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

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 ... Full Story

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#108643 Jan 24, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you know much about the physical properties of water? Consider a modest mountain of 5,000 feet. What would be the global implications of that "local" mountain being covered with water? Now that's data!
No, that is fantasy.
While you have been busy being starstruck at how great God's power must be to have accomplished such a feat, you have already been provided information about the weight of water, the volume of water in a cubic mile, the atmospheric pressures beneath the water column, the crush limit of pine wood, the hypothetical effects (because IT DIDN'T HAPPEN) of both fresh and salt water intrusion on ecosystems, etc., etc.
"KABBY! Time to wake up, dear!"
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

#108644 Jan 24, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You think neanderthal was not one of the human species? Wow, you are clueless.
Oh, and you're an animal too.
Not really.

I just dont see how they fit into the evolution thing, since they would have been another race just as developed as we are.

As a matter of fact, it should refute evolution theory because it proves that there were humans back then and not some distant "ancestor" at a lower stage of "evolution".
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

#108645 Jan 24, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>That was awesome, but I thought all scientists supported evolution?:-)
LOL!

Are you being sarcastic?!!

You must be careful to do your research because EVOLUTIONISTS WILL CONCEAL INFORMATION AND NEGLECT VALID EVIDENCE.

There are scientists (even atheist scientists) in many fields of science including genetics and molecular biology who dont agree that evolution theory is valid nor that it accurately describes any real event/process.

There are prestigious scientific communities that laugh at the idea that evolution even could have occurred

But if you are not checking, you will tend to believe that the whole scientific world is in favour of evolution.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#108646 Jan 24, 2013
God Himself wrote:
There are scientists (even atheist scientists) in many fields of science including genetics and molecular biology who dont agree that evolution theory is valid nor that it accurately describes any real event/process.
A very tiny minority. If you check.
God Himself wrote:
There are prestigious scientific communities that laugh at the idea that evolution even could have occurred
Where are they?
God Himself wrote:
But if you are not checking, you will tend to believe that the whole scientific world is in favour of evolution.
The vast majority. If you check.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#108647 Jan 24, 2013
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL!
Are you being sarcastic?!!
You must be careful to do your research because EVOLUTIONISTS WILL CONCEAL INFORMATION AND NEGLECT VALID EVIDENCE.
There are scientists (even atheist scientists) in many fields of science including genetics and molecular biology who dont agree that evolution theory is valid nor that it accurately describes any real event/process.
There are prestigious scientific communities that laugh at the idea that evolution even could have occurred
But if you are not checking, you will tend to believe that the whole scientific world is in favour of evolution.
I can't wait to see your list of "prestigious scientific communities." PLEASE, PLEASE make it available in your next post!!!

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#108648 Jan 24, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't wait to see your list of "prestigious scientific communities." PLEASE, PLEASE make it available in your next post!!!
Any bets it starts out with the Discovery Institute?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#108649 Jan 24, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>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..

So you are claiming ignorance now.

'bout time.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#108650 Jan 24, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Call it what you want, but in your hypocrasy you often use "There" in stead of "They're" so don't throw rocks hypocrite.

Often?

New definition of 'often': once.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#108651 Jan 24, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I don't think so. Just be honest and cut and paste what I say rather than twisting it into something I didn't say. You will be able to tell it is mine by the spelling:-)

You mean we should cut and paste your quote mine from yesterday. Got to much egg on your face to address that, eh?

chickenfeces.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#108652 Jan 24, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Any bets it starts out with the Discovery Institute?
Don't give him any leads. I doubt he passed a general science class quiz without glancing at Suzie's answers...

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#108653 Jan 24, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> Good! That was to prove you wrong and show that I do have science books, and read them. Now bite on this...

