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

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

There are 162488 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.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#109226 Jan 28, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I accidently stumbled across this with other posters I usually just pass over, but I've been saving this just for moments like this. GOD works in mysterious ways....LOL.
#108136
10 hrs ago
marksman11 wrote:
Then show me. YOU CAN"T!!! You have no leg to stand on. If GOD created life, life came from a previous life and the LAw of Biogenesis has been satisfied and no spontainious generation event has ever been documented in a lab nor nature. For your "scientific views" on abiogenesis to be valid, they DEMAND A VIOLATION OF A KNOWN SCIENTIFIC LAW!!!! How inconsistent can you be????????
<lowellguy>[ and this is priceless!!!!]
Newton's law of gravity are violated all the time. It's a KNOWN SCIENTIFIC LAW!!!!
There you have it folks!!! One of your guys admitting that the law of gravity is violated all the time, IOW's MANIPULATED!!!!! Tell me Mike, can you tell me when the law of garvity was violated??? Please Mike, Please???????
So you think Newton's Law of gravity is violated all the time, but the bogus law of biogenesis can never be violated? Inconsistent.

Actually, we know when and why Newton's Law is not quite accurate at times, thanks to Einstein, and we also know that the Law of Biogenesis that you refer to was specifically applied and only tested on examples of meat and fruit spoilage, with the purpose of proving that modern bacteria, flies, and mice do not spontaneously form from decaying food products, as was previously thought.

And we also know that birds do not violate or manipulate Newton's Laws. They use other physical laws to act against the downward force on their bodies, while that force remains as steady and relentless as ever.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109227 Jan 29, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You really think that something which takes millions of years for any visible changes to occur would be observed in your lifetime? Are you really that naive?
Listen sister, You guys are the ones that say human from non-human evolution is not random. It is not haphazard, it has aim and method, therefore just like the science of astronomical archaeology, you should be able to perform tests on bacteria which many generations take no time, and see them change into something other than bacteria! Yet you haven't because it doesn't happen. You can actually cause fruitflys to be born wingless, and their offspring are born wingless, but then after a few generations guess what happens? They start giving birth to fruitflys with wings. Why? Because their DNA has a built in correcting method that repairs mutations as the generations progress. So don't hide behind the "millions of years" because that is just an excuse for not having evidence.

"Well, I would have evidence if it didn't take millions of years!"

Then the truth is, YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE!!!
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109228 Jan 29, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
So you think Newton's Law of gravity is violated all the time, but the bogus law of biogenesis can never be violated? Inconsistent.
{reread..shakes head}Lowell guys says that the Law of Gravity is violated all the time! Not me. He is on your side, not mine.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#109229 Jan 29, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Listen sister, You guys are the ones that say human from non-human evolution is not random. It is not haphazard, it has aim and method, therefore just like the science of astronomical archaeology, you should be able to perform tests on bacteria which many generations take no time, and see them change into something other than bacteria! Yet you haven't because it doesn't happen. You can actually cause fruitflys to be born wingless, and their offspring are born wingless, but then after a few generations guess what happens? They start giving birth to fruitflys with wings. Why? Because their DNA has a built in correcting method that repairs mutations as the generations progress. So don't hide behind the "millions of years" because that is just an excuse for not having evidence.
"Well, I would have evidence if it didn't take millions of years!"
Then the truth is, YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE!!!
No one has said it has direction. Non-random doesn't mean planned, nor does it mean it has a direction, that's a failure on your comprehendion. The more complex an organism is, the longer it will take for changes to accumulate, that's simple math, more things to change takes longer to see the changes. Duh. I also have not once seen what you suggest for fruitflies, but even then, recursive genes exist, they don't go away, so can be reactivated later down the line. Sheesh, it's like explaining this to a second grade student.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109230 Jan 29, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, there are things evolution can accommodate - like retention of a useless part if there is no selection disadvantage. Actually in the case of the nipple, its hardwired into the enbryo before sex differentiation begins.
Sure evolution can explain it either way. It it's there, evolution decided to leave it. If it's not there, "Well, it used to be there but evolution decided to remove it." Evolution can't think. It has no direction. It has no intelligence, and yet, it can do all these magical things you need it to do. Why, it's almost as talented as a show dog!!
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
However, there are things that if found would falsify evolution - its just that they have never been found!
You admit in this very post that you can't explain consciousness using evolution. To do so you have to show how matter creates a mind. I'm betting you can't do that, thus human from non-human evolution is falsified until you do..ID explains it easily. A mind creates matter!
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>

