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

There are 141345 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.

marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109420 Jan 30, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>In the same way that the Casimir effect creates matter on a small scale the start of our universe began on a gigantic scale.
Here watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =EjaGktVQdNgXX
Well, I watched 17 minutes of it and he is full of crap. 1....he stated, "which disagreed with his theory because it wasn't observable, which used to bother scientists in the old days.".2.... we are made from star dust, and we wouldn't exist without exploding stars. As if GOD is unable to produce hydrogen...etc. 3....there is life else where in the universe!! Then I quit watching because he's just throwing out BS. He gave the origin of the universe down to decimal points. Yeah, right. If you'll notice, everything he was spouting was a claim that is impossible to emperically disprove. Just claims, like....."Underground on Mars is a species of half human half cyborg life forms that have been there 2.4 million years." That claim is no less ignorant that what Krauss is falsely spreading!! Obviously he is nothing new, but thanks for posting.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109421 Jan 30, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Failed analogy.
Are you kidding? You really don't think it takes intelligence to fabricate a molecule that is incoded with a language that expresses valid and extremely complex information?
Why am I asking you what you think of intelligence?? How would you know?
marksman11But it is somet

Asheville, NC

#109422 Jan 30, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>

I do not see creationism explaining the succession of increasingly human and less apelike forms we find in the fossil record over the last 4 million years.
You shouoldn't see "increasing human and less apelike" at all. We are not decinded from apes according to you guys. That is why they changed that to we both had a "common ancester"......what ever that means. I've never even seen a claim of what that common ancester even was. It's just another one of thos BS claims evolutionists spout out!
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
However, once you understand something, it becomes common sense. It seems natural to me that moving things keep moving until something stops them, for example, and it makes sense to me that life must evolve given what we know about mutation and natural selection.
I see you know even less about perpetual motion than you do evolution.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#109423 Jan 30, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Well, I watched 17 minutes of it and he is full of crap. 1....he stated, "which disagreed with his theory because it wasn't observable, which used to bother scientists in the old days.".2.... we are made from star dust, and we wouldn't exist without exploding stars. As if GOD is unable to produce hydrogen...etc. 3....there is life else where in the universe!! Then I quit watching because he's just throwing out BS. He gave the origin of the universe down to decimal points. Yeah, right. If you'll notice, everything he was spouting was a claim that is impossible to emperically disprove. Just claims, like....."Underground on Mars is a species of half human half cyborg life forms that have been there 2.4 million years." That claim is no less ignorant that what Krauss is falsely spreading!! Obviously he is nothing new, but thanks for posting.
Wrong Marky. He made claims that you could not empirically disprove. If he was wrong other physicists could.

You stopped listening to him because his knowledge threatens your foolish beliefs.
marksman11But it is somet

Asheville, NC

#109424 Jan 30, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>

There is nothing to abhor in the idea of loving God or taking responsibility for one's sins or gratitude for one's existence. So what is it that we abhor, exactly? Have you asked yourself that?
I don't know why either but it is obvious that the religious beliefs of christians in this forum are attacked with hatered. They berate and attack the name of the one I consider my LORD and Savior. It doesn't bother me at all, because they are the ones who are going to give an account of their disrespect given him. Not me. I think that is what they know, and what they dread.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#109425 Jan 30, 2013
Marky, you also lost the right to dispute the claim that the universe came from nothing. If you won't look at powerful evidence for it all you have to work with is willful ignorance, a very weak tool.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#109426 Jan 30, 2013
marksman11But it is somet wrote:
<quoted text>I don't know why either but it is obvious that the religious beliefs of christians in this forum are attacked with hatered. They berate and attack the name of the one I consider my LORD and Savior. It doesn't bother me at all, because they are the ones who are going to give an account of their disrespect given him. Not me. I think that is what they know, and what they dread.
Are they attacking and berating God or are they attacking your mistaken beliefs in God? I don't think any deity would mind the latter.

By the way, what evidence do you have that your god is the correct one? Why not the god of the Koran, or of the Hindus, or best of all why not the Flying Spaghetti Monster. He has the best heaven of all, the God of the Christian Bible is one of the worst of all heavens, Hell sounds preferable to many.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#109427 Jan 30, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
You believe a lot of things that are wrong because you are ignorant of the evidence against it.
Just following the evidence. Got any? Your desperate need for an afterlife in no way demonstrates that such exists.

