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

Full story: Asheville Citizen-Times

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 ...
Comments
107,141 - 107,160 of 134,128 Comments Last updated 14 min ago

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109180
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?

No, what I have noticed is that evasive, smarmy, little pseudo-intellectual sewer rats, play the same games over and over. It does not matter that they lose. They live to play the game.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109181
Jan 28, 2013
 
marksman11 wrote:
I'm reading the book. That is your problem already. You let others tell you what to think. That has what has gotten you into this mess from the beginning.
You're the one reading a book that tells you what to think. Much of my early understanding of Evolution was acquired in labs studying real things. You seem to think that Biology is best studied in Church. You prefer assertion to evidence.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109182
Jan 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I don't care what people think. Now.....BACK TO THE TOPIC!!!
That's not true. You care very much what the people in your congregation think of you. That's why you had to stop the scientific method exercise. You knew that your argument was going to fall apart if you continued, and if that happened, you'd have to admit that your understanding of the Bible was incorrect, and that would mean that your religious beliefs wouldn't coincide with those of your friends and fellow churchgoers, and fear of being wrong led you to fear of being ostracized. How sad, that you have to sacrifice your integrity for your social network. There are honest people who wouldn't care that you admitted error and, in fact, would embrace that humility. If only we could convince you. But, your time to embrace reality and free yourself from the shackles of fear will only come when you're ready for it. Nobody can force you to be honest with yourself.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109183
Jan 28, 2013
 
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
This is an opinion that is divorced from what scientists know and believe. Every new article that comes out related to abiogenesis indicates we are getting closer to the day we can either reproduce life or build it from scratch.
Who cares what those other scientists think? Marksman11 is the world's greatest scientist!

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109184
Jan 28, 2013
 
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>It doesn't say it is impossible. It just says that it wasn't the process used to create humans.
In the Bible, non-living matter was made to live. That is abiogenesis. It's life coming from non-living matter (not the intentionally ambiguous and amorphous "life from non-life"). Your Bible says abiogenesis occurred. You disagree with the Bible.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109185
Jan 28, 2013
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
As you acknowledge, the original pronunciation of God's name is unknown. Also, Jehovah is not a translation. It's a way of rendering the name in a particular language, just as John, Juan, and Johann are 3 ways of rendering, not translating, a "name" (identity actually) in different languages.

We have been through this and you lost.

The Hebrew pronunciation of God's name is not unknown.

Jehovah is actually Latin (Greeks used the same name). So, unless we are Romans or Greeks...

ENCYCLOPEDIA JUDAICA, Vol. 7, Pg. 679 states,“The true pronunciation of the name YHWH was never lost. Several early Greek writers of the Christian Church testify that the name was pronounced ‘Yahweh.’“

The name YHWH (YAHWEH) originally appeared 6,823 times in the Old Testament alone.
http://www.holynameassembly.com/1.html

This pointing gave rise to the Latin spelling Jehovah, which was taken over into English; it goes back to the days of Petrus Galatinus, confessor of Pope Leo X A.D. 1518. The substitution of the word “LORD” by the later Hebrews and by the translators of the LXX led to the like substitution in the AV and RSV (Genesis 2:4). The tetragram is generally believed to have been pronounced Yahweh (ya’WA)… Yahweh is the God who is real and therefore lays claim to be the exclusive God of Israel.”
THE NEW WESTMINSTER DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE, page 453

As early as we can now tell, the Hebrews called their Deity by the name Yahweh, and in a shorter form, Yah, used in relatively few cases. In course of time they came to regard this name as too sacred for utterance. They therefore substituted for it the Hebrew word for ‘Lord.’ When vowels were added to the text, the consonants of ‘Yahweh’ were given the vowels of ‘Lord.’ Somewhere in the fourteenth century A.D. Christian scholars, not understanding this usage, took the vowels and consonants exactly as they were written and produced the artificial name ‘Jehovah’ which has persisted ever since."
THE BIBLE, AN AMERICAN TRANSLATION, Smith-Goodspeed version, Preface, Page 15

“One crucial instance of the difficulty offered by a Hebrew term lies in the prehistoric name given at the exodus by the Hebrews of their God. Strictly speaking, this ought to be rendered ‘Yahweh” which is familiar to modern readers in the erroneous form of ‘Jehovah.’“
A NEW TRANSLATION, JAMES MOFFAT (Harper & Brothers, publisher, 1954) Introduction page 21.

ENCYCLOPEDIA JUDAICA, Vol. 7, Pg. 679 states,“The true pronunciation of the name YHWH was never lost. Several early Greek writers of the Christian Church testify that the name was pronounced ‘Yahweh.’“

THE RYRIE STUDY BIBLE, KING JAMES VERSION, Page 9,“YHWH (probably pronounced ‘Yahweh’), the most significant name for God in the Old Testament

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109186
Jan 28, 2013
 
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
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.

