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

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

There are 154689 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.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#109483 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.
You've already been proven wrong several times over. Give it up.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#109484 Jan 31, 2013
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Marky: "Where's the line??? There has to be a LINE!"

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#109485 Jan 31, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>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!!!!
Yeah, you really are.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#109486 Jan 31, 2013
marksman11But it is somet wrote:
<quoted text>Try again. You make no sense to me.
How typically obtuse.
Almost every single one of your biblical claims has been shown to be erroneous, unsupported or just plain fanciful, but you can't afford to man up and face those inconsistencies because you think your God is offended by... what? Questions, curiosity, investigation? Evidence, answers, knowledge?
In fact, you do not acknowledge or honor God nearly as much as you worship a BOOK. You have been urged over and over again to be honest with yourself and others. Are you such a damaged little puppet of HUMAN CREATED RELIGION that you are constitutionally incapable of discerning righteousness from incorrigibility?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#109487 Jan 31, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>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.
I haven't seen the lecture you are referring to but I have never seen a lecture where a physics professor said "Jesus didn't die for you".

And since a star is not alive, it cannot die in any literal sense, though perhaps in a poetic one.

We do know that when stars go supernova they explode - we see that all the time. We also know that in the period prior, they develop into a superhot high pressure state where the fusion of heavier elements occurs, and that second generation star systems that develop from these remains, blown out into space, are therefore rich in heavier elements such as oxygen and iron etc. None of this is controversial in science.

A physics lecturer stating confidently that life must exist on other planets is perhaps jumping to conclusions, which I bet are based on the following assessment:

1. Life appeared on earth, where the conditions were right, not long after the Earth's formation.

2. ASSUMING that it was a natural process, this should indicate that the process is going to happen more than once given the right conditions.

3. As there are 10^24 star systems in the known universe, its highly likely that what could happen on earth could happen on billions of other planets even if the "right conditions" are relatively rare.

As a skeptical critic, you would be right in pointing out that number (2) above is only a speculation at this time and not proven and number (3) depends on accepting number (2).

He would be stating an opinion, though I would not call that lying unless he claimed it was a fact, rather than just highly likely in his view.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109488 Jan 31, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>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!!



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.

Humm.... seems you did not accept the challenge at all. You cannot disprove. So you go on this little opinion rant.

Give evidence to support. If you can.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109489 Jan 31, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>IF so, then it shouldn't be to hard to show me where PE has been observed, tested , and replicated. I'll be waiting.

There are 103 articles on PubMed alone.

Wikipedia has 72 references.

Remember, PE came about BECAUSE OF OBSERVATIONS of the fossil record. So it IS an OBSERVED PHENOMENA.

I don't think you are getting that.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109490 Jan 31, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>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!!!!


Actually, both are true.

All apes belong to the taxonomic classification of superfamily Hominoidea.

"Great Apes", of which we are one, are the family Hominidae.

The subfamily Homininae includes: Homo (human lineage), Pan (Chimps) and Gorilla.

What we have not identified (for certain) is exactly where Pan and Homo split. These are difficult to find as one needs to find something from a precise time and from a limited population. We may never find the fossil that fits that just from simple pragmatic reasons. However, we do have genetics. With genetics (Molecular clock, ERVs, Epigenetics, Mutation trail, Cyt-C, Sequencing, Chromosome #2....) the evidence is conclusive.

http://www.astro.umd.edu/~miller/teaching/ast...


“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109491 Jan 31, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>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.

From a statistical standpoint he is right. I would need an exact quote to judge his comment about Jesus, but the rest is accurate to the very best of our knowledge. If life does not happen all the time in the universe then we have missed something big.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109492 Jan 31, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> 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.

Actually, we do know about who built the Great Pyramid, who commissioned it, Egyptian heritage of the labor force (via DNA).
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> 2...fossils don't give heritage. All they can do is show that something once existed.

This has been debunked by myself and many others here. And even if we did not have a fossil record we do have the genomic record. We have some of the sequences as FISH!
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> 3....interpretations can be wrong, intentionally biased, mistakenly indentified, or executed in biased overkill.

Yes, that is a good description of your opinions. But you have never understood what happens in science. "Opinion" could be considered an early stage of a hypothesis, but testing turns opinion to empirically supported or refuted.
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> 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.

