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

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#108081 Jan 18, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
Update on an earlier (local) story I related:
"Atheists, others want equal access to schools after Bible distribution"
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/features/educa...


Ah! Must be time once again for a school district to piss away money on lawsuits.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#108082 Jan 18, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah! Must be time once again for a school district to piss away money on lawsuits.
Yup. The story provides context. Two days ago a Christian group handed out Bibles on Orange County public school campuses, because this same group won a court case in another county allowing them same (Orange County was scared they too would lose a similar case).

NOW, atheists -- and others -- want equal opportunity.

Reminds me of an old adage:

"Once you open a can of worms, the only way to re-can them is to use a bigger can."

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#108083 Jan 18, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah! Must be time once again for a school district to piss away money on lawsuits.
Let the games begin!

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#108084 Jan 18, 2013
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
HI guys. Just touching base. Haven't been on Topix in quite a while.
Welcome back DS! Good to see you.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#108085 Jan 18, 2013
Lililth_Satans_Bore wrote:
<quoted text>aaaaaaaaaaaaawwwh what a shame.... you don't like me.... well take a seat with the other biatches who don't.... and when i give a fluck.... i'll call your number
truth is no real microbiologist really cares one way or the other if you believe that the world was designed by a sky fairy, me being one of those. Nothing i could ever present to you would ever bring you out of your godbot dilussions so i don't waste my time. Your posts continue to prove you have no understanding of CURRENT evolutionary biology which is all driven by genomics you dolt ... you know the abandonment of the linnaen classification system to the DNA driven cladisstics... so debate your stupid foot print that represents hundred plus year old methods all you like you stupid novice
My posts show you have no knowledge because so far I have not really seen you say anything more knowledgeable that a high school student would have to say.

Your 150 plus years of evolutionary science is unstable, ever changing and riddled with falsifications. You are pretending to be one of this so called biologists that are consistently wrong.

So what does 'Satans bore' have to say? Oh yeah! "They said so". Any goose here can come up with that, biologist! Quack!

So I have modern bird footprints clearly demonstrating a reversed hallux dated to 212mya, birds flying around when the land was still Pangea and not separated yet, I have some fossil evidence in protoavis that evos don't want to know about. You have what? Oh Yeah! Convergent evolution the GOOFF card and mythical theropods, not one of which has ever been found with a reveresed hallux.

A variety of tetrapods have been dated to 397mya. There is evidence of a foot pad, which is a mammal trait. I expect these to appear right on the heels of the time of fishes, if we are fortunate to find any evidence at all. Well we have and they do. What do evos have? Oh Yeah! Nothing now as Tiktaalik has been defamed!!!!!!!!!!

Would you like to have a go at giving us some facts a little more scientific that evos can demonstrate over a century of falsifications that evos call heading toward the light. eg human knucklewalking ancestry,'pond & soup' theory, single celled LUCA,'junk' dna, brain size tied to bipedalism, 2 domains of life, etc etc.

If you seriously want to demo that you are more than all talk then you will appropraitely articulate what is erroneous information I have presented and delineate data from the interpretation of it.

I suggest you can no more falsify my using the bird footprints as what they appear to be, birds thriving 212mya on Pangea, than I can falsify your mythical theropods of you claim this myth exists.

What are your facts? My facts are footprints that have fossilized well and do not need a reconstruction based on a either paradigm.

Let's see if you can come up with better than 'they said so', ridicule and the hubris you have offered so far.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#108086 Jan 18, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
I quoted MIDutch as writing:
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".
I quoted marksman11 as writing:
Hummm, ya reckin that is why it is a faith based belief? Duh!!!
I wrote:
Yes, I reckon that is why it is a faith-based belief.
Would you please explain what that DOESN'T imply that it is a faith-based belief?
marksman11 wrote:
You need to word that where it is a little more understandable please.
Okay, Ill try again:
Would you please explain what your faith is based on if it is not based on faith?
In other words, what makes you say that angels, witches, and talking animals are real?
My faith is based on the empirical evidence that energy, the form God is described as, can create matter and faith that HE can create organic matter because God is meant to be smarter than we.