Lacking evidence, your "knowing" is no different from pretending.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#109428 Jan 30, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
You believe a lot of things that are wrong because you are ignorant of the evidence against it.
Also... Tortured grammar aside, your statement is HILARIOUS coming from YOU.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#109429 Jan 30, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
THanks but I don't have an hour to waste right now. Maybe later, but Richard Dawkins.....really.......one of the most biased, and hate filled evolutionists there is?
In earlier posts you've used the term "ad hominem" without knowing what it meant. Your statement above is a PERFECT example.
marksman11But it is somet

Asheville, NC

#109430 Jan 30, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The comparison between DNA and human language is an analogy, and it falls down at the critical point.
Any human language is ultimately an arbitrary code. There is no actual relation between the sound RED and the colour we assign to that word. Could as easily be ROUGE or even blubgump. The only reason that sound has meaning is because we agree it does. Thus language is abstract and symbolic. It needs a conscious entity interpreting it to mean anything.
The DNA "code" on the other hand is simply a physical template. The base sequence AAA will cause the amino acid Lysine to attach to the sequence. Why? Not because someone decided AAA MEANS Lysine, but simply because its the right chemical bond. It fits. The other amino acids like proline do not.
You cannot decide that from now on that proline will stick to ATT instead, the way a teenager can decide "sick" means "cool" which means "really good" which means "bad!". That is the difference. Human language is abstract, arbitrary symbolism, while DNA is nothing more than a physical template.
Sorry, but I just see that as a long, although nice, dodge....because you didn't get the point. You are trying to tell me that random biology can produce information!! How can you explain that? Even you stated....

"It needs a conscious entity interpreting it to mean anything."

Again, you are saying that random mutations can not only create information, but that random mutations can produce a consciousness that can interpret and experience this information, and then EXPRESS IT'S MEANING!!! Do you see how silly the materialists arguments are getting?
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>

I am happy for your friend. Fortunately for him, that would suggest that the brain matter was not actually destroyed but its activity was being impeded by the copper. In Alzheimers, brain tissue is progressively destroyed. Now, when an old man does not even recognise his wife or know he was ever married to her, that cannot be "inability to act on his thoughts". Its a destruction of his memory records, and suggests that the memories were within the destroyed brain, not floating above it somehow.
Likewise there have been documented radical changes in personality following brain damage. Also loss of thing like the ability to even imagine 3-D space, the inability to perceive something as above, below, or behind something else. Now that would be weird...
But the point is, if I took away your memories, and your personality, and even your ability to conceive things, what is left of Marksman? His "soul"?
Excellent point. Nicely stated and like I originally said, I really don't know the difference, that the mind and soul might or might not be the same. You make a good point that they may not be reality. I certainly don't know, but I think it still possible they are entwined as if one is, if this is even possible, "biological thought" and the soul is spiritual. That the biological thought can desolve, as the soul rides along until the end. That may be terribly wrong, and I freely admit I don't know, but I think the larger point is even if the mind deteriorates, is it possible for matter, unaided over time, to produce a mind, consciousness, and self awareness? I say, NO WAY! Not even close!
On the side, even though I disagree, nice post. I wish most posts were like yours!!
marksman11But it is somet

Asheville, NC

#109431 Jan 30, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
|-0 As if you would even have a clue as to what lord!
You use a mismatched non-sensical translation that if filled with christian ideological crap to sell jesus.
And we are having this stupid off-topic conversation precisely because of the interpretation christians have.
So we should be discussing ancient darwinism versus modern ideas, or stick to some mutually agreed upon yardstick.
That probably arose because creationist are too clueless to talk and understand the differences. Nor are they up to scratch with the developments.
I started this thread and will discuss whatever I want to. You can do the same, but you don't have any authority over what i can or can't post. Also, you need to understand, you are not my authority on what the bible is or says. I know that is crushing to you, but you're going to have to live with it.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#109432 Jan 30, 2013
marksman11But it is somet wrote:
I see you know even less about perpetual motion than you do evolution.
You're a big fan of "laws". Look at Newton's 1st.