All it proved is that you got suckered in by a quote mine posted on a creotard page. You doubled your mistake by not realizing it was a quotemine and you reposted it here. If possible our opinion of you has gone down ever further.

bite on that, moron.
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> "Answering the question of chemical prebiotic EVOLUTION involves developing plausible scenarios for the imergence of organic moleules such as sugars, purines, and pyramidines, as well as the building blocks of life,amino acids."
(Evolution verses creationism...author Eugenie Scott ..page 24)

This is clearly not a quote as I doubt that Dr. Scott makes spelling errors in published works.

Strike 2
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> Did you notice the "chemical prebiotic EVOLUTION"?????

Chemical prebiotic (aka chemical evolution) is one of the things I have been trying to teach you about for years now!!! Suddenly it is an argument AGAINST evolution. You are truly a moron.
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> Oh how I love it when a plan comes together.

I am enjoying this far more than you. Trust me.
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>
You said on page 5317 #108314
Monday
<dogen>
Have you ever read a single science book?
Set you up to prove you wrong on the books I read, and then prove you wrong concerning the false claim that evolution and the origin of life are unrelated, AND USED AN EVOLUTIONIST BOOK TO DO IT!!!! and the same book to prove that you've never read it!!!! Do you ever read science books??

Strike 3.

You have not proved you have read a science book. The fact that you misquoted the book AND quotemined the book indicate, at best, that you might have access to the book and at worse that you are simply getting information from a pseudoscience web site.

Fact1: I shamed you with your quotemine.
Fact2: You tried to squirm out of it.
Fact3: You failed.

Add quoteminer to your list of sins.
Add lying about it to your long list of lies.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#108654 Jan 24, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Our little marky spreading lies? How can this be? It's not like he goes around looking for anything that appears to agree with him regardless of the source...

He is another one that has no idea just how foolish he looks to educated people.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#108655 Jan 24, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
I love it when a plan comes together!!! Hurry up and search my last quote Dugan!!! Hurry!!!
by the way, here's you another one....
"but synthesizing complete RNA or DNA is extraodinarily difficult.
After a replicating structure evolved (whether it started out as PNA or RNA or DNA or something else....."
Notice she said, "replicating structure evolved"!!! Granted, she's a hypocrite like you are. She says they are two different things, but hypocritically uses languge that says other wise.
I love when a good plan comes together. Now.....run a search out this quote!! HURRY!!! it's on page 25!!!

Humm..... nothing here either.

Strike 4

BTW, RNA is naturally occurring.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#108656 Jan 24, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
Here's you one more Dugan....
"Nucleated Cells.....The first cells on earth......
Nucleated (eukaryotic) cells didn't evolve until about 1.5 million years ago."
Evolution verse Creationism...author Eugenie Scott..page 29..
RUN DUGAN RUN!!!!!!

Strike 5.

eukaryotic cells have been around for about 1.5 BILLION years. And error like that would never get by an editor.

I love it when your "plans" (falsely so called) blow up in YOUR FACE.

What sort of bumbling imbecile are you?
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

#108657 Jan 24, 2013
You are not thinking. Period.
Chimney1 wrote:
... If the conditions created are merely simulations of natural conditions...
What?
Chimney1 wrote:
... then the processes that occur in that environment are exactly what could occur in the same environment, whether generated naturally or artificially.
That expression is so poorly structured that the idea it transmits has no real meaning.

I hope you didnt plan to refute my argument with that.
Chimney1 wrote:
The POINT is whether the process is an inherent natural function of the chemicals and conditions involved.
Is that supposed to be a sentence?
Chimney1 wrote:
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.
Fine.

We all can agree with that.

But what I am saying is that:

THE FIRST THING AN EXPERIMENT DEMONSTRATES IS THAT THE INTELLECT HAS POWER TO CONTROL NATURAL PROCESSES.

The act of using your knowledge to synthesize or otherwise gather (those) elements and combining them in a controlled environment so that particular events result; demonstrates that intelligence has the capacity to control natural processes and potentials.

You CANNOT perform an experiment as such, through controlled variables and conditions WITHOUT demonstrating the power of intelligence to direct and modify natural forces and processes.
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

#108658 Jan 24, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Logic fail. If I willfully create lightning in the controlled conditions of a laboratory, it most definitely does *NOT* prove that lightning requires an intelligent influence.
But if you did not create such lightening without intelligence, what makes you so sure there was none involved in creating natural lightening?