Look up male galactorrhea or male lactation. Even in humans this evolutionary throwback occurs.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109187
Jan 28, 2013
 
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>It doesn't say it is impossible. It just says that it wasn't the process used to create humans.

How do you know this? Do you know the mind of god?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109188
Jan 28, 2013
 
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>You're dreaming again, but that is fine, it's your fantasy. See how evolution can just fit whatever you need it to be today!!! Absolutely no science involved!!
<quoted text>You've found nothing but evidence that supports creationism, interpreded it otherwise, and falsely claimed victory. Sorry, but you are far from Victory, in fact you are closer to defeat than ever.<quoted text>Another morphing of the evidence. You just disregard anything against it. Like the origin of life, irreducable complexity, the cascading blood clot sequence, lask of ability to explain the complexity of DNA, the human brain, and most of all consciousness. Your fantasy theory is in fact colapsing around you.
<quoted text>Oh it's coming, and you can't stop it. And it's not science vs. science. It's ID displaying the fatal flaws of evolution!

See why we mock you. This is all a pack of obvious lies. You clearly DON'T understand the basics of evolution (STILL!) and have this rage built up against it. This level of anger cannot be good for you, even if it does decrease cognitive dissonance in the short term.

Lets look at the facts again.

1. There is no (scientific) evidence supporting Creation/IDism. None.

2. Interpretation of the facts is based on the facts. When you have multiple lines of evidence (like evolution does) you have evidence coming at you from all directions.

3. The origin of life (while very interesting) has nothing directly to do with evolution. For example: Human evolution is a proven fact REGARDLESS of what the method of abiogenesis was (magic poofing, warm chemical pond, black smokers....)

4. IC is not science any more than ID is. It has been disproven time and time again.

5. DNA is a chemical. We explain it the exact same way all other chemicals are explained (i.e. Chemistry).

6. ID has, to date, been entirely unable to find any flaw in evolution. Even if it did it would not make it science.

7. consciousness is interesting. But the existence of consciousness does not disprove evolution and prove anything else.

----------

Lets look at the basic scientific method again and look at ToE, ID and creationism.

1. Observation of evidence is required:
evolution meets this criteria.
ID does not meet this criteria.
Creationism does not meet this criteria.

2. Replication of results is required.
ToE meets
ID fails
Creationism fails.

3. The Law (principle) of parsimony should be adhered to.
ToE meets
ID fails
Creationism fails even worse.

4. Testability is required.
ToE meets
ID fails
Creationism does not even try.

5. An explanatory hypothesis/theory (based on the evidence) will emerge.
ToE meets
ID fails
Creationism fails

5. Predictions (successful) will be generated by the theory.
ToE - In spades!
ID - nothing
Creationism - nada.

6. The theory/hypothesis must be falsifiable.
ToE - Yes, in a million ways.
ID - Not really.
Creationism - Never.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109189
Jan 28, 2013
 
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
You're the one reading a book that tells you what to think. Much of my early understanding of Evolution was acquired in labs studying real things. You seem to think that Biology is best studied in Church. You prefer assertion to evidence.

My niece is a freshman pre-pharma, who was raised by strict Baptist parents. She is now facing evolution dead in the eye even at a southern Baptist university in the deep south. As her biology prof is a Christian and a "Darwinist" I think that evolution has been easier for her to take than in H.S. As we are human beings, the source the information comes from does matter.

But in marksmans black and white thinking:
Creationist = Christian = Good
and
Evolutionist = Atheist = Bad.

Even though he can sometimes admit that is not always the case, that is the way he thinks.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109190
Jan 28, 2013
 
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Who cares what those other scientists think? Marksman11 is the world's greatest scientist!

Yes, and all their "world views" are wrong and his is right.

No grandiosity there.

Actually, he is just undereducated and has a chip on his shoulder about that. He resembles a somewhat less extreme version of carpetmuncher Jim.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109191
Jan 28, 2013
 
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
In the Bible, non-living matter was made to live. That is abiogenesis. It's life coming from non-living matter (not the intentionally ambiguous and amorphous "life from non-life"). Your Bible says abiogenesis occurred. You disagree with the Bible.

Oh, but don't you remember his twisted logic? God is alive (even though he is not a biological life form) and therefore it is life from life. Of course he has to ignore that BIOgenesis means BIOlogical life and that the law of biogenesis actually states life from like life forms and not from ANY life form.

Actually, I am not aware of any verse in the bible that says that God is alive. It says the word of God is alive. And if it does I am sure it uses the root 'viv' and not 'bio'.

Anyhoot, you are right. Abiogenesis occurred, regardless of the involvement of a deity.

The above post was brought to you by the Mr. Obvious Show!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109192
Jan 28, 2013
 
When were the Pyramids and Sphinx built before or after the flood?

