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

Full story: Asheville Citizen-Times

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 ...

Comments (Page 5,307)

Showing posts 106,121 - 106,140 of133,154
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
marksman11

Asheville, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#108149
Jan 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#108150
Jan 19, 2013
 
Thomas Robertson wrote:
Mazzy! 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.
"In a new book, Evolution Exposed, Roger Patterson shows how he believes some scientists have a bias toward evolution and against looking at true scientific facts. Patterson himself once believed in the theory of evolution. The book is written for students in biology class.

Whether there is a bias or not in the scientific community and the media toward evolution many scientists who were once believed in evolution but now believe in creation, say evolution is not scientific. Maybe not all are now Christians, but many of them, Christians or not, do not hesitate to tell why they believe the theory of evolution is unscientific and does not provide any real answers to man."

http://voices.yahoo.com/scientists-not-believ...

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#108151
Jan 19, 2013
 
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
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".
But, at least Noah's flood is real, right?

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#108152
Jan 19, 2013
 
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>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.
<quoted text>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. <quoted text>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.<quoted text>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.
Good morning, Marksman. How ya doing?

Moving right along from the birth to the epiphany to the baptism by John in the Jordan we now find Jesus retiring to the desert for forty days of fasting. Why forty days? A few members of the congregation point out that Moses and the Hebrews wandered around the Sinai Peninsula for forty years.'That's right', agrees Padre, drawing several little circles with his index finger, musing,'It's not a very big place'.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#108153
Jan 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>"In a new book, Evolution Exposed, Roger Patterson shows how he believes some scientists have a bias toward evolution and against looking at true scientific facts. Patterson himself once believed in the theory of evolution. The book is written for students in biology class.
Whether there is a bias or not in the scientific community and the media toward evolution many scientists who were once believed in evolution but now believe in creation, say evolution is not scientific. Maybe not all are now Christians, but many of them, Christians or not, do not hesitate to tell why they believe the theory of evolution is unscientific and does not provide any real answers to man."
http://voices.yahoo.com/scientists-not-believ...
&#9726;The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science.

&#9726;By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith

No matter what the evidence is, the Bible is true the way we say it's true. If they don't care about evidence, why should anybody care what they say about science?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#108154
Jan 19, 2013
 
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>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...
You just answered your own question.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#108155
Jan 19, 2013
 
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
America gave Saddam Hussain the death penalty, yet homicide is a crime in America..
Are you sure about that? It was only a few years ago. I'm sure the articles are still around. But, to save you the time, let me assure you that you're a moron and you're wrong.
God Himself wrote:
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.
Nature, Mr. Allnut, is what we're put on Earth to rise above.

Sounds like you're saying God's laws were devised by man.
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Remind us all who killed Saddam Hussein and where.
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Evidence? By the way, THE ANCIENT HEBREWS HAD HUMAN SACRIFICES. If it wasn't a relatively normal thing, Abraham wouldn't have thought it within God's character to request, nor would Jephthah have considered the sacrifice of his daughter acceptable in any way.
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
My eyes are brimming with tears.
I'm sure, when the shit's stacked that high...

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#108156
Jan 19, 2013
 
The Pencil Dick wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, you have not demonstrated the scepticism that is not the same as nihilism.
<quoted text>
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.
"I know you are but what am I?" Really?

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#108157
Jan 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
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..."
I refer to your statement "Scripture specifically tells...", and we can continue on from there.
Genesis 5 (God) defines a day as being light, dark as being night and the transition between them evening and morning. Therefore, a "day" is not a thousand, million or billion years. Biblical genealogy "specifically tells" that dry land is less than a week (a day is DEFINED BY SCRIPTURE as the period between morning and evening) older than mankind. Obviously, no branch of science or non-theological field of study supports the notion that the Earth is of a uniform age, with the oldest rock being a mere 6k-10k years +/- 2 days older than lava that cooled this morning.
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>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").
And again, Genesis defines a "day" as not more than a 12 to 24 hour period and the Old Testament provides a genealogical timeline to the Garden of Eden/Creation, as well. Scripture specifically states that all plants were created on day 3 and that all creatures were created within 48 hours of each other on days 5 and 6.
It's your Bible. Don't get glib when someone points out your God given "facts."
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#108158
Jan 19, 2013
 
LowellGuy wrote:
Are you sure about that? It was only a few years ago. I'm sure the articles are still around. But, to save you the time, let me assure you that you're a moron and you're wrong.
Ok then. Say that I am wrong about the saddam thingy.

