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

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

There are 152231 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.

marksman11

Asheville, NC

#107849 Jan 17, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Lets stick with one and two. And lets say nobody figures out a natural path because God or Gods really did it. OK?
Evolution is still just as solidly confirmed, so the only viable God option is that God(s) created the first life and it evolved from there!
Your Genesis account still remains a fable. So as far as your particular cult goes, you are hardly past square one. You make your own yammering claims for the nature of God and damnation-for-those-who-reject -it, while Muslims make theirs, and Hindus make theirs etc. Meaning that rejecting natural abiogenesis is not thee end of the argument, merely the beginning of another one, which you are welcome to enjoy butting heads with other faiths who are just as, JUST AS, thoroughly convinced that their is the right path.
As you guys have been doing this for millennia with no resolution in sight, good luck to you with that.
Your belief in evolution can be believed if you want to, but it is a faith based belief, and if this GOD you admit that is the cause of the origin of life is the same GOD of the bible, then evolution is not needed according to the source that explains him to us. And if GOD is the cause of the origin of life, then you have now included the supernatural into the realm of reality, and the supernatural curtainly has no need of evolution. Once you introduce GOD into the mix simply apply Occums Razor.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#107850 Jan 17, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, we can. The best evidence we have is that:
When - the hominid line diverged from other apes 6-7 million years ago (consistent with fossil and genetic evidence). The earliest modern skulls are up to 200,000 years old. Whether you want to call the succession of discovered intermediates between those times human, part human, non-human, or whatever, is over to you. The line as with all gradual changes, is somewhat arbitrary.
Where - origins in East Africa, as that is where the earliest remains are all found.
Why - because at that time, there is evidence of a general climatic drying and East Africa changes from jungle to Savannah country, forcing the apes there to adapt to a different environment. The first change was a move to bipedalism, making them more effective on the ground but less so in the trees. After this change, with hands freed, a cascade of further physiological changes followed as shown in the fossil record.
<quoted text>
I could tell you a bunch of differences between a human and an ape, but since each of these differences evolved at different times, not all at once, its a subjective matter haw many of those changes had to have occurred before you call something "human" instead of "ape".
I think it does not matter whether we keep it simple or really go to the nitty gritty.
they will never ever get it, because they do not want to.
Fundamentalism or stupidity become frankly intertwinded.
They would not be able to differentiate between the two if their life depended on it.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#107851 Jan 17, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, we can. The best evidence we have is that:
When - the hominid line diverged from other apes 6-7 million years ago (consistent with fossil and genetic evidence). The earliest modern skulls are up to 200,000 years old. Whether you want to call the succession of discovered intermediates between those times human, part human, non-human, or whatever, is over to you. The line as with all gradual changes, is somewhat arbitrary.
Where - origins in East Africa, as that is where the earliest remains are all found.
Why - because at that time, there is evidence of a general climatic drying and East Africa changes from jungle to Savannah country, forcing the apes there to adapt to a different environment. The first change was a move to bipedalism, making them more effective on the ground but less so in the trees. After this change, with hands freed, a cascade of further physiological changes followed as shown in the fossil record.
<quoted text>
I could tell you a bunch of differences between a human and an ape, but since each of these differences evolved at different times, not all at once, its a subjective matter haw many of those changes had to have occurred before you call something "human" instead of "ape".
A lot of words, and still couldn't answer the question. PLUS......you really believe that someone knows what happened 6-7 million years ago when they can't even find out who built the Great pyramid a few thousand years ago? You believe this, but it doesn't require faith? I have a question for you. What is the difference between me believing the bible when it says that the walls of Jericho fell, and you believing a book that tells you what happened 6-7 million years ago? Tell me why my belief is faith based, and why yours isn't?.... because I'm sure you know of no person that was there 6-7 million years ago to document it.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#107852 Jan 17, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
SO if you SAW tire tracks running up over your front lawn, you would never jump to the conclusion that a vehicle had passed over your lawn, right?
No, I would, that is my point. Tire Tracks are observable. A naturalistic event that caused the origin of life is not.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#107853 Jan 17, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>

Books can be faked or erroneous, but the physical evidence is there for all to see. Our best attempts to understand and interpret that evidence and use it to make valid predictions is the only knowledge of the universe (or God) that we can rely on.
I don't think so. I think the bible is awesome, of course that's just me. There is also, for those who honestly seek GOD, personal revelation, and ones individual personal experiences with GOD.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#107854 Jan 17, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I knew you couldn't answer. You dodged then, and you just dodged again. No wonder human from non-human evolution appears so weak. YOU GUYS CAN'T DEFEND IT!!!
If we discussed it in 20 pages and showed the relevant studies but people like you go...pwah that i do not believe.
Well then we frankly consider you too stupid.
I've given the information several times over, whenever the same challenge came up, so consider yourselve functionally illeterate and you probably can't open a link or are incapable to understand a word of the research.
But i think it was just lazyness.
I have no intention to dumb anything down.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#107855 Jan 17, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
i wanted to leave it to anderson, but you are the only one making that claim.
Humans and apes are family.
And particularly had a consestor.
You had the chance to refute the particular data 6 times but you never did.
So more the fool.
OH? Because YOU said so? Oh, I feel so refuted!!!! NOT!!!!!