"they are loaded with forminifera. Detailed logs of the fossils—gastropods, bivalves, sponges, and corals—in each block and layer allowed Lehner and Aigner to actually trace the stones back to the quarry"

http://harvardmagazine.com/2003/07/who-built-...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109193
Jan 28, 2013
 
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
No.
There is nothing in any one of those that addresses to issue of whether or not the particles of matter in and of themselves have any potential to transform themselves by themselves.
And guess what?
The primary attribute or potential of intelligence is EFFICIENCY, it makes things work.
So even if you did prove that the particles of matter in and of themselves have potential to transform themselves by themselves; all you would have demonstrated is that there is a subtle intelligence at work in nature based on the efficiency of natural processes.
Funny, and here I was thinking the primary attribute of intelligence was cognitive ability, not efficiency. An intelligent organism can still perform a task extremely inefficiently, but it would still be demonstrating intelligence by performing that task.
God Himself wrote:
And what happened when you woke up from that dream?
<quoted text>
You usually just talk a lot of things that you piece together and rationalize it as proof of what you want to prove.
Not really. I presented evidence, pointed out how it could be tested, it wasn't addressed.
God Himself wrote:
My claims are demonstrated every minute, every, second every third.
Omnipotence, Omniscience, and Omnipresence can be observed throughout the natural world.
Like I pointed out on the other thread, all you can prove is that the universe is here. Not that an immortal invisible magical Jewish wizard is responsible for the whole shebang.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109194
Jan 28, 2013
 
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
Where is your proof that I favour "Jewish wizardry"?
I find it interesting that you cant think outside the convenient little box that institution has provided for you; yet you call me "fundie" when I am willing to think beyond institution and religion.
You are in need of psychiatric help.
I need psychiatric help for merely disageeing with you?(And let us consider your moniker also, Captain Hubris)

If your baseless religious opinions do not stem from the God of Abraham then I concede my mistake, but point out that Hindu, Chinese, ancient Roman, ancient Greek, whatever - the basic premise of invisible magic wizardry is the same though the superfluous details may differ. However if your baseless religious opinions ARE in fact based on the God of Abraham, then invisible magic Jewish wizard was correct all along.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109195
Jan 28, 2013
 
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Classic.
Hey, he IS "God Himself".

:-p
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109196
Jan 28, 2013
 
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact is that it was evolutionists that presented it as evidence.
That other people fell for the hoax is something evos should be rather facking ashamed of.
And what of the hoax of Christianity?

Paluxy.

Every piece of Jesus's cross.

Every piece of wood from the Ark.

Turin shroud.

Re-writing of Josephus.

150 years of pseudo-science apologetics.

Your team has an ENTIRE FIELD devoted to such dishonesty - it's called religious apologetics.
God Himself wrote:
Evolutionary ideas created the hoax, then evolutionary science revealed that the hoax was a hoax.*shrug*
Bingo. And that was the point. Someone tried to take the money and fame route and got their "discovery" shot down. By those mean old evolutionists using science you reject.

Meaning you have NO REASON AT ALL WHATSOEVER to presume it's a fake.

Not without being a dishonest hypocrite that is.(shrug)

Hey man, someone faked the Mona Lisa too. Does that invalidate art as a whole just because there's some people out there who try to pull a fast one?

And of course if you think it's ALL the mean old evo's trying to pull a fast one on the entire world, then you're saying it's all just a great big evil worldwide atheist evolutionist Darwinist conspiracy involving HUNDREDS of science organisations across MULTIPLE countries and Governments, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of scientists, oh, and the courts, AND the Catholic church and some 12,000 clergy, all of which makes Area 51 look like a kid sneaking out a single cookie from the cookie jar.

It's all a big conspiracy cuz Goddidit with magic.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109197
Jan 28, 2013
 
God Himself wrote:
That you are an angry hag who needs a man?
Cuz I aint seein no proof of nothin else.
Ah, obviously a "true" Christian.

What was it you were saying to me how such behaviour serves no purpose?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109198
Jan 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

God Himself wrote:
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.
Ah, so "evolutionists" should be "fracking ashamed" while Christian hoaxes don't mean sh t?

Hypocrisy, thy name is fundie.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109199
Jan 28, 2013
 
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>You're dreaming again, but that is fine, it's your fantasy. See how evolution can just fit whatever you need it to be today!!! Absolutely no science involved!!
<quoted text>You've found nothing but evidence that supports creationism, interpreded it otherwise, and falsely claimed victory. Sorry, but you are far from Victory, in fact you are closer to defeat than ever.<quoted text>Another morphing of the evidence. You just disregard anything against it. Like the origin of life, irreducable complexity, the cascading blood clot sequence, lask of ability to explain the complexity of DNA, the human brain, and most of all consciousness. Your fantasy theory is in fact colapsing around you.
<quoted text>Oh it's coming, and you can't stop it. And it's not science vs. science. It's ID displaying the fatal flaws of evolution!
When did that happen then, o sir Black Knight?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••