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

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

There are 160955 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

#108051 Jan 18, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course not. God forbid it might force you to think.
I don't run rabbits, his nor yours. My time is worth more. If you post 6 links, I'll read the first, and if it's BS it is most likely the other 5 are also. If your point is valid, it usually just takes one link for support. If you are BSing and dodging, you post 6. If you locked your door, do you have to go back 6 times to make sure you locked it?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#108052 Jan 18, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Listen ad hominems just bounce off me, so save yourself some typing time. The origin of life and human from non-human evolution are related no matter what you say. For random chemicals to mix, when they combined they changed (evolved) into some living thing (according to you guys). You guys try to keep them seperate because if life evolving from non-life is found to be impossible ( which at this moment seems to be the case) Then that also shines the light on the improbability of human from non-human evolution. THus you try to make the claim that they are two seperate things, but they are not.
And there's your problem. You have no clue what the people who understand abiogenesis are saying.

Sure, it is easy to defeat a straw man. But you can you defeat what they actually say? I doubt it.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#108053 Jan 18, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact the the origin of life is not yet fully understood does *****NOT***** prove intelligent design.
Logic is not your friend.
You act as if it will someday be replicated. "Not fully understood" is the understatement of the year. You post as if any day now science will recreate the origin of life. THe more they learn, the more they see that this kind of complexity can't happen randomly. You actually believe that naturalism can produce something that is conscious and aware of itself, when that is an attribute that naturalism itself doesn't have!!!
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#108054 Jan 18, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
The bible is just an old book. God didn't write it. If he had, he wouldn't have made so many mistakes.
I've read it, and debated people like you for 20 years. I know better.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#108055 Jan 18, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
And there's your problem. You have no clue what the people who understand abiogenesis are saying.
Sure, it is easy to defeat a straw man. But you can you defeat what they actually say? I doubt it.
It's more like can they defeat what I say. I say present a naturalistic origin of life. Make it observable, testable, and replicatable. We both know they can't no matter what anyone says.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#108056 Jan 18, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
And there's your problem. You have no clue what the people who understand abiogenesis are saying.
Sure, it is easy to defeat a straw man. But you can you defeat what they actually say? I doubt it.
By the way, there is no observable science of abiogenesis to understand. At this current time in history, abiogenesis is a fantasy, wishful thinking, and never observed in a lab, nor nature, in the history of the planet. There is no one that understands abiogenesis because there is nothing to understand!!!

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#108058 Jan 18, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Listen ad hominems just bounce off me, so save yourself some typing time. The origin of life and human from non-human evolution are related no matter what you say. For random chemicals to mix, when they combined they changed (evolved) into some living thing (according to you guys). You guys try to keep them seperate because if life evolving from non-life is found to be impossible ( which at this moment seems to be the case) Then that also shines the light on the improbability of human from non-human evolution. THus you try to make the claim that they are two seperate things, but they are not.
I didn't say they were unrelated, numbnuts. I said evolution does depend on how life started. It could have been magic poofing, black smokers, lightning or an alien turd. It doesn't matter.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#108059 Jan 18, 2013
Sorry: DOESN'T depend.

Still need that edit feature, mods!

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#108060 Jan 18, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I don't run rabbits, his nor yours. My time is worth more. If you post 6 links, I'll read the first, and if it's BS it is most likely the other 5 are also. If your point is valid, it usually just takes one link for support. If you are BSing and dodging, you post 6. If you locked your door, do you have to go back 6 times to make sure you locked it?
Gibberish.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#108061 Jan 18, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You give a good description of what could be the output of a design sequence/process. Why did you not mention the 3 boned fish ear, or the numerous times that someone has professed the eye has evolved? If true about the eye, that's a most interesting convergence. Slam dunk confirmation of evolution as the only ingredient? I don't think so.
There is no "3-boned fish ear", certainly not any fish ear remotely like that found on mammals.

In the evolution of mammal-like reptiles, there is a very particular sequence of fossils showing the migration of the bones of the jaw to the rear and up into the ear. At the same time, first a double jointed jaw hinge and then the "abandonment" of the older reptilian hinge in favour of the new one, whilst allowing the further progression of the "jaw bones" into the ear itself resulting in an amplification of the ear's sensitivity.

This migration is only found on the pre-mammalian line (and is accompanied by other progressive changes from a "reptile" to a "mammal" general plan. It includes the appearance of fistula (holes) in the skull, the development of a double palate separating the nasal from the mouth cavity, and the appearance of specialised tooth types (canines, molars etc), all things peculiar to mammals.

(I wonder if its the unique sensitivity of the mammalian ear assembly that later enabled bats and whales to develop sonar, another feature birds, reptiles etc do not have.)

What I saying is its all (along with the independently corroborating genome evidence), slam dunk confirmation of COMMON ANCESTRY, at least as far back as all modern mammals to mammal-like reptiles. The fossils also take us back from there to early reptiles, then amphibians, then "fishapods" like tiktaalik, then lobe-finned fish. The lines of common ancestry are well mapped.

