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

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

There are 154726 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.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#109664 Feb 3, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>So why did evolutionists change their story? They distinctly said we did not evolve from apes, but humans and apes had a common ancester. Why make a big deal of the common ancester thing, if the common ancester was an ape also??? That doesn't even make sense.<quoted text>With all due respect, it never ceases to amaze me what some people will believe.
No evolutionist has EVER distinctly said we did not evolve from apes, unless YOU misunderstood. The link to apes has existed since Darwin (actually, since before Darwin).

Some people have had to emphasize that we did not evolve from MODERN ape species, usually when trying to explain to people who ask the question "if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?".

The co-ancestor of modern chimps, bonobos, and humans was itself a species of ape. Apes have been around for at least 25 million years, but the modern ape species have not.

To answer that silly question in full - yes, apes all evolved from a species of monkey (and thus so did the ape that became a hominid). There are still monkeys too, but all modern species have been evolving as well in the 25 million years since an ancient species of monkeys gave rise to apes.

And monkeys evolved from earlier primates and there are still examples around more like those too, from the lemur to the tarsier etc. But monkeys did not evolve from a modern species of lemur. Lemurs have continued to change too.

Evolution works by this branching, but development continues along all branches. Even the least changed branches, the so called living fossils, are not exactly the same as their ancient counterparts.

There, that wasn't hard, was it? No more confusion on this point, please.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#109665 Feb 3, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
With all due respect, it never ceases to amaze me what some people will believe.
I agree! The answer, as every salesman will tell you, is that if you promise enough, some sucker will buy it!

Some people will accept a theory that explains the fossil record, makes successful predictions of what will be found, also is supported by lab experiments and the evidence in the genome, etc. It makes no promises of eternal life though.

On the other hand, others are willing to believe a book full of stories that happen to disagree with that theory, written by humans 2-3,000 years ago, and full of other things like assertions of a global flood and the earth being made before the sun and stars, and magical things like humans living 900 years and talking animals, that all investigation show to be false or unsupported by any physical evidence whatsoever! Can you believe it?

But as the salesman said, simply because this book offers them the emotional hope that they might cheat physical death, they are willing to swallow the whole thing hook, line, and sinker.
The Pencil Dick

Kingston, Jamaica

#109666 Feb 3, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
You said CHRISTIANS don't give a rat's ass about the shroud of Turin. I refuted that claim.
No you cannot claim that you refuted that claim without using the fallacy of hasty generalization.

To say that Christians find value in the shroud, suggests that Christians generally do; and thats false.

The fact is that there are many Christians,(perhaps the majority) who dont even know about the shroud of Turin.

Furthermore, the shroud is of no significance to Christian beleifs, so there is no need for Christians to regard the shroud, whether it is authentic or not.
LowellGuy wrote:
Never said anything about being required. Try being honest next time, and we might not treat you like a liar.
Where was I dishonest?

Why didnt you present proof with the post I wrote?

It matters not, regardless.

Faith in or submission to the Authority of The Messiah Of the Al-Mighty does NOT depend on some piece of cloth. Period.

As far as I am concerned, the Shroud of Turin may have been brought to light by Satanic conspirators who see the chance to use it to manipulate the thinking of weak minded Christians.
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

#109667 Feb 3, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting.. when it's Piltdown Man you are ready to raise it on a pike and scream through a microphone, "LOOK AT THIS! LOOK AT THIS!"
When it is the Shroud of Turin you squeek,
....
("pay no attention to that man behind the curtain")
The Shroud of Turin is irrelevant to Christianity and Christian beliefs.

We could just say "[email protected] off with that piece of cloth, it is of no relevance to our struggle!"
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

#109668 Feb 3, 2013
God Himself wrote:
...performance demonstrates...capacity...
The Dude wrote:
...An intelligence can perform tasks inefficiently, but still have intelligence.
Now that you agree with me...
The Dude wrote:
You claimed "efficiency" indicates intelligence. Now you're changing it to "performance". Not sure whether you're being daft or dishonest here.
And you can see no relationship between performance and efficiency?

To say that performance demonstrates intelligence ins not different from saying efficiency indicates intelligence.

I am not being daft nor dishonest; you simply lack the capacity to fathom the import of my expression.
The Dude wrote:
Yet I'm still waiting for you to present the mechanisms of these alleged performances, along with evidence of those mechanisms, along with whatever those particular performances are.
I'm glad you are.

