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

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

There are 159201 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.

LowellGuy

Salem, MA

#109261 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!!
You are so fantastically stupid.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#109262 Jan 29, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
I can't check for you, but you can check for yourself soon enough.
Impossible. Conciousness dies with the body. Nobody gets to check on anything after death.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#109263 Jan 29, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I can't check for you, but you can check for yourself soon enough.
..... or not. Fundies always leave that part out on account of they figure they've got everything figured out.

Good morning.
KAB

United States

#109264 Jan 29, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
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
Thanks for the references. As they note,

"The tetragram is generally believed to have been pronounced Yahweh"

“YHWH (probably pronounced ‘Yahweh’), the most significant name for God in the Old Testament"

You gotta love data, right?
KAB

United States

#109265 Jan 29, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean like the flood? The earth and plants before the sun? Confirmed stuff like that?
The flood has not been confirmed with physical data, and the Bible does not require that plants appear before the sun was created.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#109266 Jan 29, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The flood has not been confirmed with physical data...
More than that, it has been refuted.
KAB wrote:
...and the Bible does not require that plants appear before the sun was created.
Require? What the hell does that mean? It says what it says.

Plants: Day 3
Sun: Day 4

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#109267 Jan 29, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>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. <quoted text>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!!!<quoted text>They don't even believe it!!!
Gravity isn't random, therefore it's directed, therefore intelligent falling.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#109268 Jan 29, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The flood has not been confirmed with physical data, and the Bible does not require that plants appear before the sun was created.
How cold is the Earth if the sun is not visible anywhere?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#109269 Jan 29, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The flood has not been confirmed with physical data, and the Bible does not require that plants appear before the sun was created.
The time to accept a claim (a global year-long miles-deep flood occurred 4500 years ago) is when there is sufficient evidence to support it, and not a second before. Your secret subjective criteria for determining reliability of a source is an invalid form of "evidence." Evidence is demonstrable. You've already admitted that you can't demonstrate the reliability of the Bible, nor determine the reliability of any other source using the same secret subjective criteria, so your "evidence" is nothing.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109270 Jan 29, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Just rootin, tootin, shooten, and refuten, there sister!!!

Yea, she was. And no cogent response from yourself.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109271 Jan 29, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>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!!!!

Ah, caps. You must have a strong argument.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109272 Jan 29, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
It's called planet Mercury.
Go and arrest it.

It is really amazing. How many times have we explained the nature of a scientific law to him? And he still does not get it.

It boggle da mind.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109273 Jan 29, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
DAMM you Einstein!!!
>:-(

Actually, it was known that Mercury violated Newton's law even before Einstein. It was one of the things that piqued Einsteins curiosity and got him working on the subject.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109274 Jan 29, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
And here we have proof positive of Marky's dishonesty.
It has been explained to him many times that Darwin himself wrote that evolution would not always proceed at a fixed pace. He was even given the *exact* quotes by myself and others. Now he's trying to bullshit his way through another idiot argument that PE was a recent idea. While Darwin didn't use that term, he did state the concept.
Liar, liar, pants on fire, Marky!

Quite correct. Also, Darwin never claimed to have discovered all there was that could ever be known about evolution. The facts collected supported PE.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109275 Jan 29, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for the references. As they note,
"The tetragram is generally believed to have been pronounced Yahweh"
“YHWH (probably pronounced ‘Yahweh’), the most significant name for God in the Old Testament"
You gotta love data, right?

Is that all you got out of that?

My earlier posts on the subject had more references, but this is adequate to end the discussion.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#109276 Jan 29, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
YOU GUYS DON'T HAVE NOTHING!!!!
Correct, Mr Double Negative. We have evidence.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#109277 Jan 29, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>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.<quoted text>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!!!
Wrong again Marky. Creationism cannot explain all sorts of things, if they could there might actually be a THEORY of Creationism. They cannot explain the fossil record, they cannot explain nested hierarchies. They cannot explain ERV's. I could go on but I figure it is three strikes and you are out.

Now as to your things that evolution "cannot" explain:

Irreducible complexity. Hmm, you might have an argument, in reality all you are stating is "you can't explain this" and you forget the extremely important word that should follow "yet". Idiots like you have tended to pick problems that they thought were inexplicable using evolution only to find out that since it takes several years AFTER a problem is discovered for it to be solved, and since the popular press is usually several years behind the research, the problem has been solved or is solved very shortly after IDiots present their claim. Evolution of the the immune system, claimed in court by Behe to be "irreducibly complex", solved. He was surround be a literal fortress of papers and books that explained how it was solved. The rotator flagellum, solved. Eye evolution, solved. All of these so called "irreducibly complex" problems have been solved. Today that is taken as the boy who cried "wolf". He has cried it so often that no one pays any attention to him anymore.

The anthropic principal is a tautology at best and does not prove anything.

Oops, matter has been observed to create itself. There are several experiments and tests that show it happening. Google search the Casimir effect for one.

So you still have nothing. What a surprise. Call me when you do.
KAB

United States

#109278 Jan 29, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>In other words, you are claiming to know the one true religion and by coincidence it just happens to be yours.
I can't remember, did I mention being tired of you. Well that was last week. Today is another day. I am still tired but I am willing to make some effort.
That's it. Done now.
Perhaps some background regarding the order of events will prove helpful in forming your perception. I was not born into my present religion. It has been acquired by long term continuing comprehensive study of both the physical and spiritual world. In short, there is no coincidence involved. I have chosen my religion because it is what has proven to be not in conflict with confirmed data, physical and documentary.
KAB

United States

#109279 Jan 29, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The whole idea that the Supreme Being and Master of the Universe, actually has a "real name" made of noises vocalised from created vocal chords into the created ear to have an impact only on created material eardrums is just kind of absurd. Sort of primitive, superstition magic spell level thinking right at its core.
Tell you what, if I decided to call God Wallabogiemunchkin but still observed the right attitude to the one and only Wallabogiemunchkin just as the Bible or the Quran demanded, would that make ANY difference at all to the Supreme Being?
The "name" (identifier) stems from a concept not sounds, just as the concept of ignorance is not a word or sound, but we give it a label so we can handily talk about it. If I don't use a recognized label, discussion and clear communication involving the concept becomes more difficult.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#109280 Jan 29, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I don't care what people think. Now.....BACK TO THE TOPIC!!!
I doubt whether you even know what the topic is about!
All you have been doing is shifting goalposts and trhowing in aunt sallies (a.k.a. strawmen) that we do not refute because you do!
The rest and particularly Kittenkoder, apparently understands that this is what bringing up and refuting a deflection is about and therefore called strawmen.
It leads away from the actual topic or discussion point, and is introduced for that purpose. But is thus irrelevant and hides ignorance or demonstrates the incapabiity to concede a point to the other party.

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) 1 hr Subduction Zone 57,829
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Eagle 12 27,234
News Intelligent Design Education Day 4 hr replaytime 2
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 5 hr replaytime 219,597
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 10 hr Dogen 1,749
News Betsy DeVos' Code Words for Creationism Offshoo... Feb 16 scientia potentia... 1
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) Feb 15 bofo 1,756
More from around the web