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#107856 Jan 17, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>That is correct, I base my life in what I believe is the word of GOD, therefore I think for myself. If I didn't I would be agreeing with your ignorance. What is observable here? Me taking my stand and thinking for myself? Or looking ignorant by letting you do my thinking for me? Don't you science types just hate it when observation is used?
FFS you are all the time letting others do the thinking.
Mind, not for you.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#107857 Jan 17, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>OH? Because YOU said so? Oh, I feel so refuted!!!! NOT!!!!!
No because top of the science community published recent peer-reviewed studies, that i put down six times for your scrutiny...not a word to refute the content of this hard cutting edge science, from you or any of the others.

So it stands.

Al you do is discuss at kindergarten level.
Even calculating back from Daniel you managed to get wrong.
We allready discussed that.
Simply iterated if they read the bible all they see is jesus, evil and satan.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#107858 Jan 17, 2013
UHS85 wrote:
<quoted text>
Now that is an interesting question.
They were concestors that split up.
Various times we've split of or they split (they as in other hominids)so concestors is the proper new term.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#107859 Jan 17, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Maybe you should try providing some and see, but dang, then that pesky ole "observation" thingy rears it's ugly head again.
I think that got answered by using the analogy of the tiretracks over your frontlane.
No that never happened for i did not observe it.

You best keep a mirror handy, just in case you never happened!

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#107860 Jan 17, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>and I answered it. I was asked the difference. I got one from my mother, and the other from both. Can't get more clear than that skippy.
No you quoted Lilith_Satans_Born!
Without having a clue.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#107861 Jan 17, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>So currently you reject abiogenesis?
No, currently I neither accept nor reject it. Its a possibility.

Evolution, on the other hand, I accept with a high level of confidence based on the vast evidence we have.

And no, I do NOT need to know how life originated to be confident in evolution's veracity. For all I need to know, evolution could have been "God's method" and you do not know any better than that either. You just choose to have faith in a literal interpretation of a human written book of creation stories, and choose to believe God inspired it. That's your problem, not mine.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#107862 Jan 17, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>No, I would, that is my point. Tire Tracks are observable. A naturalistic event that caused the origin of life is not.
The vehicle that made them is long gone. And yet if you are sane, you will probably accept that a vehicle made the tracks.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#107863 Jan 17, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I don't think so. I think the bible is awesome, of course that's just me. There is also, for those who honestly seek GOD, personal revelation, and ones individual personal experiences with GOD.
Yes, its an awesome mythical/ historical chronicle of the Jewish people. I also love the Illiad and the Odyssey. But that does not mean I really believe that Achilles was the son of the Goddess Thetis, even after archaeologists discovered Troy!

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#107864 Jan 17, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
The human brain is the most complex thing in the known universe, and you want us to believe that haphazard, without aim or method random processes produced it?
Evolution is not just random, its random mutation plus non random selection. Crucial difference.

Complexity is not an argument against evolution - evolution is a structured complexity generator!

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#107865 Jan 17, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>So currently you reject abiogenesis?

>>No, currently I neither accept nor reject it. Its a possibility.

Evolution, on the other hand, I accept with a high level of confidence based on the vast evidence we have.

And no, I do NOT need to know how life originated to be confident in evolution's veracity. For all I need to know, evolution could have been "God's method" and you do not know any better than that either. You just choose to have faith in a literal interpretation of a human written book of creation stories, and choose to believe God inspired it. That's your problem, not mine.
---
That answer in questionform of markman did not logically follow from the previous answer you gave.
(I was kind of waiting for you to address it.)

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#107866 Jan 17, 2013
MAAT wrote:
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>So currently you reject abiogenesis?
>>No, currently I neither accept nor reject it. Its a possibility.
Evolution, on the other hand, I accept with a high level of confidence based on the vast evidence we have.
And no, I do NOT need to know how life originated to be confident in evolution's veracity. For all I need to know, evolution could have been "God's method" and you do not know any better than that either. You just choose to have faith in a literal interpretation of a human written book of creation stories, and choose to believe God inspired it. That's your problem, not mine.
---
That answer in questionform of markman did not logically follow from the previous answer you gave.
(I was kind of waiting for you to address it.)
Feel free to follow it up yourself!

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#107867 Jan 17, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
....even if a scientist replicated the origin of life in a lab, even that PROVES INTELLIGENT DESIGN!!!
Why do you persist with obviously false arguments after its been pointed out to you many times?

When you start a fire, does that prove that all fires require humans to start them? You do not realise that if conditions in nature match the requirements of fire-starting, that nature can do it without any intent? Think lightning, forest fires.

Likewise, if a scientist replicates possible natural conditions and amino acids or RNA appear, it proves that these can arise naturally if the same conditions are present? That the same holds al the way to a proto-cell?

You still haven't worked that out? Or is this just a standard part of your Sunday School repertoire that you don't want to let go?

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#107868 Jan 17, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
It is a theology book, full of some history, poetry, and the structure of a fine morality.
That's more than a lot of other Evolutionists will concede.

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 Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 54 min Blitzking 209,895
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 2 hr Aura Mytha 20,285
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 7 hr ChristineM 45,559
America evolving into lockdown on purpose Sep 25 Dogen 68
New law to further hatred towards police Sep 24 One way or another 4
Hillary, a taco stand on every corner Sep 24 One way or another 4
News A better theory of intelligent design Sep 23 Chazofsaints 21
More from around the web