Thats the whole point: if you did it with intelligence, then how can you conclude with certainty that it is not done with intelligence?

We know that intelligence is a naturally occurring phenomena; unless your intelligence is supernatural.
MikeF wrote:
So too, if the conditions in the lab were willfully created to recreate the UNWILLFULLY created conditions of early Earth, it would demonstrate that life can arise on its own.
But here you assume that the conditions of earth are unwillfully created; and you have no evidence to support that.

So my argument still stands:

"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." [God Himself]
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

#108659 Jan 24, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
You did notice the repeated references to "all", did you not?
I suspect your reading comprehension is a bit tardie.
My argument still stands:

It is not necessary to question whether the flood was a global one or a massive local one; but wording of Biblical text suggest that the floods were local.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#108660 Jan 24, 2013
KAB wrote:
You're providing no data to prove your point.
You've provided no data to support yours.
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

#108661 Jan 24, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you know much about the physical properties of water? Consider a modest mountain of 5,000 feet. What would be the global implications of that "local" mountain being covered with water? Now that's data!
If the local area was in something of "basin" (as it relates to landforms) then it would be possible to stand at the border of the basin and look at the top of mountains that are in the depression.

It would also be possible for the flood to cover the tops of mountains in that "basin" without the flood spreading to neighbouring countries.

Can you not understand that?
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

#108662 Jan 24, 2013
Appeal to popularity will get you nowhere.
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
A very tiny minority. If you check.
I checked and here is a starting list (lots more out there and more are being born every second):

"
...
Dr. William Arion, Biochemistry, Chemistry
Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist
Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
Dr. Don Batten, Plant Physiologist
Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
Dr. Rob Carter, Marine Biology
Dr. David Catchpoole, Plant Physiology
Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
Dr. Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
Dr. Bob Compton, DVM
Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist
Dr. Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
Dr. William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
Dr. Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
Dr. Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
Dr. Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
...

Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
Dr. Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
Dr. Paul Giem, Medical Research
Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
Dr. Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
Dr. Warwick Glover, General Surgeon
Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
Dr. Robin Greer, Chemist, History
Dr. Stephen Grocott, Chemist
Dr. Vicki Hagerman, DMV
Dr. Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
Dr. Barry Harker, Philosopher
Dr. Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
Dr. John Hartnett, Physics
Dr. Mark Harwood, Engineering (satellite specialist)
Dr. George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
Dr. Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
...
Dr. Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
Dr. Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
Dr. John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
Dr. Johan Kruger, Zoology
Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
Dr. John Leslie, Biochemist
Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
Dr. Alan Love, Chemist
...
Dr. Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
Dr. John McEwan, Chemist
Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
Dr. David Menton, Anatomist
Dr. Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr. John Meyer, Physiologist
Dr. Albert Mills, Animal Embryologist/Reproductive Physiologist
Colin W. Mitchell, Geography"

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index...

There is more too...
MikeF wrote:
Where are they?
I seem to have made a mistake.

Since a community is made of its members it would be more accurate for me to say "the scientific community is divided on the subject of evolution".

Evolution is not totally accepted in the scientific community; since there are some elements that dont agree that it occurred.

Sorry.
MikeF wrote:
The vast majority. If you check.
The fact is that not all persons who are competent enough to argue the issue acccept the idea of evolution.

*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
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 min polymath257 14,440
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 49 min Dogen 141,653
The conditions necessary for homo sapiens to sp... 2 hr Gillette 4
Why Are There No Transitional Animals Today? (Mar '09) 3 hr Dogen 775
Posting for Points in the Evolution Forum (Oct '11) 6 hr -TheExam- 13,957
Ten Reason Why Evolution Is a Lie (Jul '09) 13 hr NoahLovesU 1,954
Last ditch bid to ban creationism in Scottish c... Jan 22 TurkanaBoy 2
More from around the web