Actually, if all Kinds were created at the beginning and the species whittled away from extinction, we would see a very specific pattern in the fossils. Its one of the few testable predictions of creationism. And the reality is NOTHING like that prediction.
You don't know your bible or theology.
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text> However, it is exactly as evolution predicts.
Why of course it is. You can make evolution be whatever you need it to be. Heck, it takes millions and millions of years, well, it did until the Cambrian Explosion, THENNNNN....ummmm.....aaaaa... .PUNCTUATED EQUALIBRIA!!!! Yeah that's it!! It can happen really rapidly if we need it too!!
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Irreducible complexity is an argument that fails from first principles. A failed argument. I can explain why, if you like, though I have many times already.
No you haven't, go for it.
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text> And the cascading blood clot sequence is reducible anyway, as scientists have shown, so that would not even be a good example!
It's a great example for design. Please explain how evolution, which is almost magic, designed (oh...that dreadful word) it. Please tell me how evolution, in order to keep us from bleeding out upon injury, only clots at the wound, and not the entire system. How does the rest of the system know not to clot, and how did this "knowing" evolve??? I'll wait.
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
False in both cases. Evolution produces complexity - it IS the explanation.
Please explain how matter can produce a mind. Again, I'll wait.
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed. No hypothesis I have come across can really explain consciousness.
That should cause you to question human from non-human evolution. Doesn't it make more sense to you that a mind created matter, that mindless matter could create consciousness?
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Never been stronger. All that has happened is that a bunch of fools have got around in a circle reinforcing each other's bogus anti-evolution arguments and convincing themselves they are right, and playing a PR war instead of a science war. Real scientists mostly just ignore them the way they ignore astrologers and fake healers.
Then why did Eugenie Scott write a huge book unsuccessfully trying to explain ID away? Why does Richard Dawkins have to go to debates to battle these things? Why did the liberal world of science lose its s--t when President Bush supported ID? Why is it that Engenie Scotts book, in every court case, rather that letting this "mountain of evidence" speak for itself, hired ACLU lawyers and made a Church/State issue out of it? If human from non-human evolution was settled, that would be all that is needed. Good science is like good art. It'll stand on it's own. So much for human from non-human evolution!!

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#109231 Jan 29, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Sure evolution can explain it either way. It it's there, evolution decided to leave it. If it's not there, "Well, it used to be there but evolution decided to remove it." Evolution can't think. It has no direction. It has no intelligence, and yet, it can do all these magical things you need it to do. Why, it's almost as talented as a show dog!!<quoted text>You admit in this very post that you can't explain consciousness using evolution. To do so you have to show how matter creates a mind. I'm betting you can't do that, thus human from non-human evolution is falsified until you do..ID explains it easily. A mind creates matter!<quoted text>You don't know your bible or theology.<quoted text>Why of course it is. You can make evolution be whatever you need it to be. Heck, it takes millions and millions of years, well, it did until the Cambrian Explosion, THENNNNN....ummmm.....aaaaa... .PUNCTUATED EQUALIBRIA!!!! Yeah that's it!! It can happen really rapidly if we need it too!!
<quoted text>No you haven't, go for it.<quoted text>It's a great example for design. Please explain how evolution, which is almost magic, designed (oh...that dreadful word) it. Please tell me how evolution, in order to keep us from bleeding out upon injury, only clots at the wound, and not the entire system. How does the rest of the system know not to clot, and how did this "knowing" evolve??? I'll wait.
<quoted text>Please explain how matter can produce a mind. Again, I'll wait.<quoted text>That should cause you to question human from non-human evolution. Doesn't it make more sense to you that a mind created matter, that mindless matter could create consciousness?
<quoted text>Then why did Eugenie Scott write a huge book unsuccessfully trying to explain ID away? Why does Richard Dawkins have to go to debates to battle these things? Why did the liberal world of science lose its s--t when President Bush supported ID? Why is it that Engenie Scotts book, in every court case, rather that letting this "mountain of evidence" speak for itself, hired ACLU lawyers and made a Church/State issue out of it? If human from non-human evolution was settled, that would be all that is needed. Good science is like good art. It'll stand on it's own. So much for human from non-human evolution!!
Are you done ranting yet?
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109232 Jan 29, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
No one has said it has direction. Non-random doesn't mean planned, nor does it mean it has a direction, that's a failure on your comprehendion.
Will you listen to what you are saying? If it is non-random as you say, then it has to, by defintion, have direction. If it is not haphazard like you say, then it must not be haphazard and thus have direction. If it is not without aim or method, as you say, then it has to have aim, and method....and by definition, that is direction. You are a walking talking contradiction.
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text> The more complex an organism is, the longer it will take for changes to accumulate, that's simple math, more things to change takes longer to see the changes. Duh.
Why? Human from non-human evolution claims selection, and according to you it ain't random. So if it doesn't benefit the system, why would it pass on these traits? What good is a anvil, without the hammer and sturip? So why pass on an anvil alone? How do you account for a mindless process to bring about all three at the same time? I keep forgetting how much faith you have!!!
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text> I also have not once seen what you suggest for fruitflies, but even then, recursive genes exist, they don't go away, so can be reactivated later down the line. Sheesh, it's like explaining this to a second grade student.
They don't even believe it!!!
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109233 Jan 29, 2013
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>

