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

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

There are 163074 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.

The Pencil Dick

Kingston, Jamaica

#108964 Jan 26, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
you wrote in SUPPORT of adjusting information to fit phylogenies (which I stated as "classifications" without elaboration) instead of visa versa.
ok.
ChromiuMan wrote:
Surely you can understand that science is not advanced by manipulating the data to fit the conclusion - that is the purview of Creationism.
Phylogenesis:

"The evolutionary development and history of a species or higher taxonomic grouping of organisms."

NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH:

Phylogeny:

"The evolutionary development of an organ or other part of an organism: the phylogeny of the amphibian intestinal tract." [http://www.thefreedictionary. com/phylogeny]

"...the phylogenies are adjusted to accomodate that information..."

Tell us about "Piltdown Man".
KAB

Wilson, NC

#108965 Jan 26, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>1....I don't think anyone can say with any certainty what happed 500,000 years ago. Heck, we don't even know who built the Great Pyramid about 5 thousand years ago, and there is some doubt one who killed JFK just 60 years ago. I ain't buying it.2....You guys like to say we and apes had a common ancester because our DNA is like 99.5 percent identical, but Neanderthal is not human although his DNA is 99.5% the same as ours, and he is on our limb of the tree.If that is the case the 99.5 percent DNA matches show nothing of heredity.3....you guys have yet to tell me what evolved to make a non-human into a human. Was it the JAW? is it the brain size? What happened that says that this non-human evolved into humans? What's the difference???
There's nothing to get around. Similar designs having control element similarities is quite expected.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#108966 Jan 26, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
The difference between the words "bere" and "asah" is apparently negligible, since they are interchangeable in 2:4 of Bereshit.
Why didn't you provide that data, KAB?
To be "interchangeable" in a given context, two words only need to have one element of overlap in their meaning. It is therefore unwarranted to conclude on that basis alone that the difference between the words overall is negligible. Comparing the full range of meaning of each of the words with the other removes any speculation and provides a completely data based assessment. The key question in our present consideration is whether either word's range of allowable meaning extends beyond a made-from-scratch requirement.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#108967 Jan 26, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
"Faith" is never a GOOD reason to believe anything.
Unless, of course, it's a demonstrated reliable faith. Certainly, you're not including that one!?
KAB

Wilson, NC

#108968 Jan 26, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Translation: squirm, wiggle, squirm.
Out of ammunition (that would be data such as I provided for example) again, I see.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#108969 Jan 26, 2013
...topic fronting before a wayyiqtol
and haplographic excursions in ancient hebrew and akkadian (comp. to din idinu).

Or questions as to why we presume the form VSO and not SVO was actually used! Or whether we are reading just a tool to introduce the story (f.i. and then he said...)that we mistake for a word to have an actual meaning.

Trying to understand really old languages can become very complicated and beyond the scope of our simplistic interpretations and frankly content of our bookcase.
http://ancienthebrewgrammar.wordpress.com/201...

My workingtorah by the way has brshyt baru...
but otherwise we are faced with something like at least 22 options for a simple three letter word.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#108970 Jan 26, 2013
The Pencil Dick wrote:
<quoted text>
ok.
<quoted text>
Phylogenesis:
"The evolutionary development and history of a species or higher taxonomic grouping of organisms."
NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH:
Phylogeny:
"The evolutionary development of an organ or other part of an organism: the phylogeny of the amphibian intestinal tract." [http://www.thefreedictionary. com/phylogeny]
"...the phylogenies are adjusted to accomodate that information..."
Tell us about "Piltdown Man".
Piltdown man: A hoax originating in 1911-12, probably by Charles Dawson, who was hoping this and multiple other unrelated "discoveries" (38 confirmed hoaxes, from sea serpents and vestigial horns on horses to Roman artifacts) would lead to membership in the British Royal Society and possibly even knighthood. He received neither one.
The authenticity of "Piltdown Man" was publicly suspected as early as 1915, and several scholars were dismissive of its importance while others took it at face value. It did not fit with discoveries of the following decades and was regarded with more and more skepticism as new fossil evidence was compiled. In 1949 fluorine dating indicated the fossils were 1/10th of the age previously thought and a microscopic examination in 1953 revealed that its parts had been altered to fit together.

Your point about the hoax was in people being misled? Your turn. Tell us about the Seven Ecumenical Councils.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#108971 Jan 26, 2013
KAB wrote:
You can use your faith to explain the facts on the ground anyway you want, but no one's faith can change those facts. "Day" can mean more than you noted, and thus is not tied exclusively to earth's rotation. In its most general valid application "day" means a period of time, usually having some unifying attribute throughout (e.g. Lincoln's day or each of the six days of creation). Also, the Biblical account does not require that Earth be created before the sun. In fact, the word used in conjunction with the activity specifically involving the sun is not the "creation" word used in Genesis 1:1, thus not requiring that the sun be "created" (i.e., made from scratch) at that time.
Hope you can help the Marksman get his beliefs straightened out. No one else has had much luck at it.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#108972 Jan 26, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
To be "interchangeable" in a given context, two words only need to have one element of overlap in their meaning. It is therefore unwarranted to conclude on that basis alone that the difference between the words overall is negligible. Comparing the full range of meaning of each of the words with the other removes any speculation and provides a completely data based assessment. The key question in our present consideration is whether either word's range of allowable meaning extends beyond a made-from-scratch requirement.
I would say that this is an impossible task.
At some point in time people have chosen a prefered meaning.
However in hebrew it is often left open, because pride is taken in coming up with as many possible interpretations as one can.
For the general everyday use there would however also be such a thing as the overreaching philosophy. No dualism (yhwh can make pure what is impure and vice versa.) and genesis 1 is used to point out how the sabbath came to be.
We find that in exodus shabbos, red heifer and the mispath (civil law) are ordained. And we find the concept chok:'only g-d knows what on earth is meant by that.'
Why would you not work on a seventh day? What's all that red heifer pure-impure and vice versa stuff about?

