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

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

There are 163759 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.

MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#107875 Jan 17, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
I wrote:
It has also been explained to you that the Piltdown Man didn't support evolutionary theory.
Marksman11 wrote:
It did for over 40 years.
Then why did German anthropologist Franz Weidenreich dismiss the finding as a “chimera” long before the fluoride analysis proved it to be a hoax?
Why did George G. MacCurdy dismiss the whole thing in his two-volume opus in 1924?
In 1944, 11 years before the exposure, why did American anthropologist Sherwood Washburn write,“You could make sense of human evolution if you didn’t try to put Piltdown into it”?
In 1947, why did Sir Arthur Keith write that the discovery “presented students of human evolution with a conundrum. How are we to account for this unique type of early Pleistocene man in England while the rest of Europe, and apparently the whole of Asia, were inhabited by variants of the pent-browed type? If we could get rid of the Piltdown fossil fragments, then we should greatly simplify the problems of human evolution”?
The only reason Keith didn’t dismiss the whole thing altogether, as Weidenreich did, was because he saw that as the coward’s way out. He commented,“That is one way of getting rid of facts which do not fit into a preconceived theory: the usual way pursued by men of science is not to get rid of facts, but to frame theory to fit them.”
Keith then summarized a plausible theory of human evolution beginning in Africa, but admitted that it “leaves unexplained such an aberrant type as that of Piltdown.” That’s on page 231. On page 264, he was still wondering,“What became of the Piltdown race?”
And who finally exposed the Piltdown Man as a hoax? Not Creationists, obviously.
And furthermore, Kenneth Miller commented that the techniques which exposed Piltdown Man were the same techniques which authenticated Lucy. So which would you rather do, dismiss Lucy or consider Piltdown Man?
I hope you understand this time, but who am I kidding?
Malarkeyman11 probably understands just fine, but his blind adherence to his bronze age, goat herder FAIRY TALE demands that he LIE to himself, the children he "teaches" and the world in general.

Understanding and thinking is an inconvenience, but LYING is a prerequisite to being a "fundamentalist christian or muslim creationist".
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#107876 Jan 17, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Yup, ain't it awful.
For you it is. Kindda proves your philosophy is faith based, huh?
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#107877 Jan 17, 2013
Evolution is real!!!! I've been converteD!!!

http://api.ning.com/files/Zim85kCeeoXw5aaC8dp... *WjS0TtkK1KDZLEtZWHztYCVst/cro coduck.jpg
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#107878 Jan 17, 2013
http://api.ning.com/files/Zim85kCeeoXw5aaC8dp... *WjS0TtkK1KDZLEtZWHztYCVst/cro coduck.jpg
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#107879 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.
This is, of course, merely your BIASED opinion, Heck, you guys can't even demonstrate that your "god" exists, let alone that the Bible has any insight into "it's" nature or humanities relationship with "it".
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#107880 Jan 17, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>For you it is. Kindda proves your philosophy is faith based, huh?
Better than basing your entire "philosophy" on the childishly ridiculous FAIRY TALES made up by some bronze age goat herders some 2300 years ago.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#107881 Jan 17, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
I wrote:
It has also been explained to you that the Piltdown Man didn't support evolutionary theory.
Marksman11 wrote:
It did for over 40 years.
Then why did German anthropologist Franz Weidenreich dismiss the finding as a “chimera” long before the fluoride analysis proved it to be a hoax?
Why did George G. MacCurdy dismiss the whole thing in his two-volume opus in 1924?
In 1944, 11 years before the exposure, why did American anthropologist Sherwood Washburn write,“You could make sense of human evolution if you didn’t try to put Piltdown into it”?
In 1947, why did Sir Arthur Keith write that the discovery “presented students of human evolution with a conundrum. How are we to account for this unique type of early Pleistocene man in England while the rest of Europe, and apparently the whole of Asia, were inhabited by variants of the pent-browed type? If we could get rid of the Piltdown fossil fragments, then we should greatly simplify the problems of human evolution”?
The only reason Keith didn’t dismiss the whole thing altogether, as Weidenreich did, was because he saw that as the coward’s way out. He commented,“That is one way of getting rid of facts which do not fit into a preconceived theory: the usual way pursued by men of science is not to get rid of facts, but to frame theory to fit them.”
Keith then summarized a plausible theory of human evolution beginning in Africa, but admitted that it “leaves unexplained such an aberrant type as that of Piltdown.” That’s on page 231. On page 264, he was still wondering,“What became of the Piltdown race?”
And who finally exposed the Piltdown Man as a hoax? Not Creationists, obviously.
And furthermore, Kenneth Miller commented that the techniques which exposed Piltdown Man were the same techniques which authenticated Lucy. So which would you rather do, dismiss Lucy or consider Piltdown Man?
I hope you understand this time, but who am I kidding?
I'm glad there were a few smart enough to reject this false evidence. THere were many more that didn't! But guess what? Human from non-human evolution is no less a hoax, which should remind you to respect Michael Behe and the other scientist who reject human from non-human evolution. It seems in both cases the majority of scientists got it wrong. Nice comparison!!!
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#107883 Jan 17, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
Evolution is real!!!! I've been converteD!!!
"creationism" is real!!! I've been converted!!!

