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 5,332)

Showing posts 106,621 - 106,640 of127,095
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
KAB

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#108640
Jan 24, 2013
 
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course it isn't. You're just being silly.
You're providing no data to prove your point.
KAB

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#108641
Jan 24, 2013
 
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
It is unnecessary to discuss the mountain tops as such.
The mountains that were covered will automatically be in the region that was flooded regardless of whether the flood was global or local.
You only wanted to say hi, isnt that it?
Ok. Fine.
Hi KAB.
How are you?
Is everything ok?
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!
KAB

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#108642
Jan 24, 2013
 
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Most liberal theologians believe that Paul did not write Ephesians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus, even though the books identify Paul as their author. Liberals suggest that the Epistles 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus were written 35 to 85 years after Paul's death. Their main reason is that these Epistles discussed church matters that only became of concern to the church after Paul's death. Most liberal theologians believe that James and Jude were not written by Jesus' brothers, and were composed after 100 CE. Also, they believe that 2 Peter and 1,2 & 3 John were not written by the apostles. More details.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
They're all entitled to their opinions, in their case admittedly liberal biased.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#108647
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#108657
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 106,621 - 106,640 of127,095
|
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.

10 Users are viewing the Evolution Debate Forum right now

Search the Evolution Debate Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 1 hr Serah 168,564
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 2 hr Kong_ 106,035
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 5 hr Dogen 13,485
Kevin Wingate: ID should be included in science... Thu llDayo 5
Science News (Sep '13) Thu Ricky F 2,671
Science News NOT related to evolution (Jul '09) Apr 16 MikeF 1,236
Posting for Points in the Evolution Forum (Oct '11) Apr 15 ChristineM 13,936
•••
•••
•••
•••