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

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

There are 166297 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.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#109146 Jan 28, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Wait a minute!!! You are actually going to tell me that evolution can add complex organs like brains, eyes, hammer/anvil, and sturip, arms, legs, heads..etc....but can't remove a now use-less part? It seems evolution can only perform the miracles that you need it to. If we an apes had a common ancestor, how did we lose our "thumb" toe? Doesn't even make sense!!<quoted text>I don't think you are qualified to rate what is useless, or smart enough to deem what is sloppy.<quoted text>It's a loaded question. What say we ask them, Does evolution actually have the ability over time to present an observable example of a human evolving from a non-human? See, you are forced to load up such false and useless scenarios, and brother, that shows the weakness of your world view.
By the way, I just finished Eugenie Scotts silly book, and now started one called Darwin Strikes Back...by Thomas Woodward. You think there is a debate now, you wait until you see what the ID folks have planned for the very near future. I almost feel sorry for the evolutionists!!!!
God added the appendix and man had to invent surgery!

I notice you are reasoning yourself in a corner...and do not read updates on evolution anyway.

I posted about 28 posts or more this morning.
The same stuff you did not read 6 times before. In some newly started thread on indeed this human-nonhuman question.
I did not get to that yet. Copy paste can get very mind-numbing.

Anxiously awaiting your informed and scholarly criticism on the scientific method employed in these peer-reviewed articles and whether it's thus arrived conclusion are correct.( As in none of those cop-outs and ideologic treife you write here.)
KAB

United States

#109147 Jan 28, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
There would be no point.(I could point to deut....)
But the greeks made it into sound.
Where everyone else would just go with Moses.
eyeh: I am talked to you.
Or tell them I will be (-come) whatever you tell them.
On a lot of scrolls you will simply find four dots.
I think the use of 'lord' or adonai can be traced back to the greek/aramaic/syiac/assyrian understanding of /A//U/.
That would mean, with a view little pronounciation-aids, as much in their lingo as 'Lord'.
So you have no data for the non-pronunciation position. You can just prove that some people have not pronounced the name.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#109148 Jan 28, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It was you who suggested substituting olam,
"BUT IT WOULD NOT BE 'YOM' THEY WOULD USE BUT F.I. olam." (MAAT)
It's good you now see the error of that.
As to creation, YHWH drove it, no matter the details. That's the critical factor.
KAB i will not scroll back. We played that game too often.
I said that in cases where they meant a time that far outstretches a 24 hour day, they would use different words, like olam.
But a day, is a day, is a day!

There is no creation! Only bad translations!

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#109149 Jan 28, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you noticed how the degree/acridity of the name-calling is inversely proportional to the amount of confirming data provided?
LOL! You are so afraid of being hoisted by your own petard that you only criticize and comment on sourced information that others have submitted - then (if and only if) you construe that you have sufficiently mangled it into a successful coup you claim it as your own.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dec...
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

#109150 Jan 28, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I already shot you down dead,on this you twerp. And re-posted it once. Do you think I can be bothered scrolling back through 50 pages of posts to find the one quote that you made a fool of yourself over?
Go get it, or move on.
Ok lets say that you shot me down dead that time.

What did it prove?

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#109151 Jan 28, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You're entitled to your ongoing dataless mental meanderings, but I've already been told, "The consensus would thus be that genesis 1:1 gives the verb and actor" (MAAT). Yes, there are drawbacks to stream-of-consciousness communication. It's best to think, sort, organize, and content check against verifiable data before you launch. There can also be benefits to stream-of-consciousness. You can inadvertantly stumble onto the truth even tho you don't want to!
Now you are flying of the handle.
All you have to do is read the DATA.
Particularly as i allready told you for this case: Stromheldt or Ellen Wolde a.o. that you will find in the DATA i so copiously provided you with.

If you are not capable of dealing with DATA, than don't take your puny frustration out on me.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#109152 Jan 28, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL! You are so afraid of being hoisted by your own petard that you only criticize and comment on sourced information that others have submitted - then (if and only if) you construe that you have sufficiently mangled it into a successful coup you claim it as your own.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dec...
Had to look that expression up:

The French have the word 'pter'- to fart, which it's hard to imagine is unrelated.

Petar was part of the everyday language around that time, as in this rather colourful line from Zackary Coke in his work Logick, 1654:

"The prayers of the Saints ascending with you, will Petarr your entrances through heavens Portcullis".

Once the word is known,'hoist by your own petard' is easy to fathom. It's nice also to have a definitive source - no less than Shakespeare, who gives the line to Hamlet, 1602:

"For tis the sport to have the enginer Hoist with his owne petar".

Note: engineers were originally constructors of military engines.

---
Really nothing to do with pter!

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#109153 Jan 28, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Close the curtain on the drama, and unearned intellectualism. You are not smart, nor an interesting actor. The fossil record does not support human from non-human evolution. All it can say is that something once lived, died, and left an image if itself. They can not show hereity. Don't worry about taking a bow, no one is clapping.
That goalpost keeps shifting.
ape->human
non-human->human
fossil evidence non-human->human

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#109154 Jan 28, 2013
KAB
you skipped the DATA
Holmstedt is your learned scholar.

