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

There are 20 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.

KAB

Oxford, NC

#108875 Jan 25, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
You ask that in English - by far and away the most populated language in the world. Would you care to speculate on how impoverished the Hebrew language was by comparison 4500 years ago? Phooey. Why am I even contemplating semantics and nuances with the likes of you?
---------
Why don't we cut to the chase with all integrity and the bullshyte aside; there is only one rigorously honest reason threads like this one are created and continue for more than a page and a half.
"Thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me."
Go suck your thumb.
I see you've run out of data before getting a conviction.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#108876 Jan 25, 2013
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
None of that effectively answers any of my questions.
You used 32 words and you have not said a single thing.
How do you do it?
Well here's some more then:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T5V...

But since scientific evidence is NOT your area of interest, what would convince you of common ancestry?

Answer - zip.

That's not our problem.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#108877 Jan 25, 2013
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
Even you cant deny that his logic is failing.
You are nothing but propagandists.
Where did I make any claims about a Jewish Wizard etc?
Seen your moniker?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#108878 Jan 25, 2013
God Himself wrote:
No your childish crap doesnt work here.
The fact that humans can plant trees does not suggest that all trees were planted by humans.
BUT
The ability of a human to plant a tree demonstrates the control his mind/intelligence has over the process of planting that tree.
Unless a person who plants a tree does not use his mental faculties in the process; you have nothing to dispute here.
Yet you miss the point that trees get by perfectly well without any intelligent intervention.
God Himself wrote:
The mechanisms of intelligence involve the ones that make the person conscious of how to prepare the soil and plant the seed.
Intelligence manifest there as the digression to not plant the seed too deep, not to plant it in muddy ground to rot the seed, not to plant it in the shade where it will not get enough sunlight etc.
We can also observe this influence of intelligence on natural process in a hydroponic environment; where the person determines conditions and necessities that will make the plant survive outside its "natural habitat" and creates those conditions through intelligence.
Again, trees do not require us to do this.
God Himself wrote:
And why skip the bit about the jug of water?
Intelligence controls the health and vitality of the plant by determining that and when and how much water it should get.
Again, trees don't need that. Water falls of its own accord sometimes. It's called rain. The reason however I said to skip the bit about the jug of water is that once the seed has been planted, and has water, there are no intelligent processes (as far as we know) that cause the tree to grow. It's all a natural occurrence. Just like a baby developing in the womb, no intelligence is required once we have a zygote.

That is why Markie's assertion fails. Just because scientists can recreate natural conditions does not necessarily mean that an intelligence was required. Yes, we CAN get a jug of water and pour it on a seed. But water falling by itself from the sky and feeding plants is a common every day natural occurrence which has no intelligent intervention required.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#108879 Jan 25, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
As I stated, because you can't!
Infinite declarations of "been done" will never substitute for the simple saved post link example which would take no more effort to post than "been done" everytime I issue the challenge. Again, you won't because none exist. There's one simple way for you to prove me wrong. The ball's (dead ball) in your court!
Of course they don't exist. Just as long as you ignore it every time someone posts data.(shrug)

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#108880 Jan 25, 2013
On page 5335, GH shared with us his collection of Creationist scientists.
On page 5339, I asked GH why he posted that list.
On page 5343, GH responded to my question, or should I say, didn’t respond to it.

Maybe GH doesn’t know why he presented that list, but I probably do.
It is because our inner brain, inherited from our paleomammalian ancestors, is still in operation, but is millions of years behind the time.
The inner brain won’t kick off no matter what the outer brain does.
We are tempted to interpret every stimulus as it would be interpreted millions of years ago.
There were no Internet debates over Evolution and Creation, and the closest thing to it would be a battle.
In a battle, you could intimidate an enemy by showing him a battalion of warriors.

GH’s inner brain probably thinks that we are fighting a battle, and it probably thinks that those names on that list are fellow warriors.
So GH probably thinks that once we see that list, we will fall to our knees in submission.

Funny how people like GH preach Creationism but demonstrate Evolution.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#108881 Jan 25, 2013
The Dude wrote:
That is why Markie's assertion fails. Just because scientists can recreate natural conditions does not necessarily mean that an intelligence was required.
Did Markie say that?
Interesting!
If scientists can recreate natural conditions, that means that intelligence was required.
Therefore, God did it.
But since scientists cannot create life from non-life, that means that a being higher than ourselves was required.
Therefore, God did it.

Any way you move, I gotcha!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#108882 Jan 25, 2013
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
100% of atheists have religious bias too.*shrug*

True. Atheism is a belief system.

[QUOTE who="God Himself"]<quoted text> Keep repeating it; you might its the best way to convince yourself.
But as long as person within that scientific community dont accept the theory as valid; there is a division in the scientific community on the matter.
Well, unless "division" means something else to you.

