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

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

There are 151492 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 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.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#108984 Jan 26, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
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!
Genesis 1:5
"God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day."
.........
That my ape cousin, is a definition.
.........
Genesis 2:4
"This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens."
.........
That my ape cousin, is an example of the interchangeability between "bara" and "asah." You can try to twist, shout, weep and lament, but no matter how you often and vigorously you violate the 9th commandment to MANIPULATE THE DATA to fit YOUR AGENDA, the data remains what it is.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#108985 Jan 26, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>from wiki.answers.com ......when "are molecules alive"....search
"no. molecules are inorganic, meaning that they make up nonliving matter. They are not considered organic, or living, because all living matter contains both carbon and hydrogen."
Oooh, poorly worded answer.

Also demonstrating that you don't know enough to answer a simple question on your own.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#108986 Jan 26, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>as if you have a grasp on reality, and know the answers to all of lifes mysteries!!

He knows what science agrees on. Remember, even among scientists, it is only the fundies that disagree with evolution.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#108987 Jan 26, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> No, I have problems with the whole concept that something can evolve from something completely different than the orignal life form. I do not believe we all share a common biological ancestor.All evolutionists can do is believe it because others said it has occurred. It has never been observed, and scientists can't fabricate an experiment to make it occur. It is a faith based belief.

Fundamental misunderstanding of science. My piano came from dirt, sunlight, water, base metals, grass, etc. If you cannot see that my piano then you are not really understanding its nature. It is also made up of atoms. It is also made up, nearly entirely, of empty space. If you do not believe it is made up of those things that is okay by me, but others, who look past appearances, will see it differently. This is not faith, but rather an understanding of what things are and how they work.

Now, you seem to believe the earth exists, but scientists can't fabricate an experiment to make it occur. Does that mean the earth is a faith based belief. By no means!

marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> ...Darwin didn't discover what you are defining as evolution. He discovered micro changes within species. Not that they evolved into something completely different.

They are all evolution. If you only watch 10 seconds of a movie does that mean the rest of the movie does not exist? Even without a DVD player a scientist examining the disk could see how much data is on it and be able to figure out how long a move, at a given level definition, exists on the disk. This is how science works. Darwin observed macro changes in that, for example, the finches he discovered were related to each other but in isolation evolved different attributes and lost the capacity to interbreed (the further and longer separated ones).

Nothing can stop evolution. Once it happens it has no choice but to continue.
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> 2......I agree, but I will continue to specify human from non-human evolution, because if I don't many will continue to deceptively morph the term to suit their current requirements.

Call it what you want, but it happened. Someday, maybe, our ancestors will talk about how they evolved from humans. The human species will not last forever any more than any other creature has.
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>But what is the common foundation for it all? Randomness! That is why GOD is part of the debate. Creationists say that randomness can't produce life, or human from non-human evolution.

Blah blah blah. This is meaningless philosophical jibber jabber. The only thing random about evolution is mutation. That is it. Everything else is well organized.
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> Evolutionist say it can, but creationists say "show me" and evolutionists can't.

No, science produces the evidence and creotards bury their heads in the sand to keep from seeing. You can't be a lying creationist and claim either the moral or scientific high ground. It don't work that way.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#108988 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.<quoted text>And how many of these mutations are fatal, or detrimental to the life form?<quoted text>1....I couldn't care less about Islam. I have no war with them. I have a problem with radical terrorists as I would any terroristic group. You have never heard me bash Islam. I believe like christians, they have the freedom to worship as they want, but no group, including christians, have no right to break the law. But the main and most disturbing point is you said, "I dislike dogmatism and regard it as very destructive".....while being just as dogmatic and rabid concerning evolution. Maybe not you per-say, but many evolutionists like Eugenie Scott. And you may say acceptence of evolution is not destructive, but if it is untrue, and I believe it is, it is destructive because our children are being taught a lie is science classes, they are being told that they are no different or special than any other animal. Which in my opinion plays a part in school shootings. I'm not saying that evolution caused the shootings, just that when a kid is raised that they are no more special than any other animal, ask yourself, "How guilty does a wolf feel when it kills a weaker animal" and that kind of thought can begin with evolutionary teaching. I'm not saying evolution kills, I'm saying evolutionary thought plus mental instability can kill. I could go on, but I have made my point that dogmatic evolution in reality can be destructive. You are no less dogmatic concerning evolution than a christian or muslim is concerning their faith.

Randomness is a red herring.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#108989 Jan 26, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>No, you are wrong because you are not honest. An agnostic would be open to both sides. You never accept an argument that is procreation, and you are always on the attack of creationists. You dishonestly claim ignorance, while obviously having a bias to one side. That is weak and noncommital.
Listen, if you reject GOD, have the balls to be an atheist, and accept the consequences, if any, for your decision. You might as well, because if you are wrong, and the bible is true, your fate as an agnostic is the same as an atheist. You are dishonest because you label yourself as neutral, but your replies reflect otherwise.

An honest agnostic would never accept an argument that is procreation until there was some evidence supporting creation. As Evolution has 100% of the evidence it will garner the support of 100% of the agnostics.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#108990 Jan 26, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Already dealt with in another post. Please reference it.

ALL of your "arguments" have been dealt with in previous posts. Please reference them.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#108991 Jan 26, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Because I've been here since day 1 and I know what has been posted. You have not. Do your own home work. I mean no disrespect but I don't run rabbits.

You actually came in some time after day 1.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#108992 Jan 26, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Bet you can't show me observable evidence!!!!

ALL of your "arguments" have been dealt with in previous posts. Please reference them.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#108993 Jan 26, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>That is why your responce was ignorant. DUH!!<quoted text>Oh the drama!!!

Nice defense of the Christian faith. No wonder I don't consider you to be a Christian.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#108994 Jan 26, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I bet the farm you have no observable evidence proving humans evolved from non-humans!!! If you did, you would have just posted it rather than the dihonest wishful fantasy you just posted.

ALL of your "arguments" have been dealt with in previous posts. Please reference them.

What a short memory you have.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#108995 Jan 26, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Genesis 1:5
"God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day."
.........
That my ape cousin, is a definition.
.........
Genesis 2:4
"This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens."
.........
That my ape cousin, is an example of the interchangeability between "bara" and "asah." You can try to twist, shout, weep and lament, but no matter how you often and vigorously you violate the 9th commandment to MANIPULATE THE DATA to fit YOUR AGENDA, the data remains what it is.
I agree.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#108996 Jan 26, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Rest well in your padded cell my friend.

ALL of your "arguments" have been dealt with in previous posts. Please reference them.

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) 13 min Chimney1 43,311
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 44 min Blitzking 205,200
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Eagle 12 18,592
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 7 hr ChristineM 917
Questions about first life 9 hr Upright Scientist 18
Carbon and isotopic dating are a lie Sat One way or another 16
evolution is correct. prove me wrong (Jul '15) Sat FallenGeologist 35
More from around the web