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

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 ... Full Story
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109458 Jan 31, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
An "ape" is not a species, its a family of creatures. Gorillas, Chimps, and Orangutangs are all modern apes. Their ancestors were still apes, going back 25 million years when their ancestral line merged with monkeys (who have been around even longer).
We have found older species of apes (and monkeys)that no longer exist.
Around 6-7 million years ago, there was a species of ape that was geographically split for climatic reasons...and some of its descendants became the chimps and bonobos we see today, while others became the family of hominids that we see in the fossil record. And today, our own species is literally the "last man standing" of that group of species.
See?That is why the whole thing seems extremely made up, contrived, decieving, and contradictory. We are told that we did not desend from apes, but that we have a common ancestor, while you tell me, "Around 6-7 million years ago, there was a species of ape....[edited for brevity] And today, our own species is literally the "last man standing" of that group of species". Se the contradiction?
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, my apologies. I assumed you were about to refer to "perpetual motion machines" which are impossible.
Absolutely no problem.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#109459 Jan 31, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
Are you agreeing that there is an intelligent designer?
Of course not. Just pulling your chain.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109460 Jan 31, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe he said it is highly likely that life exists elsewhere in the universe.
No he did not. Go look between the 13 and 17 minute mark.
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>Since we know that life appeared and evolved here naturally
No...you don't know that!
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text> why do you think it would not happen elsewhere?
Because there is zero scientific evidence that it did!!!
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text> Even if you are a big enough of an idiot to believe the Genesis myth do you think that God would make uncounted billions upon billions of planets without putting life on some of them?
GOD can do what GOD wants to do. Your opinion of it is irrelvant. I thought you guys "DEMAND SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE BEFORE I'LL BELIEVE IT!!!!" Well, shuck my britches and take a bait of faith!!!
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
It seems that you are projecting again. You know that you are a bullshitting idiot and assume that everyone else is too.
Sorry, your failures are not their failures.
No, I'm not, and there are others here I don't believe are. You? Yeah, you are!! If you weren't you could defend your views without ad hominems, but you can't.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109461 Jan 31, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe he said it is highly likely that life exists elsewhere in the universe.
He was talking about supernovas and he said that in the heavens you picked out a spot the size of a dime, within that scope would be 100,000 galaxes. Within that 100,000 galaxes you would observe 10 super novas per night. THe universe is huge and old and rare things happen all the time, including life.

16:15 mark. Boy, some scientist he is. Claiming life exists on other planets!!! NO NO NO NO.....YOU GUYS TAKE NOTHING ON FAITH!!!

The sad part is is that there are people out there that fall for this lie and BS, just like you have.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109462 Jan 31, 2013
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course not. Just pulling your chain.
Don't you find it sad that you have to do that? That you have to agree with me in an attempt to support your views, and then reject your own views when you were finely getting at least in the ball park. Well, maybe you will accept the enlightenment one day.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#109463 Jan 31, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
Don't you find it sad that you have to do that? That you have to agree with me in an attempt to support your views, and then reject your own views when you were finely getting at least in the ball park.
I have no idea what you're trying to say.
marksman11 wrote:
Well, maybe you will accept the enlightenment one day.
My enlightenment with regards to Religion came a long time ago and resulted in my discarding a belief in God. I know what it's like to believe and what it's like to be skeptical. How about you?
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109464 Jan 31, 2013
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>

My enlightenment with regards to Religion came a long time ago and resulted in my discarding a belief in God. I know what it's like to believe and what it's like to be skeptical. How about you?
Absolutely. Why did you discard a belief in GOD? What if you found you were wrong. Would you return to your belief in him?
I don't believe you would, and let me tell you why. Faith in GOD, comes from a word that i'll probably misspell called Dunamus. It's where we get our word dynamite. You will never recieve personal revalation from GOD until you have enough faith (pistis) to act on your belief. When you act on that belief, the Holy Spirit that indwells you activates this "spiritual dynamite" within you and you finally "get it". THis enlightenment that only comes from GOD can not be given without an action taken in faith with confidence in what his word,(the bible) says. Psalms 118 says....

