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

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

There are 141352 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.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#108130 Jan 18, 2013
I suggest evos’ 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 God—which 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 don’t 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 Darwin’s time. In Origin of Species, Darwin hints at a Silurian Explosion.

So why don’t 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 don’t 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 didn’t know. We know a lot about telephones which Alexander Graham Bell didn’t know. We know a lot about televisions which Lee de Forest didn’t 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 don’t play any favorites. I analyze the logical fallacies employed by Gish, but I include an entire chapter devoted to logical fallacies employed by Gish’s opponents.

Most of Gish’s 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 Gish’s opponents have ever argued Evolutionary theory on the grounds of Evolutionary psychology. I devote an entire chapter to that subject.

That’s three entire chapters in which I part company with other Evolutionists.

Your “flavor of the month” metaphor was very clever. I’ll 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.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#108139 Jan 18, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
That would be all the evidence you don't provide, since what you have provided has been demonstrated, with data, to be inadequate to achieve the purpose for which it was provided.
Case reopened. In court you have to present convincing evidence, not just declare you have it or it's out there.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#108140 Jan 18, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
1,The empirical evidence is a book that was written prior to modern science. It is called the Bible.
This is the message we have heard from him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in him there is no darkness at all (1 John 1:5).
Which he will bring about at the proper time - he who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see. To him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen (1 Timothy 6:15,16)
2.It was light used as the source of energy in the particle accelerator. They have produced photons as well. Don't be lazy and go look up your own research. That is unless you call be a liar and then I'd be glad to make a fool of you and let you be lazy.
3,Desperado! No one doubts the biological process of reproduction. We are talking about the first life/s. Unless you are talking about rocks giving birth, then I guess you are just prepared to look silly for the heck of it.
Yes when data leads to different interpretations based on different assumptions they are not necessarily the way 'other' believers define. Does that come as a surprize to you?
I have many reasons listed as to why I have faith in the God of the bible. A source of light/energy has been OBSERVED to form matter. I also have factual information that so far there is NO observed life in our galaxy or the universe.
What have you got that demonstrates elements can organze themsleves into complex factories themselves or by chance? Do you have any observed evidence that life has arisen in a similar way elsewhere, or even multiple times on the earth, to demonstrate the 'naturalness' of this process?
So is this yet again going to be all about creos supporting their stand with evolutionists chasing us and their own tails and hiding away? Could this be because evos have nothing of merit to offer for their basis for faith? eg elements orgaizing themsleves into complex factories of reproduction whilst hanging around some deep ocean thermal vent, life elsewhere, etc?
What makes you think the evocation a deity is less plausible than suggesting rocks or dirt have intelligence and a plan, or 'luck' did it?
1. Everyone it's own believes. But i do not do the gospel and various christian interpetation.
An exampl would be 'begat'. People unfamiliair with would not known that it can mean birth and adoption.
But mostly for the reason that is was out of the scope of the rules we decided.
But emperical proof would be observation and or experiment that can be repeated.

2.That photons is beyond the point, since i allready stated that photons do have mass, and the fact that electro-magnetic acceleration, means using a tool namely at matter to create matter.
See various what is exactly meant with protons having mass means.

3.Another aunt sally. That we are now not people as at yet finding life does not mean that we will do not know that we will do so so.
A factory? I do not see the relevance of that remark.
You might recall that i mention Montmorillion and darwin pond. Since marine thermal vent do not confirm to to the necessariy qualifiction.
Well god's , luck, or rocks given the way you do not distinquish any difference would be random choices.

"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be just as easily dismissed without evidence" - Hitchens





““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#108141 Jan 18, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
We get he and we get she mentioned.
Coincidence of reality was that i was reading about the goddess Ilithya or a.k.a. Eileithya.
Wondering how much some stories refer to greek-syrian influence.
If at all. Or to diminishing hittite influence.
Usually stories are also parables to make ones own mind up about.
Who says jews took all stories for just the one and only way to interpret!(1,8 million pages do tell that nothing was not discussed.)

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#108142 Jan 18, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Watch to program. It provides many.

I'll start you on one...there is NO archeological evidence of the Israelites ever being in Egypt. The archeological evidence shows them to have originally been a small Canaanite hill tribe with a handful of villages.

Another...the archeological evidence of the destruction of the Canaanite cities...no Joshua. The cities were destroyed for the most part by internal rioting. And not in one generation, but over a period of several hundred years.

No Moses. No Joshua. Probably no King David. The ONLY archeological evidence of David is a later Hebrew king titled as being "of the House of David".

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#108143 Jan 18, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Everyone it's own believes. But i do not do the gospel and various christian interpetation.
An exampl would be 'begat'. People unfamiliair with would not known that it can mean birth and adoption.
But mostly for the reason that is was out of the scope of the rules we decided.
But emperical proof would be observation and or experiment that can be repeated.
2.That photons is beyond the point, since i allready stated that photons do have mass, and the fact that electro-magnetic acceleration, means using a tool namely at matter to create matter.
See various what is exactly meant with protons having mass means.
3.Another aunt sally. That we are now not people as at yet finding life does not mean that we will do not know that we will do so so.
A factory? I do not see the relevance of that remark.
You might recall that i mention Montmorillion and darwin pond. Since marine thermal vent do not confirm to to the necessariy qualifiction.
Well god's , luck, or rocks given the way you do not distinquish any difference would be random choices.
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be just as easily dismissed without evidence" - Hitchens
Just to clarify something...