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#108973 Jan 26, 2013
Hammurabis law pg 166 top...
establishing an everlasting kingdom on heaven and earth..
might be also a just comparison.

Just looking for din idinu and variations. Comparable to BRShT BR>/U
http://books.google.nl/books...

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#108974 Jan 26, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Out of ammunition (that would be data such as I provided for example) again, I see.
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Out of ammunition (that would be data such as I provided for example) again, I see.
Guffaw! What "data?" Are you YET AGAIN referring to your typically maudlin attempts at fraudulent suppositions, skewed interpretations and mental masturbation as "data?"
I provided a direct quote from YOUR BOOK that DEFINES "day".
I provided the reference to Bereshit 2:4 that interchanges bara (create) and asah (make).
Go suck your thumb.
LowellGuy

United States

#108975 Jan 26, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Unless, of course, it's a demonstrated reliable faith. Certainly, you're not including that one!?
Faith that today will last approximately 24 hours is that kind of faith. It's a trust born out by the evidence. Marksman11 has faith that things are true for which there is no evidence or for which there is contradictory evidence. These aren't the same, though creationists often dishonestly conflate the two.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#108976 Jan 26, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Guffaw! What "data?" Are you YET AGAIN referring to your typically maudlin attempts at fraudulent suppositions, skewed interpretations and mental masturbation as "data?"
I provided a direct quote from YOUR BOOK that DEFINES "day".
I provided the reference to Bereshit 2:4 that interchanges bara (create) and asah (make).
Go suck your thumb.
The quote from the book does not define "day". It uses it.
Why aren't you just simply stating that words used interchangeably must have exactly identical total meaning? It's because, hopefully, you know that's not true. So, stop trying to force it in your understanding of the Bible. Accept the data, and get use to disappointment!
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#108977 Jan 26, 2013
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
I did not request any evidence of evolution.
I requested evidence that:
"....f 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?"
[http://www.topix.com/forum/ne ws/evolution/TFA47A72UBQ0T364O /post108727]
I mentioned nothing of any "evolution" whatsoever.
Nothing there we haven't addressed already.

I have now also addressed all your concerns on the other thread.

So far we have evolution demonstrated and fundie claims not demonstrated.

Ya know, the usual.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#108978 Jan 26, 2013
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
Who cares?
Let me tell you who cares.
I and all true scientists and people who are able to think critically; we care.
People who know that you don't have to truly understand something to control or demonstrate it in a lab; we care.
You aren't able to think critically. You dispute observed biological mechanisms in favour of magic Jewish wizardry.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#108979 Jan 26, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>But the common foundation for both is randomness, and that is where the debate lies.<quoted text>It is all interpretation. You can find every kind, size, etc on the planet right now. Skulls show that something once lived and died, but they don't show inheritence. You linking them together is interpretation, not emperical proof.<quoted text>again interpretation steming from a pro-evolutionary biase.
It stems from a pro-evolutionary bias due to the fact that reality has a pro-evolutionary bias.

So when Darwin predicts we should have transitional fossils then we go out and actually find them, we consider that a successful test.

I notice you didn't actually say what the problem was with genetic markers, and merely dismissed it as "evolutionary bias".

Since you're actually incapable of providing anything even coming close to something that resembles actual scientific criticism of the evidence, why demand we demonstrate our position when we both know all you can do is merely dismiss it out of hand?

In short, why is it that all fundies are such great big fat dishonest hypocrites?(shrug)
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#108980 Jan 26, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Bet you can't show me observable evidence!!!!
Betcha we can!!!!

Oh wait - we have. But who cares if we can't prove the God didn't make it just LOOK like that, eh Sparky?

Numbnutz.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#108981 Jan 26, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Then why dishonestly reply as if you do?
Irony meter go boooooooooommm
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#108982 Jan 26, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>1....I don't think anyone can say with any certainty what happed 500,000 years ago. Heck, we don't even know who built the Great Pyramid about 5 thousand years ago, and there is some doubt one who killed JFK just 60 years ago. I ain't buying it.2....You guys like to say we and apes had a common ancester because our DNA is like 99.5 percent identical, but Neanderthal is not human although his DNA is 99.5% the same as ours, and he is on our limb of the tree.If that is the case the 99.5 percent DNA matches show nothing of heredity.3....you guys have yet to tell me what evolved to make a non-human into a human. Was it the JAW? is it the brain size? What happened that says that this non-human evolved into humans? What's the difference???
They were a subspecies of human. Still genetically compatible, but still different enough to show an observable difference both genetically and morphologically. Of course even the Wiki page supported that, but you just didn't get down that far.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#108983 Jan 26, 2013
The Pencil Dick wrote:
Tell us about "Piltdown Man".
Piltdown Man? Well according to creationists it should be a valid genuine fossil of a once living organism. It was in fact actually found to be fraudulent by using evolutionary science that creationists reject on theological grounds.

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 Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 3 hr Frindly 1,428
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 4 hr Agents of Corruption 222,271
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 7 hr u196533dm 32,462
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) Mon Dogen 78,757
Mathematicians PROVED evolution IMPOSSIBLE! Aug 19 Science 814
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... (Jan '17) Aug 5 yehoshooah adam 4,381
News Intelligent Design Education Day - Dallas Aug 2 John B 4
More from around the web