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

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

There are 151416 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.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#108714 Jan 24, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Cool, the hard part about a cello is getting it under your chin:-)
Yeah, that spike keeps sticking me in the neck.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#108715 Jan 24, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>You act as if the process (if it actually existed) to produce life took millions of years,as if it was going through a process in itself creating complexity. THe origin of life had to almost happen instantly.
Why?
marksman11 wrote:
Either it is life or it isn't. It's like being "Kindda pregnant". Either you is life, or youze ain't life.
Is a virus life? A prion?
marksman11 wrote:
The chemicals needed for life to evolve (in your view, not mine might have been around a long time, but it spontainiously generating into life had to be almost instant.
Again, why? Who says (besides you) says it had to be instant? That is only your myopic view of things. Not the view of science.
marksman11 wrote:
Creationism explains the origin of life much better.
Creationism explains nothing. It just shrugs its shoulders and says "goddidit".

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#108716 Jan 24, 2013
God Himself wrote:
Appeal to popularity will get you nowhere.
<quoted text>
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...
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
The fact is that not all persons who are competent enough to argue the issue acccept the idea of evolution.
*shrug*

99.5% of biologists.

100% of dissenters have religious bias.

scientific community is NOT divided on the subject of evolution.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#108717 Jan 24, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I don't get it!

What happened to the two arms?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#108718 Jan 24, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>And I honestly say my beliefs are faith based. Yours are science based (supposedly) and thus open for scientific investigastion, in which they terribly fail!!

Please attach your Ph.D's in all areas of science for verification of this opinion.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#108719 Jan 24, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I know she doesn't agree with me, but she is no different than you guys. She's a hypocrite, just like you guys. She says that human from non-human evolution and the origin of life are 2 seperate things, as she discibes the evolution involved in the origin of life. THat is the problem with most of you "science types". You always practice and execute overkill.

So your ignorant opinion rules.

We get it now.

LOL.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#108720 Jan 24, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
The Native Americans are descended from two families of Israelites who traveled to the American continent to escape the Babylonian conquest.
Anthropologists say that the Native Americans are more closely related to the Far East Asian people.
I believe that recent DNA findings has proven that Native Americans DID descend from East Asian people....no longer a hypothesis.

The mass burial was supposed to have been at Hill Cumorah, which has been combed ALL over, and no trace of anything of the kind was ever found.

Mormonism is a Christian scam of the highest order.

:-)

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#108721 Jan 24, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I love it the way you evolutionists mold your theory like clay to make it fit what ever needss you have for it to be. For life to occur naturally takes billions of years, but if evolution is needed quickly because of the cambrian explosion, then puncuated equalibria caused evolution of brand new life forms, with no evidence of any ancestors occurs, "almost overnight"!!!
Why evolution can even give you as a human "clam claws" if need be.

Clearly you don't have any idea what you are talking about.

Please read up on the subject and come back when you can do more that make irrational assertions.

Thanks.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#108722 Jan 24, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>In your dreams. Your friend dugan was just played like a fiddle!!

You mean when I kicked your ass for the 24,983rd time?

LOL.

"The secret to bluffing is that sometimes you have to be holding all the cards."

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#108723 Jan 24, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>She is no more out of touch than the rest of you. All of you are BS artists. You sit there and proclaim that the origin of life was an abiogenesis event, and no inttelligent designer is needed, and can't back a word of it with science. Not one bit of observability, testing and replication. All you have is wild guesses, fantasies, and a HEAD FULL OF FAITH!!!!!!

If all you have is the assertions of creotards then how would you know what evidence has actually been accumulated by science?

Oh, that's right, you wouldn't! And you don't.

Until you DO you have nothing to bitch about. Your ignorant proclamations do nothing to erase the scientific facts. But that is not important to you. You only come here to reinforce your delusional system.

So, delusional system is hereby reinforced.

Pay the ticket at the window.

NEXT!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#108724 Jan 24, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Words mean things. She constantly uses the term chemical evolution when referencing the origin of life. Heck, I'm accused of not reading science books, and when I prove you wrong, and quote from them, by their owns words, they prove their own hypocrasy. You are right, she'd never agree with me, and I take comfort in that. I also take comfort in the fact that she offers no more scientific evidence than you do and is just as wrong as you typical evolutionists. All of you are full of it and faith deniers. The thing is, you think that, when it is obvious even to a child that your beliefs require more faith than mine does. You just can't be honest about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_evolut...
161 references, not one of them about faith.

Chemical evolution = molecular evolution
Also
Abiogenesis = biopoiesis

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#108725 Jan 24, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
All of you are full of it and faith deniers. The thing is, you think that, when it is obvious even to a child that your beliefs require more faith than mine does. You just can't be honest about it.
I have faith that nothing will be explained except by natural processes because nothing ever has been.

I have faith that intelligence cannot exist outside of a brain because nothing else has ever been demonstrated.

I have faith that supernatural claims are generally based on dishonesty or delusion because they always have been.

I have faith that knowledge based on evidence is closer to the truth than dogma based on assertion.

"Faith" can mean different things.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#108726 Jan 24, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah, I've heard 99.9% support evolution, when I know some Drs. and professors, and everyone rejects it!! It's more a liberal philosophy than a scientific theory.


