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

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

There are 152126 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.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109603 Feb 1, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I'm the one ignoring it? I'M THE ONE PRESENTING IT ON A DAILY BASIS!!!

The evidence is for evolution. If God created everything then he also created evolution. You preach daily against God's creation and ergo against God.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109604 Feb 1, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Much of that is manipulated to give the desired results. If fossil A is found in strata 6, so even though strata 7 is deeper, then fossil A that we found in strata 7 could not possibly have been found in strata 7 because we've deemed that it didn't exist at that time. SOOOO... we have to reclassify strata 7 is actually strata 6. Stratas are classified by the fossils found in them, and the fossil A is classified as A because of the strata it is found in. When the truth is, we have dicovered that fossil A existed at a time when strata 7 was active, but thst doesn't fit your evolutionary vision. So you biasedly avoid the truth, and fabricate a circle of evidence that can be manipulated to give the results you desire.

This has been proven to be incorrect.

And you misused the word "deemed".

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109605 Feb 1, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Science is not about wishful thinking. It demands absolutes. There is a line, it's not my fsult tht you don't know where it is, thus crumbling the foundation of your philosophy.
I challenge you, and you can't meet the challenge with the evidence you claim exists. Not my fault. Maybe you should re-examine your philosophy. That is supposedly what happens within science.

Science eschews absolutes.

Evolution is the most materially supported scientific theory in the history of science. It meets all the criteria of science. Creationism is dead.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109606 Feb 1, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> Let me see if I can help. Simply hit "reply" on the post you want to reply to. At the top It'll have the tags of the poster you are replying too. To de activate them for this example, I'll change the [] for ()....It should look like(QUOTE who="MAAT")..cut and past this tag. Everything after this tag should be in blue. When you reach a point that you want to reply. Stop and add (/QUOTE) and the word QUOTE must be in CAPS. Make your reply, and at the end of your replay, paste (QUOTE who="MAAT")to reestablish the original posters comments in blue, and just repeat the process as you continue down the post. Just remember in both cases to use [] rather than the () i used in my example. I don't think anyone in the forum would mind if you made some experimental posts to get the hang of it. Hope this helps. Let me know if you need assistance.
Good luck.

Your best post ever. Not one delusional comment or lie.

Very nice AND helpful.

Just when I lose all hope for you ...

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109607 Feb 1, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>So you are agreeing with me that we don't know who built the Great Pyramid?

We don't actually know the names of the laborers, but we know who commissioned it. It was designed by Imhotep and Hemiunu (actually by Hemiunu based on Imhotep's earlier designs).

While you will refuse to read factual historical material, here is the link if anyone else is interested.

http://www.hitchins.net/Books&samplers/HD...

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109608 Feb 1, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Then PLEASSSSSSE TELL ME why you dummys changed your story from we evolved from apes, to "we didn't evolve from apes, but humans and apes have a common ancester"??? NOWWWWWW.....we're desended from apes....AAAGGGAAAIIInnn!!!Why do you expect people to take you seriously when you can't even be consistent and continue to change your story???<quoted text>Perhaps you should reconsider your inconsistent world view.

It is your understanding that is inconstant, not the science.

I explained this to you as recently as yesterday.

You are just too stupid.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#109609 Feb 1, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
From the KAB Bullshit Dictionary:
in·con·clu·sive (nkn-klsv)
adj.
Not conclusive
Example: A global flood that destroyed all life (except for Noah & Co) which would have taken the environment hundreds if not thousands of years to recover from can not be detected unless the data has a one year resolution.
Would you expect to find a unique sediment layer of loose material washed down from the inside slopes of the hundreds of feet high walls of a meteor crater sitting on relatively flat surrounding terrain? Is that the kind of data you had in mind?
KAB