I have faith in the only spiritual text where the composers do not take glory for themselves and did not live in shameless luxury on the back of it, in both OT and NT.

I have faith that the bible, although not a science book, has so many valdiated scientific claims that I see no reason to not believe the few that are difficult to explain with modern science.

I have faith that energy forms can manipulate their body shape as they did when angels came to earth.

I believe in intelligent alien life forms, just like evos hope to find, but these are non organic.

My faith is also based on not being so arrogant as to believe that the ability of non organic life forms can be explained by our current sciences.

I think belief in God is not the same support as for creation, although creative events would support the existence of a God. eg theist evos.

What is your faith based on? I suggest evos faith is that dead elements can organize themselves into complex factories of reproduction without intelligent assistance and have faith in what researchers that are consistently wrong have to say as flavour of the month.

What do you have faith in? Do you reserarch and understand or just listen and accept what grant seekers have to say.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#108087 Jan 18, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
My faith is based on the empirical evidence that energy, the form God is described as, can create matter and faith that HE can create organic matter because God is meant to be smarter than we.
...
That is an assertion, where is the evidence of all this?

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#108088 Jan 18, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course yowm can mean 24 hrs, 7 of which constitute a week. That doesn't mean yowm can't also mean time periods of other duration. It seems you have now acknowledged it can.
I think I'm getting your drift. You are among those who seem to think that if you provide some info, that is the end of the matter, when in fact, that just begins the scrutiny (peer review). Any data you have provided which I have seen, I have demonstrated how it doesn't make your intended point. If you know otherwise then provide the example. Admittedly, it is often difficult to determine what your point is, due to your stream-of-consciousness communication style.
I think you are not catching my drift in any sort of way (let's not even speak of snowdrifts accumulating or the Atacama) since you do not retain information that has allready been given.

We have called that intellectual dishonesty, or plain mental laziness, and frankly do not see the point in repeating.
We find ourselves repeating however but that would be just a mention of what has allready been discussed extensively before.

So it would be up to you to scroll back to the peer-reviewed scientific articles and to except what hebrew language experts had to say about the matter, as well as historians.

It is however not your place to change the rules and data under discussion. We would simply not talk about the same matter/data facts under scrutiny.
If you state you do not accept yom being just a day, because it does not fit your way of dealing with data, then that would be your decision, and yours alone.

But to show how i wrote it i my post (thanks Mike F for pointing it out again):

KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
So what's the "day" in Genesis 2? BTW, now we're considering data, although per usual not from your side.

MAAT
Have you allready learned how to open excell?
Read the snow amassing figures yet?
And what have you concluded?

24 hours , we've discussed this, with the hebrew grammar and explanations, months ago.
Besides you will find the explanation in exodus!
As mentioned some 30 pages back also.

No KAB, we know how you do not deal with information, regardless the side. Even your own.
---

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#108089 Jan 18, 2013
I will grant you that in some poetic passages in the books of prophets, is can be a longer duration. But that was not the issue, now was it!
You can't keep on shifting the goal-posts.
Without making your statements meaningless.
But still if we read:'the day will come'.
Most people expect that to be a moment in a 24 hours day cycle, and not an event stretching eaons.

-The creationist premiss is that god did the entire process within 6 actual days. A god-power magic process. Canging that changes the text of the Bible.
-The next claim would be that intelligent design proofs the changes interpretation of the bible that would thus enable creation by god, to be a fact because they can replicated up to a certain point, i.e. redesign it. Their statement relies on some complexities have come forward that they believe to have hitherto not been explained by science.
But have been replicated by design processes.
(Usually we read then quoting websides 30 years old)
-Evolution says both can't be done, without falsifying both the biblecal account and the scietific method.
And that evolution describes a proces as happened in nature.
If god is nature we could even reason that evolution sticks closer to leaving god it's intrinsic value.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#108090 Jan 18, 2013
Hmm it could do with some redaction and removal of typos, but the gist is clear.

