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 (Page 5,364)

Showing posts 107,261 - 107,280 of133,974
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109301
Jan 29, 2013
 
MAAT wrote:
Naming was giving things existence in the days of yore

Giving existence and also giving a means of controlling.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109302
Jan 29, 2013
 
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
If you collected $.25 from every person that really cared about this subject, you still wouldn't have enough to buy a cup of coffee.

Have not seen you around much lately, DS. Your more active presence is missed.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109303
Jan 29, 2013
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but do you not know how to admit you're wrong?
I can easily admit when I'm wrong, WHEN I AM WRONG!!
marksman11

Asheville, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109304
Jan 29, 2013
 
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Classic.
You now going to try and defend your idiotic comments that birds manipulate gravity?
That is your boy lowell guy. He's the one that says the law of gravity is violated all the time!!!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109305
Jan 29, 2013
 
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I can easily admit when I'm wrong, WHEN I AM WRONG!!

You are wrong again.

Your being wrong is a virtual given.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109306
Jan 29, 2013
 
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I can easily admit when I'm wrong, WHEN I AM WRONG!!
I accept that as an admission that you have spent three years being WRONG. Finally, we have opened your eyes. No need to thank us. It was a pleasure. Looks like our work is done on this thread.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109307
Jan 29, 2013
 
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>That is your boy lowell guy. He's the one that says the law of gravity is violated all the time!!!

Good example. You are wrong about that and have not admitted it.

The law of gravity is violated every second of every day by the planet Mercury.

There are countless violations of nearly every "Law" that you can name.

If you understood what the word "Law" meant in science and the limitations of that term you would understand why this must be so.

But you never will since you do not want to learn.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109308
Jan 29, 2013
 
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
It would be more accurate to say, as I did, that if there is a selective advantage, and a way for it to happen that does not compromise the system, then any mutation that removes a useless feature (or adds to a useful one) will be selected. That's all.
It almost seems that mutations and selection can perform miracles!!It might seem more "real" if it wasn't for the fact that most mutations are neutral or fatal to the system. Sorry, I just don't have enough faith to be an evolutionist.
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I took the liberty of putting these related quotes together though they appear at different places in your post.
No problem my friend.
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Firstly, I do not have to show how matter creates mind in order to validate evolution. Its an interesting question. Put it this way - even if you have a soul and even if its immortal, and even if God put the universe in place and the first life, the evidence that you evolved is still overwhelming.
That is your tail, I sit on mine. There is no evidence for human from non-human evolution that isn't better explained by creationism, plus creationism explains the mysteries that human from non-human evolution can not answer. Like the mystery of the origin of life, information found in DNA, consciousness, and extreme biological complexity..
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
YOu are making two mistakes. The first you are making is in challenging an entire world view (materialism), not a specific scientific theory.
I am challenging both because naterialism is a flawed philosophy and due to this flaw leaves evolution , as weak and unconvincing as it is, as the only alternative, when one steps out of the flawed philosophy of materialism, then the world opens up to the truth and much better and logical explanations..
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>The second is the false argument that unless we can explain EVERYTHING, we cannot explain ANYTHING. That is not how science works.
I'm not saying that. I agree you don't have to have all the answers to accept something, but that is not what is happening. What we are dealing with is not what we don't know, it's what we do know. And we know that random mutations, haphazard without aim or method mutations, can produce the complexity we observe in reality. It's not accepting things we don't know, but accepting things that appear to be totally wrong, and accepting them anyway because you abore the alternative..
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Anyway, reversing the order explains nothing. Where does mind come from? If there is God, why is there God rather than nothing at all? You answer ultimate causes just as blankly as any materialist.
That is because I have the luxury of being comfortable in a belief that is faith based. Something else you guys hate
marksman11

Asheville, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109309
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!
I don't care how long it has been around, or who laid claim to it. It has never been observed and is a psuedoscientific fantasy.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109310
Jan 29, 2013
 
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? You are going to base your version of reality and everything inside and out of it on a couple pages of primitive stories as handed down in tribal legends and then claim that you have some vastly superior insight of a universe that is over 93,000,000,000 light years across and over 13,000,000,000 years old. I don't care if you are a YEC or OEC - it makes not a whit or jot of difference which goatskin tent you choose pitch in the creationist camp.
Being theologically bigoted against critical thinking and objectivity gives you no advantage (much less a monopoly!) over being able to read or understand the NIV, KJV or any other printing of the books of the Bible.
The thread title is "It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in evolution debate." The Bible has nothing relevant to contribute to this topic besides willful and wanton ignorance.
You believe that, but as for me, I'll believe....

