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
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????????
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#108101 Jan 18, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
That is meaningless because if you dig up the remains of a modern cat and dog of the same size, their is not that big a difference today. That does not mean they are related or have a common ancester.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#108102 Jan 18, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Sorry to disagree my friend, but the extreme complexity of life is not even close to be replicated. But here's the deal. The big debate is does GOD exist or not. Do you not ever wonder how all these things needed for life to exist, how they got here? Can you imagine the math needed to figure out the possibilities, that somehow the building blocks of life exist, "somehow" assembled themselves in such a way that they spontainiously generated into life violating the Law of Biogenesis which has never been observed violated in a lab nor nature, that eventually evolved into the most complex thing in the known universe known as the human brain with billions of interconnected electrical circuts and has the ability of self consciousness and self awareness. Do you see how really hard that is to believe that could even be a possibilty? I don't have that much faith. Fairy tails say that a frog became a prince. Scientists call it evolution.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#108103 Jan 18, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
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?
Why did you just change the subject as if my reply to you didn't clearly answer your question?
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#108104 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?
Because I don't think nature allows to know near everything that happens around us. I think due to the extreme complexity of life that nature couldn't possibly be the cause, I believe the origin of life is a supernatural event. I believe angels are messengers from GOD, I believe witches exist because they label themselves that today. I don't think they have any powers or anything, I just believe they are mixed up people with issues. I believe that animals can talk because I have heard a parrot talk and a hienna (sp?) laugh. So i have no problem taking the next step and GOD using this in a supernatural way to bring about his will or to convey a message.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#108105 Jan 18, 2013
Elohim wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! Quoting a bronze age book of mythology as a scientific source.... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!
Who did that?

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#108106 Jan 18, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Give us one specific example, kid.
Go to the PBS site and look up the NOVA episode "The Bible's Buried Secrets". Plenty of examples there.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#108107 Jan 18, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
That is an assertion, where is the evidence of all this?
This is not new science, Kitten..

A team of 20 physicists from four institutions has literally made something from nothing, creating particles of matter from ordinary light for the first time. The experiment was carried out at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) by scientists and students from the University of Rochester, Princeton University, the University of Tennessee, and Stanford.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1997/09/...

Indeed if one is to believe that all the matter in the universe was contained within a singularity, then similarly a source of energy has formed into the matter of the universe.

Energy, has been observed to produce matter. Organic matter, blood, organs and cerebral engrams are only elements in precise locations, mixed with water, and electric spark.

Now I responded with many reasons as to why I have faith and you have chosen to address one of them.

Why do you and others have faith that there is no God and life can arise out of elements or rock into complex factories of reproduction all by themselves hanging around those deep vents or organic soup pond or any other speculation?

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#108108 Jan 18, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey, DS! How ya been?
Oh, doing well. Just got burned out arguing with the Markys of the world. SSDD. Over and over.

And, from what I can tell, it hasn't changed a bit.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#108109 Jan 18, 2013
TedHOhio wrote:
<quoted text>
Welcome back DS! Good to see you.
'Allo,'allo.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#108110 Jan 18, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
This is not new science, Kitten..
A team of 20 physicists from four institutions has literally made something from nothing, creating particles of matter from ordinary light for the first time. The experiment was carried out at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) by scientists and students from the University of Rochester, Princeton University, the University of Tennessee, and Stanford.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1997/09/...
Indeed if one is to believe that all the matter in the universe was contained within a singularity, then similarly a source of energy has formed into the matter of the universe.
Energy, has been observed to produce matter. Organic matter, blood, organs and cerebral engrams are only elements in precise locations, mixed with water, and electric spark.
Now I responded with many reasons as to why I have faith and you have chosen to address one of them.
Why do you and others have faith that there is no God and life can arise out of elements or rock into complex factories of reproduction all by themselves hanging around those deep vents or organic soup pond or any other speculation?
Your premiss hinges on the idea made popular ie. popular misconception, that photons have no mass nor weight.
Which is not true.

