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

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

There are 152069 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.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#107749 Jan 16, 2013
MAAT wrote:
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.
It appears you are saying you have no idea how to pull yourself out of the mire of hipocricy and have decided to go with philosophical blather and asides instead.

Are you giving me the footprints as evidence for creation, because I am not goint to be led astray until one of you loosers fesses up. You can get around like mad people unable to focus as your evasion strategy. However, if you move on from the evidence for Aves, I will take my point as 'sustained'. Get it?

The only thing you can continue is to demonstrate when it comes down to evidence base evos prefer to blather on about unflasifiable philosophies. I don't blame you! That's likely the only way evos like you can get their jollies for the day.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#107750 Jan 16, 2013
Mazhere how can you at the same time accept really old dates, and use the findings (though twisted)to suit your creo-paradigm...and claim that nothing can be true since there was no approved observer around.

That has been your stopgap refutation everytime.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#107751 Jan 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You will definitely never be convinced if you can't provide even a single verifiable inconsistency, logical impossibility, or other error since you will remain convinced of what you presently believe without proof.
But, if you use the tentative nature of science as wiggle room for any extraordinary claim with zero evidence to have occurred, you're doing nothing more than creating a gap for your God. Isn't it sad that you must resort to creating tiny little places for your God to occupy? Wouldn't it be grander to have a much greater God than that?

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#107752 Jan 16, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
We have all proven you lie. So denying that is another lie. Maz, I have no doubt you will post until close of day. What else does a maid of your age have to do with her time, now that the change has come and gone and there is no longer hope for the laughter of children to fill your days.

What are you going to do when, like time and life, we to start ignoring you?

It sucks to be you.

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#107753 Jan 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You will definitely never be convinced if you can't provide even a single verifiable inconsistency, logical impossibility, or other error since you will remain convinced of what you presently believe without proof.
Why KAB, the first that always comes to mind is the two different versions of creation in Genesis 1 and 2. The Bible immediately starts with these two similar but contradictory versions of creation and goes down hill from there. I discovered this independently when I was young and as I grew older discovered it was known for hundreds of years prior to my existence. Biblical scholars have shown even to the point of using specialized software that they are different and were written by different authors. Another is the population of Nod that Cain was able to marry into. Where did they come from? How about all the different stories of Christ's resurection. The cast of characters changes with each telling. I am sure you will provide answers, but I doubt they will be anything I have encountered or found to be wanting.

So, no I don't presently believe in a literal translation of the Bible and that is not a conclusion without proof.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#107754 Jan 16, 2013
Awwww CRAP. ANOTHER lawsuit the Orange County taxpayers will have to shoulder:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/bre...

OrlandoSentinel.com

Group distributing Bibles today in Orange high schools

District allowing distribution to avoid lawsuit, lawyer says

By Lauren Roth, Orlando Sentinel

11:42 AM EST, January 16, 2013

Orange County Public Schools is permitting a religious group to distribute free Bibles at 11 high schools today to avoid a lawsuit, the school district's attorney said.

The group giving out the Bibles, World Changers of Florida, successfully sued Collier County schools after the district blocked a previous distribution attempt. The group plans to give out Bibles in Collier on Thursday.

According to a memorandum sent to principals by district counsel Woody Rodriguez, World Changers volunteers must be registered with the district and cannot talk with students. The activists can set up tables in student areas and replenish the Bibles during the school day.

Volunteers were expected to set up tables at Evans, Boone, Colonial, Jones, Wekiva, Apopka, Edgewater, Timber Creek, Cypress Creek, Winter Park, and University high schools.

District policy requires that materials distributed to students to "fulfill a legitimate purpose of the Orange County Public Schools or a legitimate community need." The group, according to its website, aims to have creation taught in public schools and wants to encourage Christian prayer and Bible reading on campus.

<<end cut/paste>>

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#107755 Jan 16, 2013
Sorry, KAB, but that should read "I doubt they will be anything I haven't encountered."
KAB

United States

#107756 Jan 16, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
An assertion, KAB?
<quoted text>
I disagree with your last two statements.
<quoted text>
Thanks for the invite but been there. Lived in Europe for 3 1/2 years.
Yes, an assertion based on experience, personal as described, and observed. Besides, you described how your religious experience contributed to turning you against religion. If it was a "false religious" experience, such an outcome would hardly be unexpected.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#107757 Jan 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, an assertion based on experience, personal as described, and observed. Besides, you described how your religious experience contributed to turning you against religion. If it was a "false religious" experience, such an outcome would hardly be unexpected.
You have no idea what kind of experience it was, you pompous ass. There wasn't anything negative about it. I didn't 'turn against religion' as you put it. I simply found the differences between the ideals of the different faiths and the behavior of their members to be very hypocritical.