Of course you won't check. You can't. Nobody can. That's why the silly afterlife scam keeps working.
I can't check for you, but you can check for yourself soon enough.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109234 Jan 29, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
But it is. And we can show how it is. It is your foolish ideas that are not supported by science. This is an irrefutable fact:
At this time there is no scientific evidence that supports creationism. And it is all the fault of creation "scientists".
THere you go asking ignorantly for scientific evidence for the supernateral. Everything you claim evolution answers, creationism answers equally well, and for those evolution can't answer, like the origin of life, consciousness, irreducable complexity, the anthropic principle,....etc etc....creation is the the best explanation. Matter has never been observed able to create a mind to observe itself.
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it is still happening today. What part of evolution don't you understand again?
Oh wait, it was all of it.
Evidently I understand it better than you do. I understand it enough to know it's BS!!!! I don't have the faith you guys do in the "magic" that evolution performs!!!
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109235 Jan 29, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you done ranting yet?
Just rootin, tootin, shooten, and refuten, there sister!!!
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109236 Jan 29, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
To Marky's credit, he WAS talking about the "law of garvity".
Perhaps that law is different.
Somehow.
It's a good thing I'm not a great typist or speller, OR YOU GUYS WOULD HAVE NOTHING!!! oh wait.....YOU GUYS DON'T HAVE NOTHING!!!!

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#109237 Jan 29, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Just rootin, tootin, shooten, and refuten, there sister!!!
You spelled "ignoring the evidence" wrong.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109238 Jan 29, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Listen man, you are going to have to educate yourself about the bible before you aroogantly start deeming what is truth, and what is not. Genesis leaves it open for a vast amount of time between genesis 1 and Genesis 2. Genesis has GOD telling Adam to go and REplenish the earth. The bible is clear that it is possible for VAST amounts of time to pass before his recreation in Genesis 1. So please be quiet and learn about the bible before looking more foolish than you do because all you know is to spout equaly ignorant fellow atheist talking points. I have no idea why you have me pegged as a YEC. I clearly said many times that according to the bible, it is open for both. I believe the creation account, whenever it occurred.

Actually, if you take the bible literally then the world is only a tad over 6,000 years old.

This is the legalistic/literal belief system.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109239 Jan 29, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>It's the same ole junk. Found something that live 520 million years ago, and proves humans evolved......crap. Nothing new, just people spouting things like they know what happened 520 million years ago, and then interpreting it to support their biases. That is nothing new. Call me when human from non-human evolution has been replicated and observed.<quoted text>Dude, seriously, you need to get a life!!<quoted text>Post them!!!

You are really not paying attention to what evolution says OR you really enjoy knocking down straw men.

Science does not know everything that happened 520 million years ago. It only knows what there is evidence for.

Human evolution studies have been replicated.
Human evolution evidence has been observed.
All as demanded by the scientific method and satisfied by the science of evolution

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109240 Jan 29, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>THat's fine, don't reply if you have nothing.<quoted text>I use you guys for test subjects. There are people in the world, unlike you guys, that are really searching for answers. I use you guys for test subjects to stay current with the atheist mindset, but to be honest, you've presented nothing new in years!! The bats, and rabbits, and how many legs and insect has, and the bible says this or that about pi..........all refuted years ago.