Photons do NOT have mass, though they do have momentum. They are massless. One indication of this is that only massless particles can travel AT the speed of light (as photons do).

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#108144 Jan 19, 2013
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
'Allo,'allo.
Good God.

Was that a "Dixon of Dock Green" reference??

Sheesh, I'm getting old.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#108145 Jan 19, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Both of them? Why shouldn't one or the other or perhaps both be?
Ezekiel foretold the utter and permanent destruction of the city, any time then.

It still thrives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyre,_Lebanon

Fail.
The Pencil Dick

Kingston, Jamaica

#108146 Jan 19, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Skepticism is not the same as nihilism.
Well, you have not demonstrated the scepticism that is not the same as nihilism.
LowellGuy wrote:
Your faith, however, is nothing more than gullibility writ large.
I could say the same about you.

You have not failed to demonstrate gullibility in your will to accept fact by consensus; you accept as fact BECAUSE other people accept as fact.
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

#108147 Jan 19, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
Thou shalt not kill.
America gave Saddam Hussain the death penalty, yet homicide is a crime in America..

So I dont see why you find it so difficult to understand that humans generally tend to kill whatever they dont like.

Both Moses and George Bush institute policies to kill who they dont like; I dont see what your problem is really.

ITS A HUMAN THING; NOT A CHRISTIAN NOR MUSLIM NOR JEW THING.
LowellGuy wrote:
...It's the same outcome, and killing people is killing people.
Was Saddam a goat?

Why couldnt they just keep him in prison forever?

Why kill him after he has been rendered harmless (captured, restrained etc)?

You dont seem to to be able to notice when your people do the same crap you find distasteful when others do it.
LowellGuy wrote:
Not suffering a witch to live means either prevent witches from occurring (impossible, as it's a thought pattern) or stop existing witches from continuing their lives (possible).
Well, witches as they were in those days were not the poor defenceless people you seem to think they are.

Back in those days witches used to do blood sacrifice using babies etc.; so chances are, you would be just as pissed as Moses.
LowellGuy wrote:
Whether the whole group stones the witch to death or a single person does it, it could hardly matter less. Religious dogma-based killing is religious dogma-based killing. It's completely irrational and savage no matter who carries it out.
My eyes are brimming with tears.
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

#108148 Jan 19, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
...That would mean there must be a uniform age to LOWER geologic STRATA...
I appreciate that fact that you said "WOULD mean".

But what you say is in direct conflict with the nature of the earth.

"Even the tops of mountains have bedrock that formed AT DEPTH IN THE EARTH and has been uplifted and eroded."
[http://www.maine.gov/doc/nrim c/mgs/explore/bedrock/faq.htm]

Which means there DOES NOT have to be "...a uniform age to LOWER geologic STRATA..."

You have a habit of "piecing things" together; but the mind automatically seeks meaning and association between things. Many times you may simply be 'imposing' connections where none really are.
ChromiuMan wrote:
... 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.
But such an individual could not argue that all creatures were made at the same time.

Scripture specifically tells that some creatures where created at specific points ("days").
ChromiuMan wrote:
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.
I agree.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#108149 Jan 19, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
So why is the GOD of the bible the only one you guys ever address? WHy is it the only one you ever attack? I don't care about other so-called gods, and evidently, you atheist types don't either. The GOD of the bible says in Romans 1

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

You battle the biblical GOD because this verse is true. You know deep inside that he exists. He put that something in you that tells you that. You deny it and it sets up a bitter struggle within your spirit. You know that he exists by what has been made. You won't admit it, but that is why you are in this group day after day. You can't get away from that "something" that GOD placed inside you.
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Life evolved. If you believe in God, it can only mean that God decided it should be that way.
If that be true, then why can't you emperically prove it? Without a doubt? WHy can't scientists replicate it?....all they can do is interpret evidence as if it supports evolution when the truth is, it supports creation better. And you guys continue to jump the gun by puting the cart ahead of the horses by failing to deal with the origin of life by naturalistic means. If the origin of life can't evolve naturally, there is no need to think that life can, or did, either.
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text> 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.
I think you misjudge Moses. He met with GOD, had miraculous experiences that even changed his appearence. GOD let Moses see him from behind as he passed by. He lead millions of people, and saw GOD work miracles. Moses saw things you and I could only dream of.
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
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....
No one ever claimed Santa was the originator of life. GOD did. If you want to compare fairy tales, a fairy tale says that a frog became a prince, scientists call it evolution. So see? it isn't fair to compare fairy tales to what most see as a subject of reality. Let's keep it real.

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 Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 8 min MikeF 164,356
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 8 min Zog Has-fallen 19,068
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 6 hr SoE 178,617
How can we prove God exists, or does not? 7 hr GTID62 86
Poll Do you believe the universe is granular? (Aug '11) 8 hr cpshrivastava 31
has science finally debunked the 'god' myth? 9 hr Zog Has-fallen 11
News British Ban Teaching Creationism As Science, Sh... (Jul '14) 13 hr goonsquad 162
More from around the web