I also find biblical literalists to be a very silly lot.

I don't campaign against religion. I largely ignore it. It simply doesn't matter to me all that much. Unless someone starts spouting off their nonsense on a public forum.
KAB

United States

#107758 Jan 16, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
To put is simple.
A. et al has done a thorough study on a subject.
Creo attacks some of the findings with a simple statement that in this case : a footprint is a footprint, and therefore everyone stating otherwise is dumb and mad.
Well that is no refutation of A. et al 's research by any stretch of the imagination.
So we do not need to disproof or proof A et all research again, but just point out that creo's understanding of the initial study is faulty.
Nothing more nor less.
If creo would bring to bare a solid study refuting A et al findings, only then might we be inclined to react.
But we might also see that study as proof of the self-correcting scientific method working as usual and just another step on the road to a better understanding of the evolutionary path some creature had followed.
So you agree that presenting an alternative refutes nothing?

Lililth_Satans_B ore
Level 2

Since: May 12

Bellevue, WA

#107759 Jan 16, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>One is from my father, and one is from both parents. Both are a product of design. If not, show me observable evidence for a naturalistic origin of both DNA, the origin of both genders, and where this can be replicated. Wild guess don't pass as science.
actually one is from your mother and the other from both parents. And sorry, but analysis of mitochodrial genome reveals they are direct linage from an eubacterial ancestor, specifically alpha- proteobactia... Sorry, but no human origin in its DNA... BTW not only is DNA bacterial, but so are the ribosomes ..

Sorry... not design, EVOLUTION

Lililth_Satans_B ore
Level 2

Since: May 12

Bellevue, WA

#107760 Jan 16, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>If you believe in human from non-human evolution, you aren't practicing science at all.
ohhh and geee ever wonder why you need a new and different flu vaccine every season.... oh oh oh pick me pick me.... The winner is antigenic shift.... you fucktard, and evolution prosses

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#107761 Jan 16, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Good place.
To be from.
SORRY!
No worries, I don't live there -- haven't for years. I am sure there are lots of places people like to be from, far from :-)
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#107762 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.
So you really want me to believe that humans evolved from non-humans, but you can't even tell be the difference between the two, nor when, how, or what caused it? You really want people to believe that?
KAB

United States

#107763 Jan 16, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>So evolution, plate tectonics, kin selection, mathematical modeling and the like are not science.
I don't have the background to honestly argue half-life much beyond an elementary label, but what I do know of the subject, it seems very solid and scientifically well based.
You have made some very strong claims for a world-wide flood the evidence for which is largely from a story in a book that has been shown to be inconsistent and subject to interpretation. That you seem prone to give that book a lot of latitude and constrain science to such a narrow confined definition causes me concern for you declared views of science.
As to trolls like Maz, I have a 12 year old boys fascination with poking the scabs when it comes to that ilk. I make no apologies for it, largely because they deserve what they get. There are a number of highly intelligent, educated, and scientifically oriented and or trained people that frequent this forum and bring much to the table. Those like Maz, marksman and other bring nothing nonsense, disdain and a closed mind, while expecting much. It is hard to take this latter group seriously and after a point, I no longer want to. That may be a weakness on my part, but it sure is fun.
All of the subject areas you mention involve science. You can be sure they also include content which goes outside the bounds of true science. It's good that you are humble enough to acknowledge your weakness in the half-life realm. I encourage you to remember that things are not always what they seem. Unfortunately, not all "science" is true science, and I'm not referring only to fraud. Degrees of misuse and ignorance is a better characterization. Remember, scientists are actually just imperfect people too.

The book has not been shown to be inconsistent. If it has been, you will provide conclusive confirming data in response to this post, but you won't. Every document is subject to interpretation. That should not be confused with the notion that the interpretations are valid. That's where data prevails and saves the day once again. Interpretations can/should be tested to determine validity.

You're on your own with Maz, Markie, and the like. If the atmosphere becomes too non-conducive to progress, I will not remain.