Short:
- Creation happended in six days.
- ID claims it can redesign it but would take more time then six days, and it can't explain everything.
- Evolution does not bother with changing the bible nor is it redesigning. It only reports what it sees in nature and tries to understand it.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#108091 Jan 18, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
That is an assertion, where is the evidence of all this?
messengers (proper translation) feature in the hebrew bible but are frankly just a writers tool to make clear someone had a vision.

But Mazhere is entitled to her? stated believes, just as KAB as Jehova user is, but it simply means we are discussing entirely different ideas.

Indeed not even facts.
As in even have a base for a discussion.
We might as well also discuss the hindu's ideas.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#108092 Jan 18, 2013
Mazhere wrote:
My faith is based on the empirical evidence that energy, the form God is described as, can create matter and faith that HE can create organic matter because God is meant to be smarter than we.

---
What empirical evidence that energy is ever described as being god? Where?
How does energy create matter?
And if smarts can create organic matter, then any creature giving birth or replicating would be god too.

just some thoughts. On what are basicly your definitions and not necessarily the way other believers define.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#108093 Jan 18, 2013
What Mazhere is basicly saying is that god is matter and matter is smart but essentially male.

Just analysing that sentence.
And for some reason that god did not want to materialise unless everywhere around us as matter.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#108094 Jan 18, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Yes it does, because if the biblical GOD is the creator, and he did it the way the bible claims, then the rest of the story is correct and evolution never happened. He created man and man never evolved from something that was non-human. So yes, the truth about the origin of man is related to human from non-human evolution. Either evolution works or it doesn't, and evolution concerning the origin of life at this moment in time appears as if it is impossible.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#108095 Jan 18, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Gibberish.
So if you lock a door, you have to go back and check it 6 more times before you leave? You are a strange bird, or did you just reply "gibberish" because you know I am right, hate it, and had to post "something"????
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#108096 Jan 18, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>

Was the Miller Urey experiment successful?
No
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>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.
You are not getting closer to the answer, but farther away. The more the origins of life is studied, the more extreme complexity is uncovered and the more extreme complexity, the less likely it occurred due to natural processes, making it an increasing fact that science is less qualified to ever find the answer.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#108097 Jan 18, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
And more gibberish.
Gibberish can be refuted, but for some reason you didn't do that. I know why. You can't.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#108098 Jan 18, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
GOD forbid that honesty be allowed into debate. Maybe you should try it, it works great for me. It has left you laying in the corner in a fetal position mumbling "gibberish".
Elohim

Branford, CT

#108099 Jan 18, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>GOD forbid that honesty be allowed into debate. Maybe you should try it, it works great for me. It has left you laying in the corner in a fetal position mumbling "gibberish".
LMAO!!! Quoting a bronze age book of mythology as a scientific source.... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#108100 Jan 18, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Then show me. YOU CAN"T!!! You have no leg to stand on. If GOD created life, life came from a previous life and the LAw of Biogenesis has been satisfied and no spontainious generation event has ever been documented in a lab nor nature. For your "scientific views" on abiogenesis to be valid, they DEMAND A VIOLATION OF A KNOWN SCIENTIFIC LAW!!!! How inconsistent can you be????????

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
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 24 min Strel 141,992
Why Are There No Transitional Animals Today? (Mar '09) 1 hr Strel 789
Darwin on the rocks 10 hr The Dude 832
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 17 hr thetruth 14,507
Science News (Sep '13) Mon Ricky F 2,961
The conditions necessary for homo sapiens to sp... Sun NoahLovesU 5
Posting for Points in the Evolution Forum (Oct '11) Sun -TheExam- 13,957
More from around the web