Psalms 118
8 It is better to take refuge in the Lord
than to trust in humans.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109311
Jan 29, 2013
 
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
Impossible. Conciousness dies with the body. Nobody gets to check on anything after death.
I bet you can't prove that.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109312
Jan 29, 2013
 
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
..... or not. Fundies always leave that part out on account of they figure they've got everything figured out.
Good morning.
Good morning....
marksman11

Asheville, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109313
Jan 29, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Why? Why can these things not be a part of how GOD created them, and you have misinterpreted their existence?
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
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".
But that is wishful thinking, an evolutionists hope, but it is not current science.
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text> 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.
Then you have support for your philosophy. Currently, that support does not exist.
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text> 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.
You can present lots of things claiming "this or that" could have happened, but you have nothing observable to say it did. Is it impossible that GOD designed the immune system to do what the immune system does? The fact is, you can't even account for your belief of why the immune system exists at all!!
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text> The rotator flagellum, solved. Eye evolution, solved. All of these so called "irreducibly complex" problems have been solved.
No they haven't. You've never seen evolution produce an eye. You've never observed a human that evolved from a non=human. You say these things are solved, but that is just dishonest. Show me observable evidence where evolution produced the origin of a bacterial flagellum. I bet you can't.
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
The anthropic principal is a tautology at best and does not prove anything.
It solidly suggests that a creative designer designed this universe in such a balance that it is viable for human existence.
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
The Casmir effect produces a force, not matter.

"the Casimir effect manifests itself as a force between such objects"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109314
Jan 29, 2013
 
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I don't care how long it has been around, or who laid claim to it. It has never been observed and is a psuedoscientific fantasy.
Actually it has been observed. In the laboratory, in the field, and i the fossil record. You can deny it as much as you like, but until you come up with something you have lost this debate since the courts have always said evolution wins since the one win creationists had in the Scopes trial.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109315
Jan 29, 2013
 
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Thanks for your "irrelevant" contribution to the debate on Creationism vs. Evolution....NOT!!
marksman11

Asheville, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109316
Jan 29, 2013
 
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I accept that as an admission that you have spent three years being WRONG.
Oh...please do!!!(shakes head)
KAB

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109317
Jan 29, 2013
 
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
I gave you the verses. It *is* what is written. Explain yourself.
I did explain, but you either didn't comprehend or weren't paying attention. I commend you for providing the verses, and as you note, THAT is what is written, although even it is a translation of the original. What you gave other than that is your understanding of what the verses mean. You seemingly think that yours is the only understanding, and that betrays a weakness in your grasp of language mechanics. If you check with someone who is good with language, they will tell you that, in general, expressions have more than one possible meaning. When you start allowing for that you will have made a significant advance in your language skills, but it comes at the cost of loosening your grip on your bias. Restrictive use of language is an immediate and consistent sign of bias. In contrast, I also gave an understanding of the meaning, but I recognize that yours is another possibility except that it is out of harmony with other data, so why would one choose that possibility when it isn't necessary? Understand now?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109318
Jan 29, 2013
 
Marky, the Casimir effect is produced by the difference in matter produced between the plates and not between the plates. Or did you miss that part of the explanation?
KAB

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109319
Jan 29, 2013
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow. An admission of apologetics.
If that's what you call allowing for more than one meaning of something. It's better characterized as objective handling of language, however. Thus, we can call failure to make such allowance bias which apparently is your admission.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109320
Jan 29, 2013
 
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
However, circumstantial evidence shows the mind is dependent on the body, not vice versa. The only place we see intelligence is in living brains.
Ok, but what about DNA, which is a coded language? DNA is not intelligent, but How you you explain a non-intelligent cause like evolution, fabricating something that is as complex as a language, which produces intelligent information? Show me a complex language in nature that is observed originating from unintelligent natural causes. Also, I don't know that the mind requires a body. I'm not so sure that the mind, consciouness, and the soul are not pretty close to the same thing. I may be wrong but I don't think this is knowable. If I am correct, the soul/mind does not demand a body. In fact, hospice litrature suggests that the dying experience is the mind/soul trying to rid itself of this heavy body.
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
If you have ever seen Alzheimers patients, you can see that the elements of their mind degenerate according to decay of the brain.
I understand, but I had a good friend whos name was Tim Rice. He had a genetic disease called Wilsons Disease which left his body unable to process copper. He had copper deposits on his brain and he was a physical and mental vegetable. I used to go and visit him every monday. Then due to prayer, a miracle, meds, or for some reason....he returned to normal over night. I asked him about the mental part, and he was worse than an ALZ patient I've ever seen, and he replied that he was aware, but could not respond normally. So we don't know that that isn't the case with ALZ. So you can't say that the mind is the problem, but the problem just may be the inability to respond. I did that once in a respiratory test once. I was aware of everything, but could not respond.
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>

Or in brain damage victims there can be huge losses of particular mental abilities and personality changes. How would a separate soul account for that?
I don't know that they are separate. There are strange things that mentally happen we can't explain. It has been a long long time, but I have experience Deja vu. I personally don't know if the mind and soul are the same thing, but I don't think there is anyone else tha knows either.
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text> The evidence certainly suggests mind arises from brain, even if we cannot explain precisely how.
There is also evidence saying otherwise. Some may be fabricated, or maybe not. I'm skeptical, but who knows?

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 107,261 - 107,280 of133,974
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
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.

•••
•••