Just read the link in:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TFA...

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#109155 Jan 28, 2013
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
Christ said "the flesh profiteth not, it is the spirit that quickeneth".
In other words,'matter is gross and stagnating, energy is mental and activating'.
The essence of it all?
Christians dont give a rat's a$$ about the shroud of Turin!!!
We are not required to be cognisant of nor take any shroud into consideration; whether the shroud is authentic or not.
<quoted text>
Am I saying that?
Tell me if thats what the words that I typed mean to you; I long for a good laugh.
Many Christians give quite a large rat's ass about the shroud of Turin. If they didn't, it wouldn't be so well known or so heavily discussed. You wouldn't even be aware of it if so many Christians didn't care so much about it. You might want to try thinking before you speak. It would help you avoid saying stupid things.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#109156 Jan 28, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>There is much to learn, and thank you for the offer, but I choose to use unbiased ntelligent sources. All you have is arrogance, and you're not very good at that.

You mean "unbiased, ntelligent sources" as in creationist web sites.

In simpler terms, science ignorant, desperate, anti-scientific, pro literalistic, anti-logic, often refuted, no evidence, lying sites.

Good choice. Those sources suit you.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#109157 Jan 28, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>For the same reason we have hair in our nose. Our designer wanted them there. If men didn't, then the offspring of the 2 genders may or may not have them. So GOD designed human life where both denders have nipples so that genetically, female off spring would be born with them making them capable of nursing their own young later in life. If evolution be true, male nipples should have disappeared millions of years ago!!<quoted text>Yes, not that we need it, but so our offspring that will need them will have them. Obviously GOD put more thought into this than you have.

Sometimes marksman, not replying when you don't have a decent answer is better than throwing any old think out there and seeing if it will stick.

Not that we don't find it amusing.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#109158 Jan 28, 2013
Almost missed this one:

marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>There is much to learn, and thank you for the offer, but I choose to use unbiased ntelligent sources. All you have is arrogance, and you're not very good at that.

----
Well that saves us replying to any request or remark you make.

Begs the question what you're still doing here.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#109159 Jan 28, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I'm not contending that, you are. You are the one falsely claiming that a day is defined as having to do with light and dark. If that be the case, how do you explain......
&#9668; 2 Peter 3:8 &#9658;
New International Version (1984)
But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day
So the sun can rise and set no less than 365,000 times, before 1 day is complete. So you are forced to settle into your mire of unknowingness as you try to judge and limit what the creator of the universe can or can not do!!

Actually Day is defined by context in the bible.

For example a day in Gen 1 is a period of darkness and light. The Day in 2Pet is a reference to common figure of speech.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#109160 Jan 28, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>You are wrong again. That is blind faith. My beliefs are faith based, but they are far from blind faith.<quoted text>Well let's put that claim to the test. I say that due to the extrene complexity of even the most simple of life forms, that random, without aim or method, haphazard, naturalistic means can not produce life. That an intelligence is demaded for this kind of extreme complexity. Examine that and show me an observation that violates my faith based belief and proves my conclusion as impossible.

You put a lot of blind faith in deceitful words.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#109161 Jan 28, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I don't have to prove it. You'll have to set up a meeting with GOD for that. I was just giving another poster of why males may still have nipples.

That was a rationalization, not an explanation.

Would you care to learn the difference?

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#109162 Jan 28, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Sometimes marksman, not replying when you don't have a decent answer is better than throwing any old think out there and seeing if it will stick.
Not that we don't find it amusing.
No idea what he tries to achieve.

But of some apes it is known that the males were capable of suckling their young when the population was under stress.
So since we are family it stands to reason that human males had this ability too.
Poor is the man without sensitive nipples, i'll say.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#109163 Jan 28, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>All you have to do is look out the window.

And I see a world completely out of sync with the bible. So what now? Should I reject god because our world does not resemble the world(s) of the bible? By no means!

We need to reject our own belief systems and see that our world is none other and that we need to stop trying to impose our world view upon God.

Science studies God through his creation. Since evolution exists, evolution is of god. Since the universe is 14 billion years old, that is of god. Since a global flood never happened,... that to is of god. THEN we can make sense of the bible stories. Based upon reality, not upon delusion.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109164 Jan 28, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Offer something other than strawmen to refute first.
Even if I was offering strawmen, you can't even refute that!!!! That should be easy. I no going to do it for you!!!
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109165 Jan 28, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
We have. You simply ignore anything that conflicts with your beliefs.
Is that your standard come back? You sound like a Parrot skawking "WE have, we have", when you haven't and can't. THat is why you leave the post vague and don't include the nature of the subject discussed. Because you know you've presented nothing, but want it to appear otherwise. Don't work with me pal.

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) 33 min Endofdays 87,206
What's your religion? 53 min Endofdays 767
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 9 hr superwilly 5,811
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) 14 hr Stargirl 1,822
Scientific Method Feb 15 stinky 20
Evolving A Maze Solving Robot Feb 6 Untangler 2
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) Feb 1 Rose_NoHo 223,360
More from around the web