I am a fool and a lying swine. There. You happy now?

That still doesnt change the fact that we all employ measures that we consider to be in our best interest.

So Moses was justified in saying kill witches; just like Bush is justified in saying attack those people over there. ALL OF THAT IS DONE IN THE INTEREST OF THE GROUP/NATION.

Its a human thing.
LowellGuy wrote:
Nature, Mr. Allnut, is what we're put on Earth to rise above.
Sounds like you're saying God's laws were devised by man.
"Sounds like".
LowellGuy wrote:
By the way, THE ANCIENT HEBREWS HAD HUMAN SACRIFICES. If it wasn't a relatively normal thing, Abraham wouldn't have thought it within God's character to request, nor would Jephthah have considered the sacrifice of his daughter acceptable in any way.
I sure hope that incident with abraham is not the basis of your claims that the ancient hebrews had human sacrifices.

The fact that abraham thought God would approve of a human sacrifice suggests that abraham did not comprehend the nature of the entity He identified as God.

Jephtha promised that he would sacrifice the first thing that came out of his house. That it was his daughter that first came out of his house was tragic.

I bet Jephtha would have preferred if it was a dog that came out of his house first.

God didnt demand it; it was Jephtha who swore to it.

You are quite a propagandist. LOL!
LowellGuy wrote:
I'm sure, when the shit's stacked that high...
???
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#108159
Jan 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
...Genesis 5 (God) defines a day as being light, dark as being night and the transition between them evening and morning.
Yeah, but that was God defining things as those men should sees it in order to have a functional/operational understanding of things.

IF God had said:

"There is only one day and one night; all other days and nights are mere repetitions of the same concept in action..."

... God would be speaking truthfully and accurately; but those men would scarcely understand, because they see a new night after every day.
ChromiuMan wrote:
Therefore, a "day" is not a thousand, million or billion years.
At least not according to human perception.

But the fact is that all organisms dont demonstrate the same perception of time and teh passing of time.

1 year to a man may be like 2 years to a dog.*shrug*

If "A" transcends time, then 1 day to "A" may appear to be infinite.

Based on the attributes and potentials we associate with God, what is written in the Bible is logical and accurate.

Your failure appears to be that you dont understand the attributes that are ascribed to God nor why nor how they were ascribed to "Him".

Do you even know why God is referred to as a masculine entity when it is written that "No eye hath seen God"?
ChromiuMan wrote:
Biblical genealogy "specifically tells" that dry land is less than a week (a day is DEFINED BY SCRIPTURE as the period between morning and evening) older than mankind.
I addressed that above.
ChromiuMan wrote:
Obviously, no branch of science or non-theological field of study supports the notion that the Earth is of a uniform age, with the oldest rock being a mere 6k-10k years +/- 2 days older than lava that cooled this morning.
<quoted text>
I addressed that above
ChromiuMan wrote:
And again, Genesis defines a "day" as not more than a 12 to 24 hour period and the Old Testament provides a genealogical timeline to the Garden of Eden/Creation, as well. Scripture specifically states that all plants were created on day 3 and that all creatures were created within 48 hours of each other on days 5 and 6.
It's your Bible. Don't get glib when someone points out your God given "facts."
But the fact is that most of the Bible is written in symbolic language.

Interestingly, symbols are the way man represents his ideas; whether scientific or religious.

So choosing to describe the emerged life as the result of evolution instead of Creation by God, is up to you.

Science gives you no right nor potential to say that my symbols are false or wrong just because you dont like them.
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#108160
Jan 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
...Beginnings require a "first cause"...
I rest my phocking case.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Wahroonga, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#108161
Jan 19, 2013
 
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
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?
And creationists also speak to what supports their paradigm after life already happened. The reason I am talking is philosophy is because some brain dead evos can't talk science and want to try to score some delusional cheap points.

I see you are now going for babble seeing as you have nothing intelligent or scienticis to say, which has been the case for a while.

If the beginning is not important and you want to hide behind this, then you must never ask 'how God created? or 'prove God' which evos persistently do? When you do I go to abiogenesis and your faith, and then you hide behind TOE being after abiogenesis and so the circle goes around with evos chasing their tails....

As ChromiuMan states "Beginnings require a 'first cause'..."

I am done with having to support my interpretation of the data re fossil evidence as it is as unfalsifiable as mythical theropods that you seem to think is science. If they redate the entire strata to suit the bird footprints let me know so I can laugh!.