If nature is inherently intelligent or is being guided by and intelligent agent: all the set of actions and responses that are identified as "intelligent" will be observable in the natural world and natural processes.

But in order for us to proceed; we must first agree on what intelligence is and how we identify it.

In order to do that, we must first create a criteria by which we measure and identify intelligence/intelligent influence.

I ASSERT THAT:

The primary and fundamental attribute/characteristic of intelligence is efficiency; It makes things work.

In essence I am saying "If it works, it is influenced by intelligence."

Shall we agree on that or do you possess a different view?
The Dude wrote:
The only intellectual academic agenda is education. I not only presented evidence but also how it was tested. If you have a difference "interpretation" of orthologous ERV's can be shared amongst the great apes that passes the scientific method we'd all love to hear it.
Goddid it with an evolution methodology.*shrug*
The Dude wrote:
Until then we can safely assume that you didn't have a clue what we were talking about anyway and hence dismissed it for theological reasons and incredulity.
I asked for proof/evidence that inanimate particles and elements possess the inherent potential to just "poof!" and form genes and structured organisms etc over many many years.

You have not been able to demonstrate it yet.
The Dude wrote:
The simple fact you've not been able to demonstrate it yet.(shrug)
The Attributes of God are continuously demonstrated in nature.

But we all have the responsibility of deciding what is sufficient to convince us. That you dont see what I accept as proof to be sufficient for you, is your own decision.
coco

Orlando, FL

#109669 Feb 3, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Thank you for your concern. It doesn't bother me, in fact I welcome it. It means I am making a point that they can't refute, so inturn it comforts them to hurl insults, but the truth remains, they stand there refuted!
Your welcome! I was just wondering why people were mean to you is all.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#109670 Feb 3, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
We looked at areas where it rains the most: 24/7 for about 5 months.
Well no worries.
What i alluded to, is that noone talks like that any more so more people are bound to get the wrong interpretation, even if you would give the right translation.
And literalism is probably never going to be cured.
I see. So it is not in the least duplicitous that Creationists can and do switch (repeatedly) from allegorical = literal = interpretive adaptation at will....
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
Well i'm with KAB on this one, or is it the other one.
I should start listing them.
'god'is mentioned as the enemy of yhwh as 'gawd'and his band.
Since Gawd was the first english way to say and write god.
15 cubits do not make miles. The arabah-flat land, with some molehills.
15 cubits OVER THE TOPS OF Dena and Mount Ararat is close enough to say miles. Why quibble over "molehills?" I suppose I can modify/mollify/"mole-ify " and henceforth say "well over a mile/"mole" of water depth to submerge most of the Zagros Mountain/"Moletain" Range in 960 hours..."

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#109671 Feb 3, 2013
coco wrote:
<quoted text>
Your welcome! I was just wondering why people were mean to you is all.
People are mean to Marky because he is an arrogant idiot.

The only way to learn something in a debate is to admit you are wrong when you are shown to be wrong. Marky's posts should be filled with that sort of acknowledgement. They aren't. Instead he acts like a true asshole.

Is it any wonder that he gets flamed?

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#109672 Feb 3, 2013
coco wrote:
<quoted text>
Your welcome! I was just wondering why people were mean to you is all.
People are mean to him because he has evinced no integrity, honor or shame.
People are mean to him because just as the fig tree in Mark 11, he bears no fruit.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#109673 Feb 3, 2013
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
The Shroud of Turin is irrelevant to Christianity and Christian beliefs.
We could just say "[email protected] off with that piece of cloth, it is of no relevance to our struggle!"
I would wager that Jesus would say the exact same thing about the novel written about him.
coco

Los Angeles, CA

#109674 Feb 3, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
People are mean to him because he has evinced no integrity, honor or shame.
People are mean to him because just as the fig tree in Mark 11, he bears no fruit.
Do you mean he has no balls? Is that the fruit you are speaking of?

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#109675 Feb 3, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Take note that the expression "global flood" or equivalent words are not cited for any of the languages.
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course not. Globes are spherical. Ancient Hebrews thought the earth was flat and the sky was a solid dome over the top with stars stuck to it.

But nevertheless, the actual statement in the passage make it clear that they believed the flood covered all the world and wiped all life off the face of it.
Of course. KAB didn't really want an equivalent word or phrase - he just wanted somebody to play 'go fetch data' with. It's all he does and all he's got.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#109676 Feb 3, 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?
That is only one data point. It would have to be consistent world-wide. Which it is not.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/443...