Lililth_Satans_B ore
Level 2

Since: May 12

Bellevue, WA

#107764 Jan 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
All of the subject areas you mention involve science. You can be sure they also include content which goes outside the bounds of true science. It's good that you are humble enough to acknowledge your weakness in the half-life realm. I encourage you to remember that things are not always what they seem. Unfortunately, not all "science" is true science, and I'm not referring only to fraud. Degrees of misuse and ignorance is a better characterization. Remember, scientists are actually just imperfect people too.
The book has not been shown to be inconsistent. If it has been, you will provide conclusive confirming data in response to this post, but you won't. Every document is subject to interpretation. That should not be confused with the notion that the interpretations are valid. That's where data prevails and saves the day once again. Interpretations can/should be tested to determine validity.
You're on your own with Maz, Markie, and the like. If the atmosphere becomes too non-conducive to progress, I will not remain.
sorry... but the "BOOK" is a mythical superstition riddled with inconsistencies... as is all mythical superstitions... just saying
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#107765 Jan 16, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not at all. Actually, its a great example of how science can winnow out and eliminate fraud over time.
Unlike, for example, your scripture based "knowledge" which began as unreliable oral traditions, moved right on to unreliable witness accounts, offering at no stage any verifiable objective evidence of its claims. Maybe God prefers it that way, forcing his children to rely on faith, because He has done a fine job of concealing any evidence in favour of any miraculous elements in your fables. You only believe it because you want to.
I couldn't care less your opinion of my faith based beliefs. That is your loss. I admit that when you limit yourself to only scientific validations, you limit your intelligence. That is all on you. However when you claim that your philosophy is science based, then attack someone else's faith based belief, then you can bet your beliefs better hold up to the scientific method. That is where your philosophy fails terribly. You see, you can attack faith based beliefs all day long, that just shows your ignorance concerning faith based beliefs, but make no mistake that because you do, that it somehow validates your psuedoscience. It doesn't. Your beliefs are not even close to scientific, and attacking my beliefs won't change that.
KAB

United States

#107766 Jan 16, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Then you contend the same about the Yeti, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, UFO's? Because there are living witnesses they are not "imagined", just unverified by science?
Then you contend the same thing about the Holy Grail, Noah's Ark, the Ark of the Covenant, the Ten Commandments? They have been sought for decades, centuries, millennia - and since they predate any living observer by at least 2,000 years, they are as mythical as Quetzalcoatl and Excalibur?
Living observers are not necessary, just demonstrated reliable sources. In this regard, I may be amiss in my assessment of the Okapi sightings, since I don't personally know the reliability of the observers.
Except for the Biblical references, the entities you mention are not attested by demonstrated reliable sources.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#107767 Jan 16, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I have told you before, Marksman, I do not "believe in" abiogenesis or any other scientific theory. Until you can understand this point, you will get nowhere.
THat is the weakest dodge i've seen. Ok, answer this, Do you accept abiogenesis? Word games, do you really have to resort to this? I told you your philosophy fails terribly. You just proved it by being forced to play a word game.
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>

No, you are the one dodging, by trying to paint everyone into a false dichotomy.
You seem to think there are only two possibilities. One "believes in something" or one rejects it.
That is not how it works.
Then present the 3rd option. Either GOD created life, or it was created by naturalistic means. That is exactly how it works, and if it doesn't then provide this observable 3rd. option. I BET YOU CAN"T!!! I love it when your painted into a corner with no escape except admitting your philosophy has failed you.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#107768 Jan 16, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
marksman11 wrote:
Piltdown man was taught in science text books for decades!!! A version of Ernst Haeckel’s infamous embryonic recapitulation pictures is still used in textbooks today as evidence for Darwinism, well over a century after it was shown to be a fraud by Haeckel’s peers. So please excuse our desperation. Unlike you guys, we want the kids taught truth. Not hoax's as truth.
Let me guess:
You read Icons of Evolution and believed everything it said.
You'd guess wrong. Never read it. Unlike you guys, I think for myself.

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 Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 min River Tam 20,191
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 58 min Plumz2865 209,417
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr Joncy David 45,413
America evolving into lockdown on purpose 10 hr One way or another 66
New law to further hatred towards police 18 hr One way or another 4
Hillary, a taco stand on every corner 18 hr One way or another 4
News A better theory of intelligent design Fri Chazofsaints 21
More from around the web