Who refuted this? If you have seen a refutation somewhere please post it here. Till then all we have is your nonsense which is not even logically based. You have a straw man fetish.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109241 Jan 29, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>You need to understand that biology doesn't need Darwinism. Human from non-human evolution could be completely refuted tomorrow and Biology, and medicene, would continue right on unchanged, unscathed,and uneffected. All human from non-human evolution is is a false fable of the origins of biological systems. It is completely irrelevant to how biology works or is learned. Darwinism could be refuted tomorrow and the heart transplants, bypasses,...etc...wouldn't miss a beat!!! I have niece that is a nurse in Alabama. She told me that in her biology courses they barely even skimmed evolution because it wasn't needed.

In nursing evolution is not needed. To an MD it becomes more important. To specialty fields (Genetics, evolutionary medicine, organ transplants, neurobiology/neurology) it is critical and ultimately the supporting pillar of all biology and all medicine.

I notice you could not answer my scientific refutation of ID/Creationism yesterday.

That speaks volumes.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109242 Jan 29, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You made your statement regarding Gen. 1:1 containing both verb and actor before you made the above Homstedt reference. I only addressed your statement. I have no issue with Holmstedt. What do you want me to consider there?

Since you are unable to reply, I guess you won't be suggesting that Jehovah is a valid name for god anymore. At least you can be taught.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109243 Jan 29, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>{reread..shakes head}Lowell guys says that the Law of Gravity is violated all the time! Not me. He is on your side, not mine.

Actually the Law of Gravity is being violated every second of every day by the planet Mercury.

Most physical laws have been "violated" (their limits exceeded).

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109244 Jan 29, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Sure evolution can explain it either way. It it's there, evolution decided to leave it. If it's not there, "Well, it used to be there but evolution decided to remove it." Evolution can't think. It has no direction. It has no intelligence, and yet, it can do all these magical things you need it to do. Why, it's almost as talented as a show dog!!<quoted text>You admit in this very post that you can't explain consciousness using evolution. To do so you have to show how matter creates a mind. I'm betting you can't do that, thus human from non-human evolution is falsified until you do..ID explains it easily. A mind creates matter!<quoted text>You don't know your bible or theology.<quoted text>Why of course it is. You can make evolution be whatever you need it to be. Heck, it takes millions and millions of years, well, it did until the Cambrian Explosion, THENNNNN....ummmm.....aaaaa... .PUNCTUATED EQUALIBRIA!!!! Yeah that's it!! It can happen really rapidly if we need it too!!
<quoted text>No you haven't, go for it.<quoted text>It's a great example for design. Please explain how evolution, which is almost magic, designed (oh...that dreadful word) it. Please tell me how evolution, in order to keep us from bleeding out upon injury, only clots at the wound, and not the entire system. How does the rest of the system know not to clot, and how did this "knowing" evolve??? I'll wait.
<quoted text>Please explain how matter can produce a mind. Again, I'll wait.<quoted text>That should cause you to question human from non-human evolution. Doesn't it make more sense to you that a mind created matter, that mindless matter could create consciousness?
<quoted text>Then why did Eugenie Scott write a huge book unsuccessfully trying to explain ID away? Why does Richard Dawkins have to go to debates to battle these things? Why did the liberal world of science lose its s--t when President Bush supported ID? Why is it that Engenie Scotts book, in every court case, rather that letting this "mountain of evidence" speak for itself, hired ACLU lawyers and made a Church/State issue out of it? If human from non-human evolution was settled, that would be all that is needed. Good science is like good art. It'll stand on it's own. So much for human from non-human evolution!!

Your straw man army seems to have fallen and can't get up.

Let me know if you have a logical argument.

Hint, write down your premises and conclusions. Can you even identify which is which? Make sure they support one another. THEN present your evidence.

Then you should notice that all your assertions in your above post are not true, at least not the way you present them.

Serious arguments will usually get serious responses. Logical fallacies just lead you down the path of mockery.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109245 Jan 29, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You spelled "ignoring the evidence" wrong.
Like I said, Is that all ya got? Getting rather pathetic there girl friend!!

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 Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 26 min John 32,184
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 31 min John 76,974
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 33 min Dogen 221,949
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 34 min John 796
Can the universe be God's brain? (Jun '07) 3 hr The FACTory 101
A musical evolution lesson. 6 hr Willy 8
Mathematicians PROVED evolution IMPOSSIBLE! 9 hr Al Caplan 437
More from around the web