Wilson, NC

#109610 Feb 1, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Genetic bottlenecks can be directly observed and directly confirmed. Chemical reactions are binary. They either occur or they don't, and they can be confirmed by independent agents anywhere at any time. The shape of the Earth, ultimately, is only directly observed by the scant few people who venture into space. The rest is trust in our instruments. Chemistry is direct observation of the facts. For the direct confirmation of the Earth's shape, we must rely on the scant few's say-so and pictures which we cannot ensure are accurate to the same degree we can ensure chemical reactions are accurate. In other words, chemistry trumps say-so and pictures every time.
There's more to genetic bottlenecks than chemistry.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109611 Feb 1, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Would you expect to find a unique sediment layer of loose material washed down from the inside slopes of the hundreds of feet high walls of a meteor crater sitting on relatively flat surrounding terrain? Is that the kind of data you had in mind?

Yes, that would be proof of normal errosion and if the crater was 50,000 year old it would be proof that no massive flood occurred during the last 50,000 years.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#109612 Feb 1, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
I understood what you said. Makes little difference.
It makes a significant difference if I cite a specific phrase which, as far as I know, is not in the Bible, and you attempt to relate that to documentary sources which don't make any mention of an event.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#109613 Feb 1, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you now accepting that Noah's flood never happened or are you just resorting to your usually language hair-splitting.
Language hair-splitting for accuracy, most definitely. When you're good with language, you appreciate it being used effectively.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#109614 Feb 1, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
So then it was not a miracle, just a local flood, same as many others. Good, you're slowly returning to reality.
So now you add outright stupidity to lack of reasoning, comprehension, and linguistic aptitude.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#109615 Feb 1, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
"I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made.”
"all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered"
" The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits.[g][h] 21 Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark."
How many times does your side think it needs to prove that the expression "global flood" is not used?
LowellGuy

Salem, MA

#109616 Feb 1, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
There's more to genetic bottlenecks than chemistry.
Actually, no. Every genetic bottleneck that has been identified is nothing more than a series of chemical reactions. You have no idea how DNA tests are done or genomes are cataloged, do you?
LowellGuy

Salem, MA

#109617 Feb 1, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>You are weakened to the point of redefintions.
Fin
Manipulate
Theory
Scientific method
Hypothesis
Observe
Mathematics

Who's redefining what now?
KAB

Wilson, NC

#109618 Feb 1, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
It is really quite simple and the error in your logic is easy to expose.
Take evolution for example: lets say there are 29 evidences for evolution and each has a 5% chance of being completely wrong. Using meta analysis we can figure the chance of evolution being wrong.
The chances are 1 in 182,645,149,230,957,031,250,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 ,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0 00 that evolution is wrong. And you are banking on the 1.
Your choice. But you cannot seriously blame the person who takes the 182,645,149,230,957,031,250,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 ,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0 00.
Seriously.
Let's say there are not 29 evidences for evolution and that, however many there are, have greater than 5% chance of being wrong. What is the number then?
KAB

Wilson, NC

#109619 Feb 1, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
You provided the Bible. I did not invent it.
So you respond by inventing even more?
KAB

Wilson, NC

#109620 Feb 1, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
"or it's equivalent" you said
Equivalent in another language. In other words, translation of the phrase.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#109621 Feb 1, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
What you asked for:
<quoted text>
The operative phrase is: "OR ITS EQUIVALENT IN ANY LANGUAGE."
You are welcome. Now you may continue your Chubby Checker routine and we'll all applaud your rendering of the Twist.
That's a reference to translation of the phrase (i.e., "in any language").
KAB

Wilson, NC

#109622 Feb 1, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>By that criterion, the word "god" isn't used, either.
Except that the word "god" is used.

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 Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 min Aura Mytha 20,228
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 3 min replaytime 209,471
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 8 min emperorjohn 45,425
America evolving into lockdown on purpose 12 hr Dogen 68
New law to further hatred towards police Sat One way or another 4
Hillary, a taco stand on every corner Sat One way or another 4
News A better theory of intelligent design Sep 23 Chazofsaints 21
More from around the web