This is incorrect. There is no field in science for which there is 100% agreement on much of anything. Anytime you get over 99% agreement on anything you are on fire. Think of politics. It is hard to get 55% consensus in the electorate on who should be president.
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

#108883 Jan 25, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Congratulations MikeF, you have revealed, to us at least, an obvious Biblical mistake....and a rather large one at that.
Now that we KNOW for sure that the Bible is not an 'Always Literally Right' text from god himself, we can commence to tear KAB and his 'Demonstrated Reliable Source' assertions apart.
Genesis would be the first to go I think, as practically everything in it is nothing but allegory, parables, or metaphorical. In other words....MYTH.
What is the cause of evolution?
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

#108884 Jan 25, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes I can. Is that what happened?
I dont know that thats what happened for certain.

But in the context it would be plausible.

What do you think actually happened or might have happened?
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

#108885 Jan 25, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
GH, the point is as I stated. If you understand what the other poster is attempting to say, address the content and move on. Choosing to deride them on spelling, grammar, syntax, phraseology, punctuation, et al is merely a hobgoblin. Move on.
For some reason, the principles you use to evaluate others never seem to apply to you.
ChromiuMan wrote:
Your proposal is that phylogenies should not be updated to fit new information, but rather that information should be "adjusted to accomodate" existing classifications.
Did I ever suggest that "information should be "adjusted to accommodate" existing classifications"?

Or did I suggest that "the information is adjusted to accommodate that/those phylogenies..?"

There is a difference.
ChromiuMan wrote:
One can easily detect your predilections for dogma and doctrine...
Is that so?

Give it a try, I long for a good laugh on this forum.
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

#108886 Jan 25, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Well here's some more then:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T5V...
But since scientific evidence is NOT your area of interest, what would convince you of common ancestry?
Answer - zip.
That's not our problem.(shrug)
Which part or which one of my questions was that intended to serve as an answer to?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#108887 Jan 25, 2013
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
Which part or which one of my questions was that intended to serve as an answer to?
Did you not request scientific evidence of evolution?
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

#108888 Jan 25, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet you miss the point that trees get by perfectly well without any intelligent intervention.
You cannot prove that "trees get by perfectly well without any intelligent intervention" any more than you can prove that God doesnt exist.
The Dude wrote:
Again, trees do not require us to do this.
Do not require us to do what, exactly?

I have never seen plant go and buy hydroponic equipment and set them up then set themselves to grow in it?
The Dude wrote:
Again, trees don't need that. Water falls of its own accord sometimes. It's called rain. The reason however I said to skip the bit about the jug of water is that once the seed has been planted, and has water, there are no intelligent processes (as far as we know) that cause the tree to grow. It's all a natural occurrence. Just like a baby developing in the womb, no intelligence is required once we have a zygote.
Can you read?
The Dude wrote:
That is why Markie's assertion fails. Just because scientists can recreate natural conditions does not necessarily mean that an intelligence was required. Yes, we CAN get a jug of water and pour it on a seed. But water falling by itself from the sky and feeding plants is a common every day natural occurrence which has no intelligent intervention required.
You have more literacy issues than a blind baboon.

Do you not see the difference between:

"...Intelligence is required...";

AND,

"...DEMONSTRATES the control ...intelligence has over the process ..?"
KAB

Oxford, NC

#108889 Jan 25, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Congratulations MikeF, you have revealed, to us at least, an obvious Biblical mistake....and a rather large one at that.
Now that we KNOW for sure that the Bible is not an 'Always Literally Right' text from god himself, we can commence to tear KAB and his 'Demonstrated Reliable Source' assertions apart.
Genesis would be the first to go I think, as practically everything in it is nothing but allegory, parables, or metaphorical. In other words....MYTH.
Before you jump too high you should check with someone who's objectively good with language as to what the legitimate possible meanings are.
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

#108890 Jan 25, 2013
Dogen wrote:
...as long as person within that scientific community dont accept the theory as valid; there is a division in the scientific community on the matter.
Dogen wrote:
That is incorrect
Thats harsesh!t.
Dogen wrote:
There is no field in science for which there is 100% agreement on much of anything...
There is division in the scientific community.

I rest my case.
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

#108891 Jan 25, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you not request scientific evidence of evolution?
When?

Where?

How?
KAB

Oxford, NC

#108892 Jan 25, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course they don't exist. Just as long as you ignore it every time someone posts data.(shrug)
You could just as easily provide a data post to which I didn't respond. Still, you won't.
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

#108893 Jan 25, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution passes the scientific method.
Evolution has won every court case against the creationists since 1925.
Interesting, no?
No. Not really.

But what causes evolution?
KAB

Oxford, NC

#108894 Jan 25, 2013
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
I dont know that thats what happened for certain.
But in the context it would be plausible.
What do you think actually happened or might have happened?
Let's start with what we know. We know that in that part of the world today there is no such large scale mountain-in-a-basin topography, and that a local flood would not have fundamentally changed the topography any more than such do today. So we know the flood which covered the tops of the mountains would have had to be global in scope even if it didn't cover everything earthwide. Hey, the present oceans are, in effect, a "flood" of global scope!

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 Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) 9 min The Dude 1,694
Why Are There No Transitional Animals Today? (Mar '09) 17 min The Dude 896
No Place For ID? 22 min The Dude 102
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr Denisova 161,941
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 13 hr Denisova 18,852
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) Sun Paul Porter1 13,692
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) Sun Kong_ 178,596
More from around the web