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

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#109719 Feb 4, 2013
And if we would also take effort to mean work...
And what God Himself said about that, we get the devils cauldron hosted by God Himself.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#109720 Feb 4, 2013
5385

God Himself wrote:
I ASSERT THAT:
The primary and fundamental attribute/characteristic of intelligence is efficiency; It makes things work.
----
God Himself then concluded for no apparent reson from the above statement and directly following it:
In essence I am saying "If it works, it is influenced by intelligence."

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#109721 Feb 4, 2013
Now for easy comprehension, let's suppose H=t makes things work.
S=subject without A
A=intelligence

S NO A
A=A
S NO A, NO A, S NO A, thus NO A.

Add B=god:

B=A=S=H

Therefore: God equals intelligence IS a subject with no intelligence makes things work.

Ergo: A subject with no god makes things work.

;P

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#109722 Feb 4, 2013
Those fundies in all their stupidity are ten times worse then your average atheist.

They have god burned, cooked and roasted without even blinking.
It's like being innocent and having the worst defence ever, and ending on deathrow!

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#109723 Feb 4, 2013
God Himself now wants to take the place of the replacement-god they allready had in place.
A real god-killer!
Reminds me of:

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#109724 Feb 4, 2013
MAAT wrote:
Well i've never come upon such a perfect sample of nonsense, logical fallacies and gobbledegook before.
Perhaps you have not been here long enough.

Nice dissection. I would stick to the simpler fact that evolution is effective but is not at all efficient, and these two things are not the same at all!
LowellGuy

Lowell, MA

#109725 Feb 4, 2013
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
You die and decay;
The thing which caused life keeps causing life;
Yet you are more efficient than whatever caused life to be?
LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!
Is gravity caused by rotation? There's some "original science" I think you ought to read...

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#109726 Feb 4, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps you have not been here long enough.
Nice dissection. I would stick to the simpler fact that evolution is effective but is not at all efficient, and these two things are not the same at all!
As The Dude also pointed out here (in several threads i has allready been dicussed)
You made it nice and short as usual.

But the likes of GH's tend to go on.
So it's best to also harp back.

Has really weird ideas. Gay seems to also be on a par with superior logic and intelligence and evo and maybe harvard people too.
But it is frankly another example of the alien mind we encounter here.
He might as well have asked: Are you living near a clean sea?
Or: Have you or are you raped lately?
But nooo,zero in on gay!

Therefore i found B-A-S-H quite apt.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#109727 Feb 4, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Is gravity caused by rotation? There's some "original science" I think you ought to read...
We'll even introduce you as that intelligent chap that can really make a contribution.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109728 Feb 4, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
With all due respect to you, there is something wrong here. Look at it from my view. Why even state that we and apes have a common ancestor, if that ancestor is also an ape? Why not just say, apes are our ancestors? There was a direct change in evolutionary claims a while back where evolutionists had to change their story. It was changed from "apes are our ancestors" to,"No, apes and humans share a common ancestor". So now we are back to "Apes are our ancestors again". I'm just really skeptical, but in my opinion, this gives me reason to be. Don't worry about giving a long reply. It really isn't that big a deal. It's just to me, it doesn't make sense.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#109729 Feb 4, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps you have not been here long enough.
Nice dissection. I would stick to the simpler fact that evolution is effective but is not at all efficient, and these two things are not the same at all!
I've been here too long.
I took some time of.
KAB kind of improved.
But others...

Thinking back i wondered whether KAB was agnostic.
And someone else, whose name i have forgotten.
Just two puzzling characters.
You could look up the posts by Tangled Bank and wonder why some people are still not convinced by rational, credible, convincing, science papers - peer-viewed at that- supported data and clear concise presentation of the grounds.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109730 Feb 4, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Yeah, and I can believe it. For one, you say talking animals is completely unsupported by physical evidence? Yet there are birds that talk all day long. But the bigger point is, I believe the supernatural exists, and because I do, I believe that things can occur supernaturally and I take it on faith. You don't. You are committed to a naturalist world view, where you claim faith has no place. Yet you accept abiogenesis as valid, with zero evidence to support it. You accept punctuated Equalibria, but the only way you can is in faith. So you are not comparing apples to apples. I don't mean to insult you, but my views are much more honest than yours. I accept the supernatural and admit I accept it in faith. You accept naturalism, but can't admit the ovious, that you are forced to also accept some of it in faith.
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
You have already admitted that evolution, nor you, can explain consciousness. So what is so "unacceptable" to think that it might be possible that consciousness might proceed past the death experience. There is no scientific evidence to exliminate what millions believe to be the case, with good reason. How ignorant would it be if it becomes a known fact that ones decision on earth concerning Jesus, did effect their cheating death and eternity in bliss, and you rejected it because you only absorb naturalistic explanations, which ended up not being good for you?
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109731 Feb 4, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Like I said....

