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

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

There are 142834 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

Valley Village, CA

#108210 Jan 19, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
First, your WWF comments were apparently aimed at a YEC, so you misfired.{/QUOTE]

I just assumed because you were dumb enough to believe in a flood, that you took the Bible at face value. My bad.

[QUOTE]
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.
That's simply incorrect. First, the reason it's a desert is that there isn't water to be had. Those currently living in deserts are able to do so through the use of wells.

You can't use wells if you are "wandering". Nor can you reliably find water if you are moving from place to place. Not for 100 people. Certainly not for a million.
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 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.
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.
Actually, you were so self involved that you didn't bother to read what I actually wrote.

And both a large volume AND a fossil continuum exist.

If what you are asking for is a fossil of every single thing which has ever lived, then I'll ask you to provide me with a minute by minute record of everything Jesus did between birth and age 30.

Since yours is the less daunting task, you go first.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#108211 Jan 19, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It's probably big enough if you have the wife and kids with you and wander too far from your water source. If you can expend mental effort trying to find reasons the account can't be true, why can't you expend similar effort trying to find reasons it can?
I'll ask you the same question about Star Wars.

You can point to all sorts of reasons why Star Wars isn't true. Why can't you use that same ability to come up with reasons why Star Wars might be true?

Oh right, because it's a STORY.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#108212 Jan 19, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me make a list of Creationist weasels:
Number 1:“I asked that question ten times already.”
Never mind if every Evolutionist answered the question ten times already. Just ignore them.
Number 2 “You’re nothing but a ~!@#$%^&*()_+!”
The desired response must be “Oh, please, oh, please, won’t you stop calling me names? Those names hurt so much! I will never, ever, ever, consider Evolutionary theory again for as long as I live! I promise! I promise! I promise!”
Number 3:“But how about ...”
If you don’t like the program, change the channel.
Number 4:“Maybe so, but what I was asking was ...”
You can always move the goalposts a step further.
Number 5:“The Bible was speaking figuratively.”
Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus.
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.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#108213 Jan 19, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
That's simply incorrect. First, the reason it's a desert is that there isn't water to be had. Those currently living in deserts are able to do so through the use of wells.
You can't use wells if you are "wandering". Nor can you reliably find water if you are moving from place to place. Not for 100 people. Certainly not for a million.
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
Actually, you were so self involved that you didn't bother to read what I actually wrote.
And both a large volume AND a fossil continuum exist.
If what you are asking for is a fossil of every single thing which has ever lived, then I'll ask you to provide me with a minute by minute record of everything Jesus did between birth and age 30.
Since yours is the less daunting task, you go first.
If you're wandering 40 years in a reltively small area, you don't wander too often. When you do wander, if someone knows where the water is, and has the means to provide it, it's no problem.

I'll give you the one aspect of the fossil issue. I thought you had me tagged for finding a unique fossil. Admittedly, that was not required by the way you phrased it. You now go on to state that a fossil continuum exists, and then acknowledge that it doesn't.

Your using that word "Creationism" makes me think you slipped back into YEC gear again. Otherwise, I don't see how your point is valid.

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. Since you know you don't have the fossil continuum, maybe you should let go of the principle, especially since it's erroneous anyway. I know you want so bad for it to work against me but not against you. Get use to disappointment.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#108214 Jan 19, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll ask you the same question about Star Wars.
You can point to all sorts of reasons why Star Wars isn't true. Why can't you use that same ability to come up with reasons why Star Wars might be true?
Oh right, because it's a STORY.
At least you knew the answer to your own stupid question.
LowellGuy

Lowell, MA

#108215 Jan 19, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
At least you knew the answer to your own stupid question.
And, if George Lucas said it was true, what then?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#108216 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?
Still on with this mountain from a molehill Maz?

We have a large collection of fossils from the mid-Jurassic that blur the line between Avians and Therapod dinosaurs.

We have one series of questionable footprints and one contentious fossil of something possibly birdlike from around 200 million years (Protoavis) ago in the Triassic, preceding all of the above.

Logically, birds could have arisen at either time because in both options, therapod dinosaurs already existed. However, scientists are sticking with the later interpretation for now because there is so little evidence of the earlier split. Evolution can accommodate either.

You appear to be trying to claim that this decision to stick with the more conservative (recent) split is somehow to protect the theory of evolution. Yet neither version would violate it.

So what is your point? That you are in favour of the minority opinion as per Chaterjee and his Protoavis? Hooray! I am sure he will be thrilled. As far as tearing down the vast edifice of evidence in favour of evolution goes, though, this one is a non-starter.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#108217 Jan 19, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for the rant.
And, no, I didn't suggest that you should say all religions are good. Nor did I mention absolute truth.(Though you seem to think you have a handle on it.) Try reading for comprehension.
In summary:
Muslims are bad because they blow things up.
Catholics are bad because they love Mary.
Any questions?
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.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, 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!

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#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.

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) 56 min MikeF 172,070
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Paul Porter1 20,748
Evolutionists are monkeys 6 hr Zog Has-fallen 11
News Pope Francis Affirms Evolution and Big Bang Theory 12 hr Paul Porter1 306
What Motives Created Social Darwinism? Mon Zog Has-fallen 1
Simulated Evolution in a Computer Program Mon Zog Has-fallen 2
Cartier brand luxury bangle cartier watch on il... Mon Dopy 1
More from around the web