marksman11

Asheville, NC

#107884 Jan 17, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, consciousness is a mystery and I have not seen any decent explanation of it yet from the scientific side, though many have tried. I will grant you that one.
Thank you.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#107882 Jan 17, 2013
MIDutch wrote:
<quoted text>
This is, of course, merely your BIASED opinion, Heck, you guys can't even demonstrate that your "god" exists, let alone that the Bible has any insight into "it's" nature or humanities relationship with "it".
Hummm, ya reckin that is why it is a faith based belief? Duh!!!

Level 2

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#107885 Jan 17, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>What I want to see is an observation of how random, haphazard without aim or method natural occurrences can produce the origin of DNA.
there may be a difficulty

is it possible, that you wish this explanation sufficiently simple that you might understand?
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#107886 Jan 17, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>

Well, neither are a 100 billion galaxies, consisting of 100 billion stars each, also not mentioned in the Bible.
Sure they are. GOD created the heavenly bodies, remember?
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text> They are not necessary to your fable either. And your book is not necessary to the comprehension or invention of God or Gods - that has been done many times.
Wait a minute. You came up with the scenario, which included GOD, so why can this include any GOD except the GOD of the bible? What if it is true, and the Bible is truly GODS instruction book to mankind?
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice argument actually. Except for one thing. Occam's razor does not permit us to simply ignore the evidence that is there. Some process is necessary to explain that. Yes, the sediments, yes, the fossils, yes the nested hierarchy of variation in the non-selected portions of the genome. Even with a supernatural God poofing the whole thing off the starting blocks, you would still need to explain all that. Evolution does.
No it doesn't. There is nothing observable, or that you can cause an experiment to make happen, that supports your claim.
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text> Ex-nihilo creation with created Kinds from the first six days does not, not even close.
Of course it does. If GOD exists it is the most simple of all explanations, and explains complexity including the brain, self awareness or consciousness, and the similarities we see in nature because GOD used a common design that works. Much like automoble manufactures use a common design. Steering wheel, 4 tires, windshield, headlights....etc. It is common to most all cars, and is uniersally used because it is a functional design that works. GOD did the exact same thing.
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#107887 Jan 17, 2013
"creationism" is real!!! I've been converted!!!



Real, SCIENTIFIC evidence that "creationism" is true. Undeniable youtube video evidence that the stories in the Bible are "literally and inertly" true.

Bummer for those little animals helping that all but two of each species of them would die horrible drowning deaths so shortly after magnanimously insuring that Noah, Ham, Sham and Curly and their unnamed wives would survive the flood.

You wonder why "god" couldn't just snap "it's" fingers, reset the Cosmos and just start all over like nothing happened. It sure would have saved us from all of the fire and brimstone drama we need to endure from the "creationists" every single day.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#107888 Jan 17, 2013
MAAT wrote:
>>No, currently I neither accept nor reject it. Its a possibility.
And that my friend, by definition is faith!!!!
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#107889 Jan 17, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Hummm, ya reckin that is why it is a faith based belief? Duh!!!
Well, then quit LYING to your "students", and everybody else, about it having any SCIENTIFIC validity.