Now, if you want to argue that evolution alone could not accomplish that, well, that's another argument. I am saying we have ample evidence that the convergence of common ancestry happened. We can have a discussion about how novelty and progression can occur, with or without intelligent design, but I think its beyond question that novelty and progression DID occur on a large scale, and this counters arguments of "ex-nihilo creation of all types in 6 days more or less in their modern forms" which is what hard-core YECs try to claim.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#108063 Jan 18, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>It's more like can they defeat what I say. I say present a naturalistic origin of life. Make it observable, testable, and replicatable. We both know they can't no matter what anyone says.
That is another fail on your part. None of them have made the claim that they are at that point yet.

When you try to claim or even infer that your opponent has said something that they haven't you lose.

Was the Miller Urey experiment successful? Yes it was, incredibly so. Have many of the experiments run since then been successful? Again the answer is yes. Any experiment that allows us to get closer to the answer was successful.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#108062 Jan 18, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>You act as if it will someday be replicated. "Not fully understood" is the understatement of the year. You post as if any day now science will recreate the origin of life. THe more they learn, the more they see that this kind of complexity can't happen randomly. You actually believe that naturalism can produce something that is conscious and aware of itself, when that is an attribute that naturalism itself doesn't have!!!
And more gibberish.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#108064 Jan 18, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I've read it, and debated people like you for 20 years. I know better.
Sure you do. That's why you are so afraid to actually confront arguments that threaten your beliefs. "I take it on faith!" Blah, blah, blah.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#108065 Jan 18, 2013
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
How much bedrock have they tested?
Globally uniform bedrock?
Is there even such a thing as "globally" uniform bedrock; seeing that the earth's crust is continually being transformed?
" Even the tops of mountains have bedrock that formed at depth in the earth and has been uplifted and eroded. Our mountains are simply places where the bedrock has been worn down less than the bedrock of the neighboring areas. Different rocks resist erosion to different degrees, depending on their composition, texture, and structure. This phenomenon, termed differential erosion" [http://www.maine.gov/doc/nrim c/mgs/explore/bedrock/faq.htm]
If I find out that you have not explored and tested EVERY "globally" uniform bedrock BEFORE you made that statement; I will send a bolt of lightening to strike you where the sun dont shine.
Your lot isn't very good at piecing things together, are they? A young Earth creationist would claim that the Earth and all things on it were formed 6,000 years ago. That would mean there must be a uniform age to lower geologic strata, and that strata should bear not only a fossil record of modern age mammalia, but a large quantity of BONE records from extinct forms. An old Earth anti-evolutionist would argue that all creatures were existent at the time of creation, so wherever the oldest strata is found, there should be modern mammalian fossils.
If God Himself were to send lightening bolts to sunder the reaches where the sun don't shine, I hope he tunes down the voltage, because his version of electrotherapy will turn what's left of His flock's brains to ashes.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#108066 Jan 18, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>By the way, there is no observable science of abiogenesis to understand. At this current time in history, abiogenesis is a fantasy, wishful thinking, and never observed in a lab, nor nature, in the history of the planet. There is no one that understands abiogenesis because there is nothing to understand!!!
Wrong. There is no observable science of abiogenesis that you understand. Abiogenesis does not have to be observed in the lab for it to be a reality. We know that it happened. Even creationists claim that it happened. The disagreement is about how it happened.

I am glad to see that you admit you will never understand this. Luckily you don't speak for other people.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#108067 Jan 18, 2013
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you not understand that you need to redefine physics in light of the fact that "Even matter is not matter", according to you?
I would be perfectly justified if I said that a few years from now they will say that even evolution is not evolution.
As a matter of fact, I'll start now...
Are you stuck at Newtonian physics? Einstein's theory of relativity (much of which is no longer theory) indicates that matter is made up of packets of energy. String theory describes particles as resulting from interaction and vibrations between quanta.
Anyway, Maz brought up quantum physics, so why don't you take it up with her?
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
ChromiuMan wrote:
"Mutation and genome changes due to environmental factors are going to happen."

