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

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

There are 162356 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 7

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#108218 Jan 19, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
At least you knew the answer to your own stupid question.
Meanwhile, you're on here trying to convince people of the logic behind fairytales.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#108219 Jan 19, 2013
Stefooch wrote:
<quoted text> Thanks for the summary! I love that you should do it more often. I didn't say you were one of those non absolute truth people but the way. No catholics are bad because they call themselves Christian and yet pray to Mary.
And Muslims say Christians are bad because they claim to believe in One God yet pray to one of his prophets, Jesus. And nobody can make sense of the claim that Jesus and God are really one and the same, especially when Jesus is hanging there on the Cross asking God why he was forsaken. Or that Jesus as God would actually have to "resist" Satan's temptations. That's utterly senseless.

Muslims hope that God in His mercy will forgive you Christians for your error. Christians seldom show such good heart to Muslims.

And I think you are all mad, Christians, Jews, and Muslims alike!

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#108220 Jan 19, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You probably didn't think to inform him that he didn't get his info from a demonstated reliable source.
It is only a demonstrated reliable source to you. The rest of us that are aware of the fallibility of the Bible it is not. We could go round and round about this and we have but you have failed to provide conclusive evidence of this reliability. All you are doing is restating that the Bible is infallible. Yes, there is some historical information in the Bible. There is historical inforamation that has been shown to be real in the Iliad and the Odyssey and in Michener novels as well. I suppose they must be demonstrated reliable sources of information as well.

I know you demand data from us to support your claims, but I don't feel like doing your work for you.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#108221 Jan 19, 2013
marksman11, how did you become so proficient in reading other people's mood changes all of a sudden?
Did you just purchase a long distance biofeedback meter or what?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#108222 Jan 19, 2013
KAB wrote:
I'm not the one who launched into this fantasy that a lack of data proves that something didn't happen. You saddled YOURSELF with that burden.
The real basis of the skepticism is not merely lack of confirming data, but data directly in contradiction with a WWF at that time. Genetic diversity, biogeography, and the continuity of world cultures are all incompatible with a WWF. Therefore - it never happened. In that light, the additional factor - total lack of any confirming evidence for a WWF - is merely to be expected.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#108223 Jan 19, 2013
MazHere wrote:
Can you imagine those evohounds reading a paper suggesting bird footprints 212myo on Pangea support Aves thriving more than half way back to the Devonian?

MazHere is to writing as Philip Glass is to music composition.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#108224 Jan 19, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Does #3 explain why when I make an excellent point on any topic except the global flood, the response so often goes back to the flood? Ask me for an example, PLEASE!!! They're so abundant it has to be among the easiest things to find.
There are a number of questionable claims in the Bible..

However, the Flood is a good example because it posits a massive event that should have disrupted life completely and left big scars on the geological landscape and left its signature on human and all other DNA. Since none of that happened, we have solid evidence that at least one Biblical story is not accurate and therefore your claims of Biblical Infallibility can only be believed by someone determined to ignore their own extreme biases.

Its one thing - and fair enough - to demand data. Its another thing to ignore the conclusions that follow from the data once given. Ever heard of cognitive bias?

Its characteristic in a forum like this for the discussion to harp on about one tiny questionable claim, e.g. "Was Acheopteryx an intermediate?" while ignoring the vast edifice of evidence that has been steadily accumulating, unquestioned, for decades, as if the whole issue of evolution rested on one or two data points.

The whole fossil record is so extensive and reliable that real geologists working in oil companies - where a wasted drilling operation would cost millions - routinely use index fossils to quickly identify and date rock strata. Lets see what a CREATIONIST TRAINED geologist who had written 20+ Creation Papers in Creation Journals had to say on the matter once his pre-instilled cognitive bias (from Institute of Creation Research), fell apart under the weight of the real evidence...

Read the folowing article:
http://www.answersincreation.org/whyileft.htm

" I took a poll of my ICR (Institute of Creation Research)graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.

"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true?"

That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!' A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either."

-Glen R Morton

http://www.answersincreation.org/whyileft.htm

Morton was a card carrying champion for your viewpoint, but reality simply did not tally with what he had been taught, and honesty compelled him to change his views.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#108225 Jan 20, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
" I took a poll of my ICR (Institute of Creation Research)graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.
"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true?"
That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!' A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either."
Nice to know that I have an honest fellowclansman.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#108226 Jan 20, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice to know that I have an honest fellowclansman.
Great!

Out of curiosity, you should read the link I sent (last post) a fuller discussion by Glen Morton of how he came to wake up and understand what a load of tripe he had been fed. There may not be any honest creationists, but at least there are some honest ex-creationists!

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#108227 Jan 20, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Well, I have asked for evidence, the scientific minds give it in such large quantities I am still actually learning a lot of it. But the creationists give me nothing. If you even gave one bit of evidence, that would be a first ... ever, seriously, it would be the very first time a creationist has ever given any evidence to support their creationist story.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#108228 Jan 20, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
First, your WWF comments were apparently aimed at a YEC, so you misfired.
Second, water for a million in the desert is not a problem if you know where it's at and have the wherewithal to provide it.
Do you really think that I can't find a fossil that is chronologically and morphologically like a fossil that has already been found. I think you were so pumped by the thought of using those big words that you blew right by the more important task of formulating a valid point. BTW, we may have millions of fossils, but that's not the same as a fossil continuum.
KAB, just tell us how a flood shoves intact shells inside a mountain. I'd like you to then demonstrate how this occurs by getting a rock and getting a shell, driving the intact shell into the rock, and putting this on youtube.com for the world to see how those shells got inside the mountains. Thanks in advance.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#108229 Jan 20, 2013
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
I rest my phocking case.
Well, maybe if you hadn't been resting it for FORTY FIVE CENTURIES or so you'd be able to catch up.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#108230 Jan 20, 2013
Kitten Koder wants some arguments for Creationism, but she can’t get any.
Let me see what I can do:

--Okay, so we’ve cases of one species changing into another during our lifetime.
But that’s only because they had the necessary “information,” whatever the dickens that means.
Now let’s see one phylum change into another.

