evos demonstrate. And yes, it appears only homo sapiens are here having this discussion unless you would like to fess up to being non human.
None of this stops you lot of hipocrites using footprints to give Lucy human feet.
Evos won't let a facts get in the way of atheir story telling.
Evos won't let blatent hipocrisy get in the way of their ego, and you are a great example of same.
Who has the bar of soap?

Evolution is not about man bing the pinnacle and endresult of evolution.
Nor is the narrative in the bible written to point that out, but rather to point out that all is of value and that we share responsibility for all Elohyim represents.
And the exegesis of the adam and eve story does not lead to finding eve evil or to some satan.
And so on.
But to come back to my former devo question: Are you a racist Mazhere?

You remind me of Catweazzle, that stole a lightbulb so he would be the greatest magician, having the tool to master the art of electrickery.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#107748 Jan 16, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually there is fossil evidence like proto avis 75 million years prior to arch, it's just that the fossils were poor.
Evolutionists have built entire life stories off the back of a single bone or fragmented skull, as well as footprints, so don't try to pass your handwaves around in front of me. Remember Lucy. She has been given human feet on the back of FOOTPRINTS, and that is good enough for you. Funny how that seems to smack of hipocricy in light of your comment.
So don't let being a hipocrite stop you either!
What happens if bird ancestry changes to your theory? Nothing. I have said TOE is based on flavour of the month and not science and it is. The fact that 'anything goes' and your obvious knowledge of it, again supports that claim. Evos can make as may false predictions and claims as they wish and still the evolutionary juggernaught will continue and is virtually unfalsifiable for the same reason. You could have common ancestor in the precambrian and that would not falsify TOE. Thanks for bringing that up again.
Despite your constant struggling, one set of well defined and clear footprints dated to the time of Pangea is excellent evidence for my view as much as you hate it. We are fortunate to have found even these considering the process of fossilization is rare.
So indeed this is not about falsifying the unfalsifiable. I cannot falsify your mythical theropod. Neither can you falsify that they are modern bird footprints. All I can do is poke fun at you like you do at creos.
It is about demonstrating that despite the hollow background noise that evos make indeed there is support for a creationist paradigm. You can struggle and do cartwheels and demand a higher level of substantiation than evos have ever had for anything and be hipocrites and go around in circles for months. Sure you can!
What you can't do with validity is say these footprints and protoavis fossils are less an evidence for me than you lot with your Laetolli footprints, one lone metatarsel, and inventing a mythical theropod to wear uncomfortable data.
I am sorry that you hate it so much. But struggle as you may these modern bird footprints ARE good evidence for birds being dated to over half way back to the Devonian.
I don't need to lie for God you waste of space, Dan. This is why I write substantial posts and you come up with moron dribble such as..

"Says an idiot that thinks it is OK to lie for God". A cliam that gets Dans rocks off but is baseless and a sign of the brain deadness one gets being on line every waking moment of every day, appears to be unemployed, and has no life apart from ego stroking online. Poor sad Dan.

Your quacking about the evo dating and evos interpetations was the perfect examples of the lost and gobsmacked wanting to post to save face.

You are a gobsmacked hypocrite and so are most of the evos here.
And I will keep posting this until you come up with this mythical theropod of yours or these loosers redate the strata.

Until then, this is evidence for creation and the surprise is, you do not have to be happy about it.

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
Might life have spontaneously have started mill... 5 min It aint necessari... 624
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 21 min SoE 48,383
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 36 min Porkncheese 179,706
Richard Dawkins tells the truth 47 min Porkncheese 6
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 4 hr Dogen 216,597
Science News (Sep '13) 15 hr _Susan_ 3,980
News Does Mike Pence Believe in Evolution? Thu scientia potentia... 9
More from around the web