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

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

There are 143939 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.

marksman11

Asheville, NC

#108592 Jan 24, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you please learn to spell "offense?" Spellcheck was made for people like you, but since you refuse to use any tools based on scientific advancement, it would be nice if you learned how to spell so you didn't need it.
BOY!!! You can tell the frustration sets in when all they have to attack is your spelling. By the way, the page in which I am using doesn't have "spelceek" so live with it, and come up with another silly bat and birds argument to support your failed philosophy!!!
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#108593 Jan 24, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Based on your assertion here, your entire bible is now false as well. At least you're learning something tonight. You just demonstrated your bible is nothing more than hearsay.
I'm like you, I accept it in faith. Unlike you, I am honest about it!!!
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#108594 Jan 24, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
When compared to the universe, life is not that complex.
You are insane!! THEN REPLICATE IT DUMMY!!! Scientists much smarter than you have been trying and failing for entire lifetimes!! That was really an ignorant statement for you to make!!! It makes you appear much more out of touch than you really a.......IT MAKES YOU APPEAR OUT OF TOUCH!!
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#108595 Jan 24, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Then Eugene needs to learn what evolution is. But, I am doubting he said what you are asserting he said, because quote mining seems to be a habit for you.
My gosh, do you ever research anything??? Eugenie Scott is a woman.....

"Eugenie Carol Scott is an American physical anthropologist who has been the executive director of the National Center for Science Education since 1987. She is a leading critic of young earth creationism and intelligent design"

Listen, if you reply to me, please think first. I don't have time for foolishness.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#108596 Jan 24, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you don't believe in gravity either. Interesting.
Like I just posted to you..........

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#108597 Jan 24, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
The validity of Evolution does not reside on the existence of the possiblity of GOD. It's validity is tested against the scietific method of observation, testing and replication. It's not the fact of GOD creating the first protozoa, it's that fact that this protozoa has never been observed to have ever evolved into anything other than a protozoa.
Sorry, marksman, I thought you said that Evolution implied atheism and that we were all atheists.
I think you should know that someone else has been hacking into your computer and posting messages in your name.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#108598 Jan 24, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
My gosh, do you ever research anything??? Eugenie Scott is a woman.....
"Eugenie Carol Scott is an American physical anthropologist who has been the executive director of the National Center for Science Education since 1987. She is a leading critic of young earth creationism and intelligent design"
Listen, if you reply to me, please think first. I don't have time for foolishness.
You take Kitten Koder to task for making an ad hominem attack, and then you turn right around and do the exact same thing.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#108599 Jan 24, 2013
KAB wrote:
What do you mean by "Biblical sources"? The Bible itself is the only thing I have proclaimed a demonstrated reliable source.

On page 5319,#108340, I said:
Does that mean that the earth is flat, the earth stands on four pillars, the earth is covered with a heavenly dome, and the sun revolves around the earth?

On page 5321,#108385, KAB said:
Not unless those expressions, if you even confirm they exist, are linguistically required to be taken literally and not figuratively.

On page 5331,#108576, I quoted marksman11 as saying that.

Sorry, marksman, my mistake.
I realize that it is important to regard everyone as individuals.
And that entails being cautious against confusing adversaries with each other.
In fact, that entails recognizing differences between our adversaries.
Iíll admit that you and KAB are two different people if you admit that Eugenie Scott and I are two different people.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#108600 Jan 24, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
There's so much evidence as to be incontrovertible, and yet you don't/won't/can't provide a single sample. What's wrong with this picture? Forgive me for being skeptical.
Virtually all attempts by your side to provide data here have clearly preconceived an "out of Africa" human origin, even when the reference's own data by itself actually supported something else!
I posted you links to haplotype and migration data weeks ago. You did not even respond. You could easily google "Australian Archeology" if you wanted, just as I have done before, then fished out the links, and provided them to you in the past. Why waste my time repeating the exercise when you don't bother to even follow the links?

Translation "There is no data as long as KAB says there is no data and he does not bother to look it up". Head in sand, ostrich approach.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#108601 Jan 24, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Then, by all means use multi-cellular observed mutation rate and relationship to morphology data and 0.5B years.
Already done by population geneticists. No problem. And - look it up yourself. I think we are all tired of posting you reference links which you are too chickenshit cowardly to even look up.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#108602 Jan 24, 2013
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
My argument is that:
The involvement of an intelligent influence in arranging a condition(s) to generate a particular outcome will reveal the capacity of intelligence in controlling that process.
Hence the act of creating a living cell or some form of life in a laboratory will only further demonstrate that life emerges under intelligent influence.
The act of creating a living cell or some form of life etc in a lab will NEVER show that life could have "naturally" emerged; because the conditions in the lab are wilfully created and intelligently designed and controlled.
Then you are not thinking clearly.

