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
KAB

Oxford, NC

#108119 Jan 18, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course it can. But it is clarified by the use of 'evening' and 'morning'. Thus spake your god.
As has been demonstrated, evening and morning are terms which are also not restricted to time periods within a 24 hour day. Thus testifies the data.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#108120 Jan 18, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course it can. But it is clarified by the use of 'evening' and 'morning'. Thus spake your god.
Perhaps you will find this reasoning helpful, unless you're determined not to allow your mind to be changed no matter what.
You acknowledge that day can mean a time period other than 24 hours. Morning and evening are terms referring to portions of a day. Think about it.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#108121 Jan 18, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>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.
No, Mike is right. Because if God created matter, etc, it still does not prove or even support your contention that the actual God is the same sort of God as the one portrayed in your primitive myths. They might have had a conception of God, but its not up to the reality as we understand it now. Just as, any conception of God we might formulate today might not be up to the conception of God humans might have 1000 years from now.

Life evolved. If you believe in God, it can only mean that God decided it should be that way. Never mind what Moses understood - you understand more than Moses could possibly know about mundane things like disease and lightning. As we grow, our understanding grows.

Your clinging to Biblical Literalism is nothing more than the hope of a child that Santa exists. Of course, he does. My mother told me, when I grew out of literal Santarism, that Santa was real but as the spirit of love and giving. That is what "Santa" really meant. Now....
KAB

Oxford, NC

#108122 Jan 18, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean like not looking at the data from the Atacama Desert?
Specifically what data have I not looked at from the Atacama? It's always possible I could have missed something.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#108123 Jan 18, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you and others have faith that there is no God
I do not have faith that there is no God. There may be, even if there is no positive evidence for one. Of course, nobody can define this God well enough to make God a testable hypothesis, but yes even so, there may be. Nobody can disprove the hypothesis.
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?
And again, I cannot claim life arose out of nonliving matter spontaneously, either, though its a possibility.

What I do maintain, backed by mountains of evidence, is that once there was primitive life, it evolved, and all modern life shares common ancestry, based on the evidence we have.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#108124 Jan 18, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
What I want to have explained is what YOU mean by Biblical literalist. As you note, we probably don't agree on much, that would include Biblical literalist.
Lets say this, since even the phrase "biblical literalist" varies hugely depending on who it is insisting he knows what the Bible actually means.

If you think your interpretation of the Bible is senior to all the physical evidence we have, you are a moron.

Case closed.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#108125 Jan 18, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Actually seeing as I have to spoon feed you. The particles that form cannot be made into atoms yet because all the energy on earth cannot do it.

Therefore I have demonstrated that it is possible to turn light/energy into matter, but mankind does not have the power to capture matter to make an atom.

Indeed what was the singularity, where 'it' all was contained in the size of an atom? No scientist has any idea other than the laws of physics break down.

I still marvel at your incompetence and wanting to chase creos to verify every single statement they claim with empirical evidence of high quality and yet you lot run and hide and have stuff all to show at all for your rocks/dirt poofing into complex factories.

This marvel of avoidance and demanding better than evos can present themselves, continues on this thread, and is the best demonstation that creationists of any variety have the upper hand over the ridiculous and non-plausible claims evolutionists make. Evos have nothing of substance to talk about as their observed data, and this is being demonstrated very robustly.

This of course is trying to evade the fact that you have even less observed data that rocks can organize themselves into complex factories than I have for my claims.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#108126 Jan 18, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I do not have faith that there is no God. There may be, even if there is no positive evidence for one. Of course, nobody can define this God well enough to make God a testable hypothesis, but yes even so, there may be. Nobody can disprove the hypothesis.
<quoted text>
And again, I cannot claim life arose out of nonliving matter spontaneously, either, though its a possibility.
What I do maintain, backed by mountains of evidence, is that once there was primitive life, it evolved, and all modern life shares common ancestry, based on the evidence we have.
..and because philosophicl discussion always go around in circles I avoid them like the plague. This all springs form targeting one example of why I have faith. Waste of thread space to talk philosophy, as far as I am concerned. Science is not qualified to speak to God and cannot falsify him.

The point being in line with the thread topic, creos have the facts in their support, evos do not. You have nothing for abiogenesis but theories, and you can do no more than to envy any I have.