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

In your current state, to you that is rubbish. But to those that take action by taking refuge in the LORD, the LORD reveals himself to them in many many ways, and each time they trust in what he says, the more real, dynamic, and trustworthy he becomes. The trouble with you guys is that you are looking for a bearded man sitting behind the complaint desk to solve all your problems, but when you take refuge in him, he shows you that that isn't the way he works. John Kennedy said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." GOD is the same way, except he needs nothing from you. He's saying,"Ask not what I can do for you, but trust that you can do all things through trusting in me!" See the difference?
THe problem with you now is this. You refuse to do the trusting to get the ball rolling. Until you turn lose of all this other "junk" that the world offers, you'll never get it, and you're missing the ride of a lifetime, and eternity, because of it!!
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109465 Jan 31, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I watched the whole thing, and the further it went the more "out there" he got. It was obvious he had a strong hatred for religion, and conservatives, which has no place in a true scientific lecture. THere was no need for any of it. It just proved that his whole premise was more anti-religion than pro science. Next,....He hit the make believe really hard. That there were thousands of possible other universes, and proclaiming life elsewhere in the universe was a surity. HIs whole explanation on string theory was a literal joke, and that was it!! It wasn't even a good argument, and had absolutely nothing to do with human from non-human evolution, but thanks for posting there star dust!!

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#109466 Jan 31, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>No, knowledge grows from observation, testing, and replication. PE was needed to explain the Cambrian Explosion, so it was fabricated, after years of claiming that evolution took vast eons of time, but then when it appeared in the Cambrian that more complex systems were being found without any evidence of a preceding ancestor, that "eons" were no longer tenable, that PE was fabricated. It wasn't discovered, or observed. It was fabricated to support a preconcieved conclusion of an unsupported philosophy.
Marksman, it does not matter how many times you repeat this baloney, PE was intrinsic to evolutionary theory from the start. End of story.

However, at the same time, there is nothing wrong scientifically with adding details to a theory if they increase its explanatory power, and the details are in line with observation, testing, and replication. PE certainly is.

So either way, you are wasting your time with this line of attack.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#109467 Jan 31, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>See?That is why the whole thing seems extremely made up, contrived, decieving, and contradictory. We are told that we did not desend from apes
We have ALWAYS maintained that humans evolved from an ape and we still do. We have ALWAYS maintained that the particular ape both we and chimps evolved from would not be like today's chimpanzees, as they have been evolving in the last 7 million years as well.

Its pretty simple if you think about it. Apes evolved from a species of monkey (but not the species we see today, that species is long gone). Yet there are still monkeys. Later, hominids evolved from a species of ape (but not the species we see today, that species is long gone). Yet there are still apes.

And I could go back to any evolutionary book from 10 years, 50 years, or 100 years before today and read essentially the same thing.
"Around 6-7 million years ago, there was a species of ape....[edited for brevity] And today, our own species is literally the "last man standing" of that group of species". Se the contradiction?
Take the ancestral species, Species X. Place it across a large chunk of Africa, 7 million years ago.

Now, as we can observe by the fossil record of the period, we see a climatic change and drying of the eastern part of Africa at that time, when jungles gave way to savanna (but remained as jungles in the wetter western part of the continent).

The population of Species X in the still jungle Western part were separated from those in the Eastern drier part. Being already jungle adapted, the Western population would not change as much. But those in the drier part did change, and adopted bipedalism as one of the first changes which set off a cascade of complementary changes. From then on, what had been Species X continue to diverge into two different branches.

One evolved towards today's Chimps and Bonobos (the ones that stayed in the Western jungles). The other became hominids, step by step transformed into us with many intermediates along the way that we can see in the fossil record.