If the conditions created are merely simulations of natural conditions, then the processes that occur in that environment are exactly what could occur in the same environment, whether generated naturally or artificially.

The POINT is whether the process is an inherent natural function of the chemicals and conditions involved. if you hold a spark to hydrogen and oxygen, it ignites. It does so because of the inherent properties of the components, whether an intelligent agent brings the components together and lights the spark or not.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#108603 Jan 24, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I've addressed how I assess source reliability numerous times in this forum. I asked for someone else's input. So, you think we should apply the scientific method to documents?

Reminder: You don't know the scientific method and are a habitual liar. You are far to lazy to do any real research if only secondary in nature. You are just playing to argue and not even doing a good job at that.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#108604 Jan 24, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>You evolutionists can't even agree amoung yourselves,
"The naturalistic evolution of life from a prebiotic chemicals and its subsequent naturalistic evolution into complexity and humanity is assumed as a matter of first priciple...."
(Evolution verse creationism...author Eugenie Scott, page 296)

*** Breaking story *** Marksman11 proven to be a dishonest quote miner in this post ***

This is incorrect. Chemical evolution and biological evolution are observed facts. I suspect you are quote mining again.

Hypothesis: Quote mining is the sort of unethical practice that one expects creationists to engage in (by history).

After a little searching I find your quote:

http://books.google.com/books...

Turns out this is not a quote of the author, but a quote the author DEBUNKS. Phillip Johnson (known antiscience creationist) is the source of the quote.

You are BUSTED again. Again you are show to be nothing more than a dishonest creationist.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#108605 Jan 24, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>It never evolved into anything other thn E. coli. THis does not support humn from non-human evolution. THis is only micro evolution which is irrelecant to this debate.

You don't understand what was found. e.coli developed into a new kind that was able to process a unique food source that its ancestors were not able to do. It did this quickly and retain that capacity.

This is macroevolution. One of the many observations of it occurring.

You have previously been given a list of over a hundred observed examples of macroevolution. I suggest you read them.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#108606 Jan 24, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>My gosh, do you ever research anything??? Eugenie Scott is a woman.....
"Eugenie Carol Scott is an American physical anthropologist who has been the executive director of the National Center for Science Education since 1987. She is a leading critic of young earth creationism and intelligent design"
Listen, if you reply to me, please think first. I don't have time for foolishness.

But you have plenty of time to tell lies.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#108607 Jan 24, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>You are insane!! THEN REPLICATE IT DUMMY!!! Scientists much smarter than you have been trying and failing for entire lifetimes!! That was really an ignorant statement for you to make!!! It makes you appear much more out of touch than you really a.......IT MAKES YOU APPEAR OUT OF TOUCH!!

This is another outright lie.

No one has attempted to replicate fully formed life (and published it). We are still working on replicating various steps to life.

No one has replicated a planet, does that mean planets do not exist?

THINK before you post.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#108608 Jan 24, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>BOY!!! You can tell the frustration sets in when all they have to attack is your spelling. By the way, the page in which I am using doesn't have "spelceek" so live with it, and come up with another silly bat and birds argument to support your failed philosophy!!!

You can have spell-check anywhere you want it. Typical intellectual laziness on your part.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#108609 Jan 24, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>You don't even understand your own statement. You are trying to make a point out of ignorance. That statement was derived from a word pronounced "owph" and means simply "owner of a wing", which comes from a root word which means to cover or to fly. It applies to birds and bats, of course I'd hate for you to scuff your brain with a little reseach and intelligence!!

Then should also apply to flying insects and flying dinosaurs as well, right. But there is another error in that there are redundant classifications in the bible.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#108610 Jan 24, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
You take Kitten Koder to task for making an ad hominem attack, and then you turn right around and do the exact same thing.
When a person says things that are obviously incorrect because they think they know what they are talking about, and don't, that by definition is ignorance, and saying so not an ad hominem attack..
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#108611 Jan 24, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
You can have spell-check anywhere you want it. Typical intellectual laziness on your part.
Call it what you want, but in your hypocrasy you often use "There" in stead of "They're" so don't throw rocks hypocrite.

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 Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 28 min Tricky little mon... 178,698
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr Hit and Run 173,880
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr said 20,899
News Pastafarians rejoice! Deep sea creature floatin... 8 hr karl44 1
Satan's Lies and Scientist Guys (Sep '14) 10 hr dollarsbill 14
News Intelligent design Tue FREE SERVANT 23
How would creationists explain... (Nov '14) Aug 30 Chimney1 583
More from around the web