--How do you know we emerged from a lowly protozoa?
Were you there?
I’m not going to believe you until take me on a trip in H. G. Wells’ time machine.

--If we’re descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys.

--Look at the list of famous scientists who believed in Creationism—Agassiz, Boyle, Curie—the list goes on and on. Who are you to pretend to know more about science than a famous scientist?

--Look at Haeckel’s falsified embryos. You wouldn’t want to be associated with a scoundrel like Haekel, now, would you?

--Men and dinosaurs lived at the same time. We know because there is a dinosaur footprint next to a human footprint near Paluxy River, and that proves it once and for all.

--Sir Brian Keith didn’t reject the Piltdown Man the minute he saw it. That proves that Evolutionists are all a bunch of fools.

--Dog breeders have been on the job for hundreds of years, only to find that a dog is a dog is a dog. Somehow, Evolutionary theory would predict that they would come up with something besides a dog.

--Whoever heard of an animal that’s half cow and half whale? Ha ha ha!

--What good is half an eye? We get answers to this question, but they don’t amount to anything more than just-so stories.

--What about animals that need two functions in order for either function to operate? A woodpecker needs both a strong beak and a strong skull to peck trees. One without the other would result in a bashed beak or a bashed skull.

--I can pull out some quotes which show that Hitler was an Evolutionist. Hitler was evil. That means that if you want to be good, you have to do the opposite of everything Hitler did.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#108232 Jan 20, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Meanwhile, you're on here trying to convince people of the logic behind fairytales.
I provide data. If people want to use it to convince themselves of something, that's their business.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#108233 Jan 20, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>It is only a demonstrated reliable source to you. The rest of us that are aware of the fallibility of the Bible it is not. We could go round and round about this and we have but you have failed to provide conclusive evidence of this reliability. All you are doing is restating that the Bible is infallible. Yes, there is some historical information in the Bible. There is historical inforamation that has been shown to be real in the Iliad and the Odyssey and in Michener novels as well. I suppose they must be demonstrated reliable sources of information as well.
I know you demand data from us to support your claims, but I don't feel like doing your work for you.
The non-Biblical sources you mention do not meet the criteria for a demonstrated reliable source.

I request data from you to support your claims. I have provided and will continue to provide my own data for my claims.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#108234 Jan 20, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The non-Biblical sources you mention do not meet the criteria for a demonstrated reliable source.
I request data from you to support your claims. I have provided and will continue to provide my own data for my claims.
The Biblical sources you have mentioned do not meet the criteria for a demonstrated reliable source.
Data from you to support your claims? You have not provided data and have shown little inclination of providing any validations, legitimacy, evidence, facts, findings, exhibits, examples, verification, documentation, substantiations or even a long-overdue apology for your insipid and banal musings and suppositions.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#108235 Jan 20, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I provide data. If people want to use it to convince themselves of something, that's their business.
You have not provided data. You've said that people should pretend like the story is true and that it's "possible" that Moses and his followers knew where all the water was.

That's not "providing" data.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#108236 Jan 20, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I reviewed the program. Typical made-for-TV format. Some pieces of data or references to such, and a lot of speculation.
Do you realize that lack of evidence doesn't prove something didn't happen? People like you used to think that Sargon never existed, based on lack of evidence outside the Bible.
I really have to laugh at the mental hoops you fundamentalist force yourselves to jump through...all without realizing it. The program says definitively that "we have no evidence" of this or "we have evidence" of that and you tell yourself it's "a lot of speculation".

No wonder you have little grasp of reality.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#108237 Jan 20, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
I didn't say that. I said that any fossil you find will be chronologically and morphologically between two other fossils which have already been found.
If you find a sea shell, there will already be shells which are older and newer already in collections. There will be ones which demonstrate a higher and lower degree of spikiness, or spiral, or concavity, or whatever you decide to measure.
And if you sort your fossil by chronology, it will end up in the exact same place on the scale as if you sorted it by morphology.
That would be impossible with Creationism.
NOTHING is impossible for GODMAGIC!!!

>:-(
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#108238 Jan 20, 2013
Stefooch wrote:
<quoted text> Thanks for the summary! I love that you should do it more often. I didn't say you were one of those non absolute truth people but the way. No catholics are bad because they call themselves Christian and yet pray to Mary.
And Proddy's are bad because so many of 'em lie for Jesus and couldn't give two hoots about the 9th Commandment?(shrug)

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 Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 1 hr Dogen 577
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 10 hr 15th Dalai Lama 76,822
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... (Jan '17) 12 hr Dogen 4,275
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 16 hr Simon 13,743
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) Tue John 32,164
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) Jul 16 The FACTory 221,745
Reject your belief system now Jul 14 Science 5
More from around the web