None of this is contradictory or contrived or deceiving. It is supported by the fossil record, which clearly shows the convergence of hominid to more apelike forms as we go back in time.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#109468 Jan 31, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
I thought you guys "DEMAND SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE BEFORE I'LL BELIEVE IT!!!!"
You are referring to other life in the universe, right? Again you seem to whittle down to two current possible views instead of three:

1. There is life on other planets!

2. There is NO life on other planets!

Yet both views ignore the third, true skeptical position:

3. There may be life on other planets, we see no reason why it should be impossible, but as yet we have no evidence of it. i.e. We do not know.

We could argue all day how LIKELY it is or isn't but we really do not have the data to take a position. That does not mean we DON'T believe there is, or DO believe there is. It only means, we are open to the possibility.

And BTW, I see no reason why your Bible should exclude the possibility, either.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#109469 Jan 31, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>See?That is why the whole thing seems extremely made up, contrived, decieving, and contradictory. We are told that we did not desend from apes, but that we have a common ancestor, while you tell me, "Around 6-7 million years ago, there was a species of ape....[edited for brevity] And today, our own species is literally the "last man standing" of that group of species". Se the contradiction?
<quoted text>Absolutely no problem.
It only seems contradictory to you because you stick your fingers in your ears and don't listen to the explanations. As has been pointed out on numerous occasions, you refuse to learn.

When it is pointed out to you that there are "modern apes", which we are not descended from, and "extinct apes", some of which we ARE descended from...you ignore the distinction as to which is which. That is because, deep down, you WANT to be confused and not understand. That way you can still claim it sounds contradictory to you.

A sad, sad case of willful ignorance.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#109470 Jan 31, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You are referring to other life in the universe, right? Again you seem to whittle down to two current possible views instead of three:
1. There is life on other planets!
2. There is NO life on other planets!
Yet both views ignore the third, true skeptical position:
3. There may be life on other planets, we see no reason why it should be impossible, but as yet we have no evidence of it. i.e. We do not know.
We could argue all day how LIKELY it is or isn't but we really do not have the data to take a position. That does not mean we DON'T believe there is, or DO believe there is. It only means, we are open to the possibility.
And BTW, I see no reason why your Bible should exclude the possibility, either.
I see that Marky still displays only 2 state thinking...aka "everything is either black or white".

Sad, really. He has had plenty of exposure to thinking in shades of gray, yet he still can not grasp it. Perhaps it is something that must be learned at a young age and Marky is just too old to make the leap.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#109471 Jan 31, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
GOD can do what GOD wants to do. Your opinion of it is irrelvant.
Funny, I thought God could only do what Markie said it could do. And that meant no evolution no way no how, despite all the scientific evidence to the contrary.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109472 Jan 31, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Marksman, it does not matter how many times you repeat this baloney, PE was intrinsic to evolutionary theory from the start. End of story.
However, at the same time, there is nothing wrong scientifically with adding details to a theory if they increase its explanatory power, and the details are in line with observation, testing, and replication. PE certainly is.
So either way, you are wasting your time with this line of attack.
IF so, then it shouldn't be to hard to show me where PE has been observed, tested , and replicated. I'll be waiting.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#109473 Jan 31, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Acknowledgement of the multiple valid interpretation reality is sufficient for now.
You're conflating the Bible with reality.
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Please remember this whenever you are inclined to act as if your understanding of a passage is the only valid possibility.
And to borrow Chuck Idemi's phrase: likewise.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109474 Jan 31, 2013
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
It only seems contradictory to you because you stick your fingers in your ears and don't listen to the explanations. As has been pointed out on numerous occasions, you refuse to learn.
When it is pointed out to you that there are "modern apes", which we are not descended from, and "extinct apes", some of which we ARE descended from...you ignore the distinction as to which is which. That is because, deep down, you WANT to be confused and not understand. That way you can still claim it sounds contradictory to you.
A sad, sad case of willful ignorance.
Yeah, I'm ignorant because you guys say that the theory of human from non-human evolution says that we no longer think we are evolved from apes, but we share a common ancester with apes? Oh yeah? Well, what was that common ancester?

answer: an ape!!