You seem to never tire of being wrong (and refusing to acknowledge as much).
marksman11But it is somet

Asheville, NC

#109433 Jan 30, 2013
MAAT wrote:
.marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>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.
end quote
And the fifth commandment states to honour thou father and mother to live happy all thy days.
But it says nothing about a wife.
So are you now supposed to have it on with the two you should honour to live happily ever after!
The example comes from scottish prose, that was a written language only way past the 17th century.
Are you drinking? I have no idea what you are even attempting to communicate.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#109434 Jan 30, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
I don't know why either but it is obvious that the religious beliefs of christians in this forum are attacked with hatered. They berate and attack the name of the one I consider my LORD and Savior.
You're not attacked for your beliefs so much as your pig-headed arrogance.
marksman11 wrote:
It doesn't bother me at all, because they are the ones who are going to give an account of their disrespect given him. Not me. I think that is what they know, and what they dread.
If it didn't bother you, you wouldn't need to pretend that your imaginary God is going to get even with people that don't agree with you.
marksman11But it is somet

Asheville, NC

#109435 Jan 30, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
We don't hate it. We just think it silly.
Then why won't you admit your faith based beliefs when it is so obvious they exist? You believe that humans evolved from non-humans even though it isn't observable, testable, or replicatable. You believe the scientific interpretation of the fossil record supports human from non-human evolution, even though fossils can not provide info on heredity. You believe that lifeless matter can, without the help of an intelligence produce a mind, consciousness, and the ability to process information and respond to it, to the point of self awareness. You believe all these things, and you have to employ faith to do so.
I can already hear the , "well....not yets".....but the fact is, it requires faith to accept them because these "not yet's" may never occur!!
marksman11But it is somet

Asheville, NC

#109436 Jan 30, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Leave the goal posts where they are, Marky. You were criticizing punctuated equilibrium accusing it to be a recently made up story to cover what you think was an anomaly in ToE. It was been proven that, as a concept, PE was first proposed by Darwin himself. It been here all along.
IOW, you are wrong. AGAIN!!!
"Punctuated equilibrium originated as a logical extension of Ernst Mayr's concept of genetic revolutions by allopatric and especially peripatric speciation as applied to the fossil record. Although some of the basic workings of the theory were proposed and identified by Mayr in 1954,[3] historians of science generally recognize the 1972 paper by Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould as the foundational document of the new paleobiological research program."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equil...
marksman11But it is somet

Asheville, NC

#109437 Jan 30, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
How typically obtuse.
Humans wrote Genesis. Humans taught you to read it. Humans rationalize, interpret and champion it. Humans taught you to believe it. Now you read and write about it, rationalize, interpret and champion it, believe it and try to teach it.
Yet all the while, nature (or "the Lord", comme vous s'il vous plaît) disproves it.
So who do you REALLY trust in over "the Lord?" Yourself.
Try again. You make no sense to me.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#109438 Jan 30, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
What happens if you decide there was no "Flood" and go looking for evidence supporting that? Also, you still didn't provide an example (quote me is best, so it can be verified) of MY thinking. Do you consider BYOS (Bring Your Own Strawman) posts to be particularly potent? If you had respectfully thought things thru you could have saved yourself this public exposure.
Each of us can either post things objectively and correctly and be accused of ignorance, or we can post as you are accustomed to and thus have our post be self-condemning.
No, the earliest geologists went looking FOR evidence of a Flood and found none. Much to their surprise as they tended to be young earth creationists like most people back then.

Since then, in over 200 years, not only has no evidence been found for a Flood, but lots of evidence has been found against one. As you have been told, with examples, for months now. Give it up already.
marksman11But it is somet

Asheville, NC

#109439 Jan 30, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong Marky. He made claims that you could not empirically disprove. If he was wrong other physicists could.
DUH?? Is that not what I just said. He spouted a bunch of BS that there is no way of proving< Such as life exists elsewhere in the universe.....says this BS with confidence, and the outcome is, to the intelligent skeptic, he looked stupid.
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You stopped listening to him because his knowledge threatens your foolish beliefs.
I stopped because I already had plenty to refute him, and not 40 more minutes of my life to waste on BS.

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 Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 11 min Charles Idemi 163,930
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 20 min thetruth 19,039
How can we prove God exists, or does not? 4 hr GTID62 81
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 22 hr UncommonSense2015 178,616
has science finally debunked the 'god' myth? Sun UncommonSense2015 10
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) Sun Chimney1 1,871
News British Ban Teaching Creationism As Science, Sh... (Jul '14) May 23 Swedenforever 159
More from around the web