But more sailliant is that you have not proven that electro-magnetic energy (recall that you say god is) all by itself, as in not working on mass can simply change into matter.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#108111 Jan 18, 2013
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Particl...
Photons being massless is a figure of speech.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#108112 Jan 18, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually the title is biblical inconsistencies. And the second one is a fail for you as it is a contradiction too. You cannot both never tempt someone and tempt someone. Once you have tempted someone from that time on you will have tempted someone. And what is funny is that the claim that God never tempts anyone came long after the act of temptation in the Bible.
That is basic logic. If you try to defend the Bible after that video all I can say is that it is time to get into a shorter river.
Who stated that the Bible does not record any "inconsistencies" of that type? If someone reports that a parent sometimes rewards and sometimes punishes his children, does that mean the actions didn't take place?

Round 2:
According to Gen. 22:1 Jehovah did not tempt (e.g., Gen. 3) Abraham with anything. He gave him an instruction to test him. Do you actually know of a Bible translation in which Gen. 22:1 refers to God tempting Abraham?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#108113 Jan 18, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
This is not new science, Kitten..
A team of 20 physicists from four institutions has literally made something from nothing, creating particles of matter from ordinary light for the first time. The experiment was carried out at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) by scientists and students from the University of Rochester, Princeton University, the University of Tennessee, and Stanford.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1997/09/...
Indeed if one is to believe that all the matter in the universe was contained within a singularity, then similarly a source of energy has formed into the matter of the universe.
Energy, has been observed to produce matter. Organic matter, blood, organs and cerebral engrams are only elements in precise locations, mixed with water, and electric spark.
Now I responded with many reasons as to why I have faith and you have chosen to address one of them.
Why do you and others have faith that there is no God and life can arise out of elements or rock into complex factories of reproduction all by themselves hanging around those deep vents or organic soup pond or any other speculation?
So, if our scientists can do it, it's not something that requires a massively magical and not understood being to accomplish. Very good, you have provided evidence that no god is needed for the universe to exist. You have proven your own notion of what a "god" is completely wrong. How does it feel to finally wake up?
KAB

Oxford, NC

#108114 Jan 18, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Tyre.
Still there.
Both of them? Why shouldn't one or the other or perhaps both be?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#108115 Jan 18, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Who stated that the Bible does not record any "inconsistencies" of that type? If someone reports that a parent sometimes rewards and sometimes punishes his children, does that mean the actions didn't take place?
Round 2:
According to Gen. 22:1 Jehovah did not tempt (e.g., Gen. 3) Abraham with anything. He gave him an instruction to test him. Do you actually know of a Bible translation in which Gen. 22:1 refers to God tempting Abraham?
Your god is pitiful, prone to fits of rage over very minuscule slights that are nothing but imagined. That is not a parent, that is a tyrant. A parent, a good one at least, does not go into fits of rage and kill off all their offspring for imagined slights, much less, they don't punish their children for their entire lives simply for not buying some snake oil.

That is one of the reasons we know your god is nothing more than your super ego, and imagined being to use as an excuse for your own ends.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#108116 Jan 18, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, here we go again!'Day' can mean anything KAB wants it to mean. How many times have we played this stupid ass game now?
So far it's every time you decice to play it. The verifiable facts (data) never change, nor will they. It appears you don't choose to harmonize your thinking with the demonstrable harmony of the complete body of relevant data.

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) 5 min The Dude 122,187
Darwin on the rocks 12 min Kenedy njoroge 477
How Life's Code Emerged From Primordial Soup (Sep '09) 58 min The Dude 65
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 3 hr Jaimie 174,564
Science News (Sep '13) 7 hr Ricky F 2,894
Evidence for God. (Aug '13) 18 hr Bluenose 341
The Racist Theory of Evolution. (Jun '06) 23 hr gdjeirokrjdhk 1,306

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE