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 5,372)

Showing posts 107,421 - 107,440 of127,418
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
marksman11

Asheville, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109448
Jan 30, 2013
 
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, according to the science, we ARE descended from apes but not from a modern species of ape. They have been evolving too. The chimp is our closest cousin anatomically and genetically, our closest living relative. The common ancestor of both looked far more like a chimp because it was our ancestors, not chimps, that underwent radical environmental changes and with the emergence of bipedalism, a cascade of anatomical and behavioral changes.
See? That doesn't even make sense. We did not decend from apes, but we did from older apes? We both came from a common ancester that looked like a chimp but wasn't an ape.....See? It's really silly Chimney. Surely you can't believe your own words!!
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Good grief. I wasn't talking about perpetual motion. I was talking about momentum and inertia, fundamental qualities since Newton. In the absence of an opposing force, an object will remain in its existing state of motion forever. This is not the same thing as a perpetual motion machine, which is a contraption claimed to generate useful energy and keep going from no source in spite of the friction and thermodynamic losses acting on it.
"per·pet·u·al mo·tion

Noun

1.A state in which movement or action is or appears to be continuous and unceasing."

http://hp-notebook.us.msn.com/...

Granted, it had your defintion on the list, but this is the #1 definition, and the one I was referencing, which leaves your post incorrect, and what you stated was indeed perpetual motion.
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
But its interesting to see that by your very confusion on this subject, you still do have the medieval attitude that the natural state of an object is to be at rest!
I think I just proved what I mean.
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text> That is exactly an example of "common sense intuition" which is dead wrong, just as I was saying, and how science often violates human preconceived notions.
How ironic, wouldn't you say?
marksman11

Asheville, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109449
Jan 30, 2013
 
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
Then provide evidence. Without it, your beliefs are indistinguishable from pure delusion. The fact that you really, really, really think you now what's coming provides no convincing evidence.
You remember that if when you die and you stand before GOD, remind him that he gave you no evidence......ok?

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109450
Jan 30, 2013
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
That seems about right, essentially the same proportion ballpark as those taking an active interest in determining and propagating what is true. Apparently you don't count yourself among them.
Right, because getting the pronunciation of YHWH correct is SO important.

BTW, it quite possible and even likely that YHWH was taken by the Israelites from the Midian god that was called YWH...which archeologists and language experts think was pronounced...get this...Yahoo.

But then, I would guess that you aren't interested at all in that bit of truth. To you, truth is what you want it to be.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109451
Jan 30, 2013
 
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>See? That doesn't even make sense. We did not decend from apes, but we did from older apes? We both came from a common ancester that looked like a chimp but wasn't an ape.....See? It's really silly Chimney. Surely you can't believe your own words!!
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.
<quoted text>
"per·pet·u·al mo·tion
Noun
1.A state in which movement or action is or appears to be continuous and unceasing."
http://hp-notebook.us.msn.com/...
Granted, it had your defintion on the list, but this is the #1 definition, and the one I was referencing, which leaves your post incorrect, and what you stated was indeed perpetual motion.
<quoted text>I think I just proved what I mean.<quoted text>How ironic, wouldn't you say?
Yes, my apologies. I assumed you were about to refer to "perpetual motion machines" which are impossible.

However, perpetual motion itself is not, and can be summarised in Newton's First Law:

"If an object experiences no net force, then its velocity is constant: the object is either at rest (if its velocity is zero), or it moves in a straight line with constant speed (if its velocity is nonzero)."

This was in stark contrast to the medieval view that everything natural came to rest unless a constant force was acting on it, which is false. According to Newton, things will only slow down if a net force is acting against the direction of motion.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109452
Jan 30, 2013
 
marksman11 wrote:
You remember that if when you die and you stand before GOD, remind him that he gave you no evidence......ok?
And when you stand before the REAL Creator of the Universe, try to explain why you devoted your life to a phony, pipsqueak God that can't stick up for Itself.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109453
Jan 30, 2013
 
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Right, because getting the pronunciation of YHWH correct is SO important.
BTW, it quite possible and even likely that YHWH was taken by the Israelites from the Midian god that was called YWH...which archeologists and language experts think was pronounced...get this...Yahoo.
But then, I would guess that you aren't interested at all in that bit of truth. To you, truth is what you want it to be.
So "a bunch of yahoos" is blasphemy to monotheists?
marksman11

Asheville, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109454
Jan 31, 2013
 
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
And when you stand before the REAL Creator of the Universe, try to explain why you devoted your life to a phony, pipsqueak God that can't stick up for Itself.
We both will be standing side by side. I can't wait.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109455
Jan 31, 2013
 
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
And when you stand before the REAL Creator of the Universe, try to explain why you devoted your life to a phony, pipsqueak God that can't stick up for Itself.
Are you agreeing that there is an intelligent designer?
marksman11

Asheville, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109456
Jan 31, 2013
 
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
PE does appear in Darwin, though not by name, just as Mike and I have pointed out to you. I even copied the passage where its obvious.
However, lets get to the point. The validity of PE is not about whether Darwin thought of it - that would be religious/doctrinal/authoritar ian thinking, not scientific. The validity is whether we see evidence of it and whether it is intrinsic to the theoretical framework of evolution itself.
Darwin suggested that the rate of change in species would be affected by environmental factors, and its clear to any student of evolution that environmental instability is going to force either more rapid change on a species, if they can adapt fast enough, or extinction. There is nothing "tacked on" about the concept of PE.
The last point is that even if it WAS tacked on - the way, for example Margullis' concept that mitochondria were once free living bacteria was tacked on, it still does not matter! Science is not religious dogma...we are allowed to update our theories, you know! What matters is whether an addition explains an observation while remaining consistent with existing observation and theory. That is how knowledge grows.
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.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109457
Jan 31, 2013
 
marksman11 wrote:
We both will be standing side by side.
Standing? You seem not to understand the ramifications of death.
marksman11 wrote:
I can't wait.
Of course you can wait. How long have you folks been waiting for Jesus to come back? Your patience (and credulity) is astonishing.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109458
Jan 31, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109460
Jan 31, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 107,421 - 107,440 of127,418
|
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.

•••
•••
•••
•••