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

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 ... Full Story

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

#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>>

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

#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?

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

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.

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 Haeckelís 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 Haeckelís 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.

Level 2

Since: May 12

Bellevue, WA

#107769 Jan 16, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>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?
Hhhhmmmm and your god picked up a hand of dust and created Adam and Lilith...... And you want people to believe that... LOL

Level 2

Since: May 12

Bellevue, WA

#107770 Jan 16, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>You'd guess wrong. Never read it. Unlike you guys, I think for myself.
yaaaaaaa right.... you think for yourself yet base your life off a 2000 year old comic book

now that's good
KAB

United States

#107771 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.
Nothing in your characterization of Maz precludes the gradual accumulation of variations.

BTW, statistically, hasn't scientific experience been that most variations are detrimental?

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

#107772 Jan 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
So you agree that presenting an alternative refutes nothing?
What if the alternative fits the facts and the statement or statements being refuted, do not. For example, jumping to a conclusion based on very little evidence.

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
The Satanic Character of Social Darwinism 1 hr Bluenose 500
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 1 hr DanFromSmithville 173,663
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr Aura Mytha 116,598
Can the universe be God's brain? (Jun '07) 1 hr Kong_ 62
There is no scientific evidence whatsoever for ... 3 hr thewordofme 166
New review critical of "Origins" 8 hr Kong_ 3
Bobby Jindal: "I'm Not an Evolutionary Biologist" 10 hr Cujo 10
•••

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••