And to you, when I say that is contradictory, your reply is, I'm ignorant? Well, you may be right, BUT I AIN'T THAT IGNORANT!!!!
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109475 Jan 31, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You are referring to other life in the universe, right? Again you seem to whittle down to two current possible views instead of three:
1. There is life on other planets!
2. There is NO life on other planets!
Yet both views ignore the third, true skeptical position:
3. There may be life on other planets, we see no reason why it should be impossible, but as yet we have no evidence of it. i.e. We do not know.
We could argue all day how LIKELY it is or isn't but we really do not have the data to take a position. That does not mean we DON'T believe there is, or DO believe there is. It only means, we are open to the possibility.
And BTW, I see no reason why your Bible should exclude the possibility, either.
I have no problem with anyone believing there is life on other planets. I do have a problem when a physics professor stands in a university or hall giving a science lecture, and concluding Jesus didn't die for you, but stars did, and saying that the universe is huge and rare things happen daily, including life. Then he becomes a liar for science. I hope there is life on other planets, but when the science minded materialists dogmatically say they don't incorporate faith in their philosophy, while lecturing that life orginates all the time in the cosmos, they are no less a liar than Lance Armstrong or Bill Clinton.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109476 Jan 31, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
We have ALWAYS maintained that humans evolved from an ape and we still do. We have ALWAYS maintained that the particular ape both we and chimps evolved from would not be like today's chimpanzees, as they have been evolving in the last 7 million years as well.
Its pretty simple if you think about it. Apes evolved from a species of monkey (but not the species we see today, that species is long gone). Yet there are still monkeys. Later, hominids evolved from a species of ape (but not the species we see today, that species is long gone). Yet there are still apes.
And I could go back to any evolutionary book from 10 years, 50 years, or 100 years before today and read essentially the same thing.
<quoted text>
Take the ancestral species, Species X. Place it across a large chunk of Africa, 7 million years ago.
Now, as we can observe by the fossil record of the period, we see a climatic change and drying of the eastern part of Africa at that time, when jungles gave way to savanna (but remained as jungles in the wetter western part of the continent).
The population of Species X in the still jungle Western part were separated from those in the Eastern drier part. Being already jungle adapted, the Western population would not change as much. But those in the drier part did change, and adopted bipedalism as one of the first changes which set off a cascade of complementary changes. From then on, what had been Species X continue to diverge into two different branches.
One evolved towards today's Chimps and Bonobos (the ones that stayed in the Western jungles). The other became hominids, step by step transformed into us with many intermediates along the way that we can see in the fossil record.
None of this is contradictory or contrived or deceiving. It is supported by the fossil record, which clearly shows the convergence of hominid to more apelike forms as we go back in time.
To think that the fossil records records that is silly. For one, I don't think anyone really knows much about anything that happened 7 million years ago. We don't even know who built the Great Pyramid a few thousand years ago.2...fossils don't give heritage. All they can do is show that something once existed. 3....interpretations can be wrong, intentionally biased, mistakenly indentified, or executed in biased overkill. What we observe for ever is people giving birth to people, and apes giving birth to apes, and to say otherwise is ok, but it is philosophy and not science.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#109477 Jan 31, 2013
marksman11But it is somet wrote:
<quoted text>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!<quoted text>I see you know even less about perpetual motion than you do evolution.
Hilarious!

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
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 13 min FREE SERVANT 142,874
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 3 hr Charles Idemi 963
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr One way or another 14,710
Why natural selection can't work 13 hr shaun2000 29
Why Are There No Transitional Animals Today? (Mar '09) Fri dirtclod 801
Last ditch bid to ban creationism in Scottish c... Thu paul porter 3
Stephen King: Universe 'Suggests Intelligent De... (May '13) Wed Kong_ 455
More from around the web