I'd say varied tetropod footprints showing up 397mya AND displaying a foot pad is fairly destabilizing for TOE and even more uncomfortable than a reversed hallux showing up 212mya or cetacean traits in a reptile.

Now it seems some are asking about my faith, others abiogenesis and clearly you aren't making any points at all. You're just quacking for the heck of it.

A living cell is irreduceably complex. Amino acids disolve in water. Hence the latest flavour of the month is the RNA world.

If cells had really formed spontaneously, we would expect their important parts to be made of materials that form easily under natural conditions. However, not one of the four: lipids, proteins, RNA, or DNA, can be made that way at all! Amazing! Not one is formed in nature except by a living cell, yet for a cell to live, all must be there at the same time, each one doing its job..not to mention the cell membrane.

If God had wanted to shout to you that He is here, and show you proof that He created, could you find a more convincing proof for Him to use?

Let's also not forget that evos continue to chase creos because they are not prepared to discuss what facts they have because evos do not have any.

At least there is some data that light/energy can produce matter! It is easier for evos to scarper around from topic to topic, diving to philosophy to hide for a while, hoping no one notices.

What facts and observed data do you have that support your philosophy that a complex factory can arise by itself? None.
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#108162
Jan 19, 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
Before we go into the discussion of terms that can hardly be pronounced, there are some issues regarding evidence of evolution and ongoing processes that demonstrate it.

For example, the resistance of bacteria to antibiotics is often said to demonstrate evolution in progress; but is that truly so?

What evolution is is a big hoax.

I hear them talking about how resistant bacteria and crap demonstrate evolution; but does it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Lots more where that cam form; and I am willing to go through them one by phucking one.

Its interesting to see that there are members of teh scientific community that dont believe in that crap you are trying to feed the world.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#108163
Jan 19, 2013
 
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>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....snip....
We address the GAWD of the Bible because that is the only one that you fools bring up. You never say Allah, Buddha, Rama, or any other god made the Earth.

That must make sense even to you Marky.
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#108164
Jan 19, 2013
 
MazHere wrote:
...What facts and observed data do you have that support your philosophy that a complex factory can arise by itself?
Are you sure?

We all know that a master piece painting will result if you jsut toss a tin of paint at the canvas.

We all know that if you throw some water on the ground it will automatically form itself into geometric shapes.

We all know that raw energy just explodes and forms complex chemicals and various structures and systems.

Dont we?
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#108165
Jan 19, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
We address the GAWD of the Bible because that is the only one that you fools bring up. You never say Allah, Buddha, Rama, or any other god made the Earth.
That must make sense even to you Marky.
The identity of "X" is superfluous to the question of the potentials of "X".

Lets try to focus on whether or not "X" AN OMNIPOTENT, OMNISCIENT AND OMNIPRESENT, created the universe.

The identity of "X" as God, Devil, Allah, Buddah, etc is irrelevant.

I expected you to be able to differentiate between relevant and irrelevant data, as a critical thinker.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Wahroonga, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#108166
Jan 19, 2013
 
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you sure?
We all know that a master piece painting will result if you jsut toss a tin of paint at the canvas.
We all know that if you throw some water on the ground it will automatically form itself into geometric shapes.
We all know that raw energy just explodes and forms complex chemicals and various structures and systems.
Dont we?
Of course, we all should not let a few facts get in the way of a good story that handwaves away the impossible. Let's call it a published and peer reviewed story.

Evolutionists publish and therefore know they exist, just as much as they 'know' complex factories assemble themselves.

I got it!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#108167
Jan 19, 2013
 
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
The identity of "X" is superfluous to the question of the potentials of "X".
Lets try to focus on whether or not "X" AN OMNIPOTENT, OMNISCIENT AND OMNIPRESENT, created the universe.
The identity of "X" as God, Devil, Allah, Buddah, etc is irrelevant.
I expected you to be able to differentiate between relevant and irrelevant data, as a critical thinker.
I was answering Marky's foolish question.

Now, as to the existence of any gods:

Why believe in something unless you have evidence for its existence? What is your evidence for your god? I have not seen any to date.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#108168
Jan 19, 2013
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course, we all should not let a few facts get in the way of a good story that handwaves away the impossible. Let's call it a published and peer reviewed story.
Evolutionists publish and therefore know they exist, just as much as they 'know' complex factories assemble themselves.
I got it!
Hmm.

Why is it that creos do NOT publish their findings?

In any reviewed credible journal, I mean?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 106,121 - 106,140 of133,154
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••