You've had ample opportunity to present some observed facts/data to suggest you have some. So far all you can do is chase creos and have demonstrated what you have is no better and often much worse.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#108127 Jan 18, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
..and because philosophicl discussion always go around in circles I avoid them like the plague. This all springs form targeting one example of why I have faith. Waste of thread space to talk philosophy, as far as I am concerned. Science is not qualified to speak to God and cannot falsify him.
The point being in line with the thread topic, creos have the facts in their support, evos do not. You have nothing for abiogenesis but theories, and you can do no more than to envy any I have.
Even worse, there is no support for abiogenesis apart from hypotheses. A lot of discovery about the natural synthesis of amino acids, RNA, lipid microspheres, and ADP, but I grant, no theory of how it all comes together.
You've had ample opportunity to present some observed facts/data to suggest you have some. So far all you can do is chase creos and have demonstrated what you have is no better and often much worse.
No, what we have is a comprehensive theory of how life evolved after existing already, one with so much evidence in favour of it that fools who try to pretend that Ichthy is like a whale merely make themselves look really, really stupid in the light of the fossil evidence and our ability to analyse it.

I mean, how stupid can they get? Lets see......Maz? How stupid are you willing to get in your defense of the indefensible?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#108128 Jan 18, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
..and because philosophicl discussion always go around in circles I avoid them like the plague.
Fair enough
The point being in line with the thread topic, creos have the facts in their support, evos do not.
Hugely, enormously, ridiculously funny. Falling over, so funny.
You have nothing for abiogenesis but theories
Actually worse. Just hypotheses.

Which are being examined and tested. Good night, idiot, you do not have a clue how science works.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#108129 Jan 18, 2013
Mazzy! I havenít seen you for a day or two!
This thread isnít the same without you posting the same message over and over again.
My question was directed to marksman, but I appreciate your taking the time anyway.
Now to address your questions:
MazHere wrote:
What is your faith based on?
I have never gone out with a pickaxe and a shovel and dug up fossils.
I have never seen a DNA strand under a microscope.
I have never watched an embryo develop.

I have faith, however, that anyone writing a bogus report of such experiences would quickly get exposed as a fraud. When scholars read a lab report which is difficult to believe, they go in the laboratory and see if they come up with the same thing. South Korean geneticist Hwang Woo Suk claimed that he could clone humans. Scholars read his report, followed his instructions, and found that he was loony. The results were veryt disappointing for Hwang Woo Suk.

On the other hand, Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget performed experiments on cognitive development in children. Scholars read his reports, didnít believe them, and went into the laboratory to prove him wrong. They found, to their utter amazement, that he was right.

I am impressed that students of fossils, biochemistry, embryos, and vestigial organs have worked independently from each other and come up with identical answers.
If students of fossils said we were descended from an ape, students of embryos said we were descended from a rabbit, students of embryos said we were descended from a cocker spaniel, and students of vestigial organs said we were descended from a eucalyptus tree, I would say that the whole thing is baloney.

I am also impressed that so many thousands of scientists have testified in favor of evolutionary theory and none have defected, exposing the whole thing as a hoax. I doubt that a secret shared with that many people could be so hermetically sealed.

In 1977, Lamar Keene quit his position posing as a medium for dead spirits and told the world how the trick was done. Members of the Scientology cult, the Mormon church, and the Jehovahís Witnesses have defected and told us their secrets. Furthermore, their testimony has been remarkably similar. Thatís why I believe the defectors.

Yet no one has defected from the alleged holocaust hoax. Thatís why I believe that the holocaust wasnít a hoax. And no one has defected from the Evolution hoax. Thatís why I believe that Evolution is not a hoax.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#108130 Jan 18, 2013
I suggest evosí faith is that dead elements can organize themselves into complex factories of reproduction without intelligent assistance ...[/|QUOTE]

Your suggestion is based on the assumption that all Evolutionists declare that there is no Godówhich is a false assumption.

The leading Creationist propagandists want you to keep on believing that. Duane Gish began every debate with a description of the Big Bang. He knew that a lot of Christians hate atheists. He wanted to capitalize on that hatred by making the audience hate his opponent. That way, they would refuse to listen to anything his opponent had to say.

Evolutionary theory, on the other hand, presupposes nothing about how the Universe began, how the earth began, or how life began. In fact, I have never even seen an Evolutionist bring up the subject. I challenge you to find any place on this entire Website where an Evolutionist brought up the subject.

[QUOTE]... and have faith in what researchers that are consistently wrong have to say as flavour of the month.
Eratosthenes was the first scholar to suggest that the world was round. After making measurements of the earth around him and measurements of the path of the sun, he made an estimate of the size of the earth, and that estimate was darn close to the figure which is agreed upon today.

So why donít we thumb our noses at Eratosthenes for not arriving at the exact figure? Because he did the best he could with what was available to him at the time.

It seems that paleontologists had not done much exploration as deep as the Cambrian layer in Darwinís time. In Origin of Species, Darwin hints at a Silurian Explosion.