This is your opinion based on your lack of knowledge of the subject. Genetic evidence is "observable". The fossil record is observable. The truth is a plain as the nose on your face (presuming you have one). But you cannot find it with your head buried in the sand.
KAB

United States

#109493 Jan 31, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Evidence of arid conditions for the past 10,000+ years with NO rainfall in any part of the world entirely precludes the possibility of your 4500 years ago global flood. Likewise, no evidence of genetic bottlenecks in 100% of all extant species tracing back to 4500 years ago entirely precludes the possibility of your flood story being true. There is only one option: the global flood didn't happen as described 4500 years ago. There is 0% wiggle room in either, and the latter is absolutely necessary for the story to be true. No such universal 4500 year bottleneck, no Noah's ark. Beyond the evidence which incontrovertibly contradicts your flood story, you have no evidence for which the only realistic explanation is such a flood. You can't prove it true, AND it's been proven false. But, you won't let facts get in the way of your beliefs, because reality isn't nearly as important to you as your stories. If you could just admit that, it would be a rare bit of honesty from a creationist.
It's strange that you think there is 0% wiggle room in the assessment of either climatic or genetic history, and yet you think there's enough wiggle room in the assessment of Earth's shape that you think there's still a chance Earth is cubic in shape. Please explain.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109494 Jan 31, 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.

Nice job pretending to be objective. It might convince someone who had not read thousands of your posts.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109495 Jan 31, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks Doc. Bob suggested I should strive for transparency (corollary to honesty is the best policy).

LOL.

See last post.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109496 Jan 31, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It only takes one word to completely change what is already quite definitive without it. "Not" is the first example which comes to mind. Perhaps you could follow Bob's example. He likes to thrash around on the ground and fight to fish out a something real. Maybe that would work for you.

You forget to mention... one word in ONE quote.

Deceit, thy name is KAB.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109497 Jan 31, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
What if they find evidence for more than one possibility? Do they conclude that none, one, a subset of more than one, or all of the possibilities occurred? What if there is conclusive data proving Earth's shape is not cubic? What do they know is absolutely not possible then?

Yes.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109498 Jan 31, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>You believe a lot of things that are wrong because you are ignorant of the evidence against it.

You believe a lot of things that are wrong because you are ignorant of the evidence against it.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109499 Jan 31, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>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?

Correct.
Because she is smarter than you.
Because she is knowledgeable of science and you are not.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109500 Jan 31, 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.

No, that is not true. I never feel attacked for my Christian beliefs. I see Fundies being attacked for their scientific beliefs. It that what you are referring to?

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#109501 Jan 31, 2013
QUOTE who="Dogen"
Actually, we do know about who built the Great Pyramid, who commissioned it, Egyptian heritage of the labor force (via DNA).
end quote.
(I'll never learn how to work the quote blocks on this forum)
Several remarks to that.
It's still a matter of pride and tourism business to claim Egypts ancient history.
But that same history is phantomed out of circular reasoning and use of the bible. And that goes circular again: the phelest and moses can not have coinceded for we calculated that...
the hittite must have been only around from 1560 till...because (not going into that...it usually gives me a headache)
I stil recall the dating of the mills and bread factories of the workers.
Announced with great pooha by Zahi Hawass, to never be published since it came ever closer to 100O BC. Also thus the mere fact of having big bakeries not being attested till well into the new kingdom.
And if you look how big the breaks are, as in lack of material (fossils in another context) in between the kingdoms, and the greek list allways used, i would say it needs a mayor revision.
As Finkelstein did for Israel.
That some workers inscribed 'khufu symbol worker we build this', does not mean that the pharaos name was khufu (they wrote in in a royal cartouche as if they were royalty, so a joke)
But that would be the only clue.
And it is mindboggling that they never C dated the oldest statue.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#109502 Jan 31, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>You remember that if when you die and you stand before GOD, remind him that he gave you no evidence......ok?
Actually, if your god did turn out to be the one, he's probably going to be annoyed with suck ups and prefer the company of skeptics simply because we will be in the minority and won't be kissing his butt for favors.

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) 17 min Richardfs 48,556
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 3 hr Snap 216,714
Richard Dawkins tells the truth 8 hr Timmee 9
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 9 hr Into The Night 23,503
Science News (Sep '13) 14 hr _Susan_ 3,985
Might life have spontaneously have started mill... Sun The Northener 642
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) Dec 3 Aura Mytha 179,707
More from around the web