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109677 Feb 3, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I don't criticize science in general. Just psuedoscience like human from non-human evolution and the gullible people who feel the need to insult those people who see it for what it is, and out right rejects it.

You have denied every major and many minor fields of science.

Name a valid field of science that you agree with.

While you are at it how about wowing us with your scientific credentials. For example, name one single undergraduate science class that you have received a passing grade in.

Just one!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109678 Feb 3, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Take note that the expression "global flood" or equivalent words are not cited for any of the languages.

And take note of the property of equivalence.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#109679 Feb 3, 2013
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Now that you agree with me...
<quoted text>
And you can see no relationship between performance and efficiency?
To say that performance demonstrates intelligence ins not different from saying efficiency indicates intelligence.
I am not being daft nor dishonest; you simply lack the capacity to fathom the import of my expression.
<quoted text>
I'm glad you are.
If nature is inherently intelligent or is being guided by and intelligent agent: all the set of actions and responses that are identified as "intelligent" will be observable in the natural world and natural processes.
But in order for us to proceed; we must first agree on what intelligence is and how we identify it.
In order to do that, we must first create a criteria by which we measure and identify intelligence/intelligent influence.
I ASSERT THAT:
The primary and fundamental attribute/characteristic of intelligence is efficiency; It makes things work.
In essence I am saying "If it works, it is influenced by intelligence."
Shall we agree on that or do you possess a different view?
<quoted text>
Goddid it with an evolution methodology.*shrug*
<quoted text>
I asked for proof/evidence that inanimate particles and elements possess the inherent potential to just "poof!" and form genes and structured organisms etc over many many years.
You have not been able to demonstrate it yet.
<quoted text>
The Attributes of God are continuously demonstrated in nature.
But we all have the responsibility of deciding what is sufficient to convince us. That you dont see what I accept as proof to be sufficient for you, is your own decision.
Yes, using intelligence, humans went from the discovering electromanetic theory to a supercomputer in just over a century.

Random mutation plus natural selection, following millions of blind alleys and with no goal "in mind", because, no mind of course, blundering upon a creature capable of our level of abstraction in 3,500,000,000 years, give or take an eon. Might never have happened, and for all the wonders that life has produced, intelligence like ours appears to be nothing but a sideshow.

You might call the process resilient, but hardly intelligent, and certainly not efficient!

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#109680 Feb 3, 2013
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
The Shroud of Turin is irrelevant to Christianity and Christian beliefs.
We could just say "[email protected] off with that piece of cloth, it is of no relevance to our struggle!"
I would have to agree with that. The creation of a hoax does not invalidate the actual religion of Christianity.

Just as, the creation of a hoax like Piltdown Man does not invalidate the science of evolution. Yet seventy odd years after its exposure (by evolutionary scientists, of course), creationists still cannot stop going on about it.
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

#109681 Feb 3, 2013
MAAT wrote:
I foresee long dence repetitions, of the he said/she said. and than aunt maud said etc.
Must be viral on that island.(Cleaned up the sea yet? And how about gay bashing and general homofobia. And oh what's the rapestatistic again?)
GH DID NOT SAY THAT.*
God Himself wrote:
The primary attribute or potential of intelligence is EFFICIENCY
The Dude wrote:
Funny, and here I was thinking the primary attribute of intelligence was cognitive ability, not efficiency
God Himself wrote:
... EFFICIENCY.
The Dude wrote:
...it would... be demonstrating intelligence by performing that task.
*God Himself: In other words, performance demonstrates intelligence capacity; just like I said.
---
It's simple: you did not specify in what way efficiency would be tested.
This going to take another hundred post:
YOU did NOT write WHAT The Dude wrote.
Even if you intended it, you STILL DID NOT WRITE IT DOWN.
So you are dishonest.
How hard is that to understand?!
What did the Dude write, that I did not write that he wrote?
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

#109682 Feb 3, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
I would wager that Jesus would say the exact same thing about the novel written about him.
And what if he did?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#109683 Feb 3, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
So you respond by inventing even more?
No. As we already established the Bible has leeway in "interpretation".

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) 2 min Aura Mytha 216,777
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 36 min Chimney1 48,645
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 2 hr GoTrump 179,717
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 6 hr scientia potentia... 23,511
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 10 hr ChristineM 1,034
Richard Dawkins tells the truth Mon Timmee 9
Science News (Sep '13) Mon _Susan_ 3,985
More from around the web