Quit PRETENDING that there is any logic, reason, scientific research or empirical evidence in support of it.

And just admit that it's a bunch of bronze age, goat herder FAIRY TALES that you have "faith" in and be done with it.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#107890 Jan 17, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
So random, haphazard, without aim or method nature can accidently produce life that can replicate itself, but an intelligent scientist who has spent his life studying such things, can't even come close to forcing it to occur? I can't touch that kind of faith!!!

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#107891 Jan 17, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>People in general are not stupid. I don't have to be a undertaker to know I don't want them to practice embalming on me. The same with human from non-human evolution. I don't have be a biologist to understand that we and apes didn't have a common ancester, and such has never been observed.
Of course it was observed. The organisms that were part of the population split observed that split, and each generation was observed. If you mean it was never observed AND RECORDED, well, NO SHIT. The finches on the Galapagos Islands never recorded their reproductive habits and the characteristics of their offspring, either.

Nobody observed OJ killing two people, therefore there's no way to know whether he actually killed two people. You're so stupid.

I don't have to know math to know it's impossible for a million and a billion to be multiplied together and get a real number as a product. Nobody's ever seen a million times a billion in real life, therefore it's not real. THAT is exactly how stupid your "argument" is.
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Einstein was observed.<quoted text>I don't care what they conclude until I know that they concluded it by using the scientific method of observation, testing, and replication. THose that accept human from non-human evolution have never observed it.
<quoted text>We can look and measure all day long. Skulls do not give hereity. All they do is show that something lived, died, and left evidence of its existence. Not who it was kin too. You can compare skulls all day, but your conclusion is interpretation, not fact based on the scientific method,
Is that the scientific method that comes to a screeching halt at the hypothesis stage? As if we don't remember your exercise with the method and how you shit your pants as soon as you realized the theory of evolution DID follow the scientific method. Your need to be right about the Bible overwhelmed your need to be honest, and you pulled out immediately when you couldn't avoid that fact. You are a sad little man with a sad little religion and your place within that religion means more to you than your own honesty, and that's saddest of all. You're afraid of losing your community, but you fail to recognize that you're losing your integrity to keep it.
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Apples and Oranges. To say that human from non-human evolution is true, first you're going to have to show me a naturalistic origin of life. You show me nature spontainiously generating life, and then we'll debate evolution. If GOD created life, and it is obvious he did, then there is no need of evolutuon. You act as though what "you do know" is significant. It isn't.
Evolution doesn't depend on abiogenesis. Even if life originated by God, the evidence demonstrates that evolution occurred. Why else would chromosome 2 just happen to look exactly like two chimpanzee chromosomes fused end to end? Coincidence? If you saw two boards nailed together, and you saw an identical pair of boards not nailed together, would you figure the nailed pair was created nailed together? Or, would it make more sense that they had been nailed together as two formerly separate boards like the two loose boards next to them? Your logic says it makes more sense that they were created stuck together.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#107892 Jan 17, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
You can not present the evidence requested, and failed the challenge, because I'm stupid? I can't open a link. How pathetic you are.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#107893 Jan 17, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>And that my friend, by definition is faith!!!!
How is admitting that one doesn't know "faith?" You say you DO know, and THAT is faith. So, according to you, EVERYTHING is faith. Well, that kind of makes faith meaningless. So, good for you. You just invalidated your entire belief system.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#107895 Jan 17, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>So random, haphazard, without aim or method nature can accidently produce life that can replicate itself, but an intelligent scientist who has spent his life studying such things, can't even come close to forcing it to occur? I can't touch that kind of faith!!!
How many failed attempts were there at powered flight? Was each failure evidence that powered flight was impossible?

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr Subduction Zone 79,889
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 18 hr WHAT 222,738
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) Wed Eagle 12 - 32,581
What's your religion? Wed Zog Has-fallen 2
Life started in Tennessee proof. Sep 15 Science4life 1
Science News (Sep '13) Sep 8 Ricky F 4,001
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... Sep 7 Science 1,932
More from around the web