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

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

There are 169989 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.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#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.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#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."

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#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!

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#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.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#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?

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#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.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#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>>
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#108734 Jan 24, 2013
God Himself wrote:
THE FIRST THING AN EXPERIMENT DEMONSTRATES IS THAT THE INTELLECT HAS POWER TO CONTROL NATURAL PROCESSES.
Humans can plant trees, therefore all trees were planted by intelligent agents.

Oh wait, that doesn't work.

Now perhaps you can point out the mechanisms of intelligence involved that made the seed grow into a tree. You can skip the bit about the jug of water.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#108735 Jan 24, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I couldn't care less your opinion of me. If I was accepted by your kind, then I'd be worried. It was not a quotemine, it was a direct quote from the current book that I am reading.<quoted text>Well you big dummy, that is proof that I have the book and not quote mining a site. I made a typo as I was copying out of the book!!! Dummy.....You were played like a fiddle!!! And it was so easy!!!!

No, it was a quote-mine. I caught you dead to rights. Dr. Scott was quoting a creationist and you attributed it to her.

It does not prove you have read this book nor any other for that matter. I can quote just about any book you would like without ever so much as being in the same building as a copy of said book. Big deal.

If you want to prove you read it you need to demonstrate COMPREHENSION of the material.

Your "playing me" was just an attempt to deflect from the fact that you got busted at point blank range.

So, what you have actually prove is that you are dishonest in quoting AND have such low self esteem that you cannot own up to it.

Yep, typical lying creationist. I have learned not to expect your kind to even TRY to ACT like a Christian.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#108736 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. Either it is life or it isn't. It's like being "Kindda pregnant". Either you is life, or youze ain't life. 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.
Creationism explains the origin of life much better.

Demonstration that you don't understand chemical evolution, abiogenesis or the definition of 'life' any better than you understand anything else.

So it goes.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#108737 Jan 24, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
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. Either it is life or it isn't. It's like being "Kindda pregnant". Either you is life, or youze ain't life. 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.
The actual formation of a particular self-replicating molecule might have been nearly instantaneous. Would you consider such a molecule to be life?
marksman11 wrote:
Creationism explains the origin of life much better.
Inasmuch as an undemonstrated entity using undescribed methods can explain anything.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#108738 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!!!
You think your word games make any difference?

"Evolution" in general just means change and development over time.

But, the Theory of Evolution - the origin of the species - specifically refers to the evolution of life by random variation and natural selection. That WAS Darwin' contribution - the mechanism, the process. It was already known that life had changed over time, but his theory of HOW it happened came up trumps.

Now, perhaps loosely, we usually just say "evolution" when referring to Darwin's theory (or the modern version). The same way, if you told me you have a Corvette, I would assume you had a sports car, not a small warship, which is what the car was named after!

Likewise, when scientists talk about "stellar evolution" or "chemical evolution", they are NOT talking about the same PROCESS as with biological evolution. Biological evolution by mutation and natural selection are what we are talking about whenever we are discussing neo-Darwinian evolution.

It does NOT rely on prior chemical evolution for its veracity. It does not care if the first life was popped into existence by God.

You only try to link the two because you are playing the game of trying to conflate something with piles of evidence and no controversy, with something else that is still largely a mystery.

You aren't fooling anybody except yourself, and it does not wash.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#108739 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!!!!!!
False. Some of us, at least, say that evolution of life is scientifically a settled matter, but abiogenesis, a separate issue, is still not understood in natural terms and there is no guarantee it will be.

However, there is even less evidence that life was magically poofed into existence, nor that anything at all we have ever observed required supernatural intervention. Nothing. So in the meantime, we will keep investigating the possibility that abiogenesis can be explained as a natural event.

You will of course fervently hope that never happens. But in the meantime, you might get some mileage out of trying to conflate biological evolution with abiogenesis. Hell, some of your dumbest colleagues even try to conflate it with the Big Bang too.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#108740 Jan 24, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it was a quote-mine. I caught you dead to rights. Dr. Scott was quoting a creationist and you attributed it to her.
It does not prove you have read this book nor any other for that matter. I can quote just about any book you would like without ever so much as being in the same building as a copy of said book. Big deal.
If you want to prove you read it you need to demonstrate COMPREHENSION of the material.
Your "playing me" was just an attempt to deflect from the fact that you got busted at point blank range.
So, what you have actually prove is that you are dishonest in quoting AND have such low self esteem that you cannot own up to it.
Yep, typical lying creationist. I have learned not to expect your kind to even TRY to ACT like a Christian.
See, he fooled you. You thought he was quoting a quotemine, but he was the quoteminer himself! He was directly responsible for the dishonesty, rather than merely perpetuating the lie. Oh, he got you but good! HAW HAW!

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) 4 min Dogen 95,395
SEX did not EVOLVE (Nov '17) 1 hr Davidjayjordan 261
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) 7 hr andet1987 1,848
Beauty is the Lord's Golden Section 9 hr 15th Dalai Lama 14
List what words of Jesus (the Creator) you evol... Wed Rose_NoHo 106
Hawaiian Volcanic Eruptions and Prophetic Catac... Wed Rose_NoHo 26
Genetic Study proves 90 percent of animals appe... Tue 15th Dalai Lama 71