I agree. But "Mutation and genome changes due to environmental factors" does not automatically suggest general "evolution".
We can see mutation right before our eyes; but evolution only occurs in your minds, as such.
Given the time scale evidenced for how long life has existed on Earth, the accumulation of genetic changes not only suggests general evolution, it describes it. Evolution only happens in the mind? That is only marginally debatable, as a world full of evidence implies that it is a real process. Certainly faith IS PURELY a mindset, and requires no validation whatsoever. As a matter of fact, demanding proof and verification for a religious tenet is commonly frowned upon. That rose does not smell as sweet, because it is NOT a rose...
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
If "A rose is a rose is a rose...", then whats difference does it make whether you call "environmental stressors" "Satan's work/God's will"?
A thing is what it does so we dont have to call it anything.
We describe things for the sake of our convenience, whether we are scientists or godbots; evidence and proof and science etc are just ways of rationalizing our preferences.
A rose is not a primrose, a tomato is not a sailboat and faith is neither theory nor fact.
Calling a thing the product of a superstition instead of investigating its true nature is the difference. Even assuming God created intelligence, why would/do you then attempt to exorcise it in favor of ID/YEC/OEC?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#108069 Jan 18, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>It does not tally with your version of Genesis.1....you are taking the scripture literal in that the days of creation were 6 24 hour days. THey may have been, but there is reason to also think they were not 24 hour days. Scripture leaves it open for the possibility of both. Then you said.....
"2. Minor variations within Kind are all that are allowed since."
I think that is all that has ever been observed. A few Finch beaks, maybe a colored moth or something.
Then you completely overlook the word "replenish" in Genesis. Many believe there was a vast amount of time between Genesis 1:2 and Genesis 1:3. That the act of creation in Genesis was actually an act of recreation. I don't know, I wasn't there, but scripture can support that reasoning.
So bottom line, If you are going to compare your science to Genesis, you need a better understanding of both.
It depends what you mean by "observed".

We have observed large scale differences in the fossils of many creatures, and the changes follow trend easily recognisable as fitting the pattern predicted by evolution. To avoid your abhorrence of human evolution, lets look at something less controversial, like cats.

There are no modern cat bones found in five million year old strata. However, there are creatures very similar to modern cats.

The further we go back, the less like modern cats they are.

There is nothing 5 million years ago like modern dogs either, or even wolves. But there are bones quite similar to them, and the further back we go the more different they are.

But here is the interesting part! As we go back, the cat and dog bones we find are less and less like today's cats and dogs....but more and more like each other! Until we reach a point, in strata 20-25 million years old, where those progressions MEET and we cannot say that the creature at the intersection is either a cat or a dog or BOTH.

This is the pattern repeated whether you are talking about cats and dogs or just about any other creature we have found fossils for.

The evidence is OBSERVED. Its catalogued, its carefully measured, its matched, its dated. And no explanation other than common ancestry makes a lot of sense.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#108070 Jan 18, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>You act as if it will someday be replicated. "Not fully understood" is the understatement of the year. You post as if any day now science will recreate the origin of life. THe more they learn, the more they see that this kind of complexity can't happen randomly.
On the contrary. The more they learn, the more the natural processes required for the complex precursors to life are discovered. It used to be a mystery how amino acids, polypeptide chains, RNA, ADP, and lipid micro-spheres could form spontaneously. Now its not.

I readily admit nobody knows how or if these ingredients could combine naturally into the first proto-cell. But the more we study, the MORE likely its looking to be possible.
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#108072 Jan 18, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry your philosophy is taking such a beating!!
It is NOT our "philosophy" that has gone from being the ONLY world view allowed in most of the Western world (often brutally and tyrannically enforced with imprisonment, torture and death) to being LAUGHED at by most everyone outside of your bronze age, goat herder FAIRY TALE cult, is it?

And just in case anyone needs reminding of what malarkeyman11's "philosophy" entails:

The cosmos was magically conjured into existence with a magic "word".

The first man was conjured up out of a pile of dirt.

The first woman was conjured up from a rib taken out of the man.

Magic fruit that makes the eater really intelligent or immortal.

A talking snake.

Incest, incest and more incest was a very good thing at one point in human history.

An little bunny brings eggs to good boys and girls on Easter morning.

Angels and demons.

Giants and unicorns.

Satyrs and cockatrices.

Witches and wizards.

A jolly elf brings toys to good boys and girls on Christmas morning.

Angels having sex with mortal women.

People living 600+ years.

People and dinosaurs living together.

A fairy brings money to good boys and girls when they loose a tooth.

A big global flood that destroys everything except the passengers of a wooden boat.

The sun standing still in the sky to provide more light for more productive mass genocide.

A talking burning bush.

A talking donkey.

A man living inside of the stomach of a fish for three days.

Pi = 3.

Insects have 4 legs.

Letting livestock copulated in front of a stick painted with stripes produces offspring with striped coats.

Sprinkling the blood of a sacrificed dove on a lepers toes cures his leprosy.

Etc., etc., etc..

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#108071 Jan 18, 2013
I wrote:
I didn't know there was any other kind [of stars other than cosmic stars].
What kind are they, then?
marksman11 wrote:
Angels are often symbolized and referenced in scripture as stars.
Revelation 9:1
And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit.
Revelation 1:20
20 The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.
your welcome. Stick with me and you'll learn things:-)
Could that explain why we see stars that are millions of lightyears away,
even though the world is only 6000 years old?

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) 1 min Science 67,223
Curious dilemma about DNA 14 min pshun2404 369
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Science 28,657
What location did life started in? 2 hr Confucius 11
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) 2 hr Confucius 1,766
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 4 hr Subduction Zone 221,262
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 4 hr Regolith Based Li... 3,531
News Defending the Faith: Intelligent design vs. 'Go... 12 hr replaytime 332
More from around the web