99.5% of biologists.
about 95% of all Ph.D scientists
about 78% of all M.D.'s

This is based on how people respond to a scientific survey, NOT how they respond when faced with a deranged creationist.

I have never disagreed about creationism even once with any of my clients. And I even have a "panic button" under my desk.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#108727 Jan 24, 2013
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
Lets talk about years because evos keep mentioning billions of years as if time causes things or generates things by itself.
If you leave a rock on a spot for 14 trillion years; do you KNOW FOR A FACT that it has the potential to become... a pig?
Have you demonstrated that inanimate entities in and of themselves, possess the capacity to make something else of themselves, other than what they already are over zillions of years?
Have you proven that a bunch of elements floating around for long periods of time will automatically come together to form genes?
Congratulations, you've just demonstrated your knowledge of evolution amounts to less than zero.

Perhaps when fundies get around to ACTUAL claims of evolution they could possibly achieve their goal of falsifying it?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#108728 Jan 24, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I addressed it, and refuted it, shortly after you posted it. I couldn't wait for you to reply!!!!!

You mean you admitted it was a quote mine, tried to squirm out of it then got caught AGAIN in one of your lies.

This are the facts and are undisputed.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#108729 Jan 24, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I don't know. I wasn't there. I see reasons to except both.<quoted text>So says you, who wasn't there, and taking the word of others who also weren't there, who were taught to believe such things by others that also weren't there.
You weren't there to witness the resurrection of Jesus either, yet you believe it.

By the way that'you weren't there' is the lamest YEC rebuttal ever conceived.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#108730 Jan 24, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah, I've heard 99.9% support evolution, when I know some Drs. and professors, and everyone rejects it!! It's more a liberal philosophy than a scientific theory.
Assuming you're not lying your big fat azz off as you usually do, one has to remember that you are from the Bible belt.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#108731 Jan 24, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Run and check my quote against the book dummy!!!!! If you have a problem with the quote, take it up with your fellow evolutionists Mrs.Eugenie Scott!!

Your quote is wrong. There were not spelling errors in the original. Simply compare what you (illiterately) wrote vs. the book.

You do know what a book is? Don't you?

BTW, that is Dr. Scott to you.

evolutionist = real scientist, I guess. I am okay with that, then.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#108732 Jan 24, 2013
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Are we talking about the same thing?
I want to amke sure we are talking about the same things before I tell you how facking retarded you sound.
<quoted text>
The point is:
After creating lightening through your own intelligence, your mind should at least be open to the possibility that an intelligent agent could have been involved in creating natural lightening.
You dont seem to be able to appreciate that.
<quoted text>
You cant conclude on that because you dont even understand what I'm talking about.
If you do understand and you still make such statements, then it is your logic that is failing.
His logic is failing even though you're saying we're supposed to take your claims of invisible Jewish wizards seriously even though you just openly admitted to not having a shred of evidence?

Ah, sorry - you meant fundie "logic". My bad.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#108733 Jan 24, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
99.5% of biologists.
100% of dissenters have religious bias.
scientific community is NOT divided on the subject of evolution.
Per "God's" list of Dr's:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dis...

<<begin cut/paste>>
A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism is a petition publicized in 2001 by the Discovery Institute, a creationist "think" tank, which attempts to push creationism, in the guise of Intelligent design into public schools in the United States.[1] The petition expresses denial about the ability of genetic drift and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. It also demands that there should be a more careful examination of Darwinism. The petition was signed by about 700 individuals, with a wide variety of scientific and non-scientific backgrounds when first published. It now contains over 1200 signatures.[2]

The petition states that:

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged. There is scientific dissent from Darwinism. It deserves to be heard."

The petition continues to be used in Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns in an attempt to discredit evolution and bolster claims that intelligent design is scientifically valid by claiming that evolution lacks broad scientific support.

The petition is considered a fallacious Appeal to authority, whereby the creationists at the Discovery Institute are attempting to prove that there is a dissent from "Darwinism" by finding a few creationist scientists to support the statement. The about 600 dissenters that originally signed the petition would have represented about 0.054% of the estimated 1,108,100 biological and geological scientists in the US in 1999, except, of course, that three-quarters of the signatories had no academic background in biology.[3][4](The roughly 150 biologist Darwin Dissenters would hence represent about 0.0157% of the US biologists that existed in 1999.) As of 2006, the list was expanded to include non-US scientists.

***However, the list nonetheless represents less 0.03% of all research scientists in the world.[5] Despite the increase in absolute number of scientists willing to sign the dissent form, the figures indicates the support from scientists for creationism and intelligent design is steadily decreasing.***

Since scientific principles are built on publications in peer-reviewed journals, discussion in open forums, and finally through consensus, the use of a petition should be considered the last resort of a pseudoscience known as intelligent design.

<<end cut/paste>>

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 5 min Chimney1 40,325
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 33 min Bob of Quantum-Faith 15,817
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 49 min Bob of Quantum-Faith 88
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr Aura Mytha 201,124
Scientists create vast 3-D map of universe, val... Sat One way or another 6
The conscious God or the inanimate nature Sat Fear-God 8
Proof that all of Christianity is a lie Jul 21 THE LONE WORKER 41
More from around the web