So why donít we thumb our noses at Darwin for not knowing about the findings in the Cambrian layer? Because he did the best he could with what was available to him at the time.

Austrian zoologist Konrad Lorenz thought that our prehistoric ancestors created the domestic dog by crossing a wolf with a jackal. Subsequent research, however, showed that they captured runts from wolf litters and mated them with runts from other wolf litters.

So why donít we thumb our noses at Lorenz for not arriving at the right answer in the first place? Because he was the one who sparked the discussion.

So you see that an announcement from a reputable scientist may not always bring us to our destination, but it usually brings us a step forward. We can see this illustrated in the technology around us. We know a lot about printing presses which Gutenberg didnít know. We know a lot about telephones which Alexander Graham Bell didnít know. We know a lot about televisions which Lee de Forest didnít know. None of these improvements would be possible if everyone were content with a flat earth standing on four pillars.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#108131 Jan 18, 2013
What do you have faith in?
Nothing. I have an inquiring mind, not faith.
Do you research and understand...


My interest in Evolutionary theory began not out of desire to hop on a bandwagon, not out of desire to blaspheme the Holy Ghost, but out of research for a manuscript on romantic interest in children on the part of adults. Although Evolutionary theory was the furthest thing on my mind when I started the research, I came to see that psychology, as well as the more exact sciences, makes perfect sense in light of the Evolutionary model.

A while ago, I tried to explain this to marksman11. I even gave marksman11 a point-by-point explanation. I expected him to give me a point-by-point rebuttal. Instead, he merely scoffed at me for showing interest in the topic in the first place.

I have written a 400-page manuscript on the deceptive tactics employed by Creationist propagandist Duane Gish. This summer, when I have more time, I hope to publish that manuscript as an e-book.
... or just listen and accept what grant seekers have to say.
In this manuscript, I donít play any favorites. I analyze the logical fallacies employed by Gish, but I include an entire chapter devoted to logical fallacies employed by Gishís opponents.

Most of Gishís opponents believe that Creationism should not be taught in the public schools. However, I believe that it should be presented alongside Evolutionary theory and compared thereto. I include an entire chapter explaining why.

As far as I know, none of Gishís opponents have ever argued Evolutionary theory on the grounds of Evolutionary psychology. I devote an entire chapter to that subject.

Thatís three entire chapters in which I part company with other Evolutionists.

Your ďflavor of the monthĒ metaphor was very clever. Iíll have to include it somewhere.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#108132 Jan 18, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
Your god is pitiful, prone to fits of rage over very minuscule slights that are nothing but imagined.
Prophets, even.

II Kings 2:23-24 tells this story of Elisha:

And he went up from thence unto Bethel:and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.

And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD, And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

I have had oodlums of children tease me for being bald, but I didn't pray for them to be eviscerated. Rather, I chased and tickled them.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#108133 Jan 18, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Thanks for the intelligent, objective, non-combative post. I agree, the only possible exception being some of the progression characterization details. I think it's a matter of expression choice rather than content tho.

BTW, I think you might find a vehicle "cladogram" quite enlightening.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#108134 Jan 18, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
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 are certainly correct that I get almost nothing from your stream-of-consciousness posts. It's rather apparent that you think you have made a point when you haven't even been understood! With you I generally can't see the point for the words.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#108135 Jan 18, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>You have no idea what I teach my students...
You've told us EXPLICITLY what you teach them.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#108136 Jan 18, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>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????????
Newton's law of gravity are violated all the time. It's a KNOWN SCIENTIFIC LAW!!!!

Here's an idea: read a book other than the Bible, moron.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#108137 Jan 18, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>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.
If only life was a predicted outcome beforehand. Alas, for you, this completely shitcans your argument. Try again, ding dong.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#108138 Jan 18, 2013
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Go to the PBS site and look up the NOVA episode "The Bible's Buried Secrets". Plenty of examples there.
You're trying to make the point. Provide ONE specific example to get yourself started. Otherwise, you have nothing. If I go to the site, and the first point is easily demonstrated to be erroneous, then I will be reluctant to return to that site for anything more. Your best chance for success is to stay in control, and take your best shot.

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) 3 min Dogen 134,578
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 3 min The Dude 13,636
How would creationists explain... 10 min The Dude 446
Why Are There No Transitional Animals Today? (Mar '09) 12 min The Dude 514
Evolutionists staes that white people are more ... (Jun '06) 3 hr spiderlover 77
Science News (Sep '13) 19 hr Hatti_Hollerand 2,948
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... Sat Dogen 718
More from around the web