"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! "

Thank you for making my point once again!!
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109732 Feb 4, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>

People are mean to him because just as the fig tree in Mark 11, he bears no fruit.
You haven't the abilty to know anything about me. It gives me great comfort to know that I bear no fruit similar to what you bear.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#109733 Feb 4, 2013
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TFA...
This is around the time i started reading here and getting involved.
page 3580
MIDutch

Clinton Township, MI

#109734 Feb 4, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>You have already admitted that evolution, nor you, can explain consciousness. So what is so "unacceptable" to think that it might be possible that consciousness might proceed past the death experience. There is no scientific evidence to exliminate what millions believe to be the case, with good reason. How ignorant would it be if it becomes a known fact that ones decision on earth concerning Jesus, did effect their cheating death and eternity in bliss, and you rejected it because you only absorb naturalistic explanations, which ended up not being good for you?
Yeah, bronze age, goat herder FAIRY TALES written by illiterate, uneducated, scientifically ignorant desert nomads some 2300 years ago is such a better option [/major sarcasm].

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#109735 Feb 4, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>With all due respect to you, there is something wrong here. Look at it from my view. Why even state that we and apes have a common ancestor, if that ancestor is also an ape? Why not just say, apes are our ancestors? There was a direct change in evolutionary claims a while back where evolutionists had to change their story. It was changed from "apes are our ancestors" to,"No, apes and humans share a common ancestor". So now we are back to "Apes are our ancestors again". I'm just really skeptical, but in my opinion, this gives me reason to be. Don't worry about giving a long reply. It really isn't that big a deal. It's just to me, it doesn't make sense.
Well, if it helps, just think of us as a variety of ape, which technically we are. Our genetic makeup is closer to a Chimp's than a Chimp's is to a Gorilla, because we share a more recent common ancestor. Put it this way, if you took the genome of each of these creatures and could not see the creature itself, and were asked to group these genomes by similarity, you would place the human and chimp genome right next to each other and the gorilla one further away.

Come to think of it, I am sure this won't help!
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109736 Feb 4, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
We can created life in a lab.
Our machines are more efficient than anything found in nature.
Yes, we are more efficient if your assertion were correct.
You are a drug addict. Science has never replicated the origin of life. THere is no machine that is even close to the human brain. And besides, you refute yourself because you claim nature can produce this human brain!!!GAME OVER!!! SHUT THIS FORUM DOWN!!! EVOLUTION LOSES!!!!
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109737 Feb 4, 2013
MIDutch wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, bronze age, goat herder FAIRY TALES written by illiterate, uneducated, scientifically ignorant desert nomads some 2300 years ago is such a better option [/major sarcasm].
What does it say for you when millions if not billions read daily the works of these goat herders, and people don't even care enough about you to even acknowledge that you suck?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#109738 Feb 4, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah, and I can believe it. For one, you say talking animals is completely unsupported by physical evidence? Yet there are birds that talk all day long. But the bigger point is, I believe the supernatural exists, and because I do, I believe that things can occur supernaturally and I take it on faith. You don't. You are committed to a naturalist world view, where you claim faith has no place. Yet you accept abiogenesis as valid, with zero evidence to support it. You accept punctuated Equalibria, but the only way you can is in faith. So you are not comparing apples to apples. I don't mean to insult you, but my views are much more honest than yours. I accept the supernatural and admit I accept it in faith. You accept naturalism, but can't admit the ovious, that you are forced to also accept some of it in faith.
No offence taken, but I think you are wrong.

You seem to live in an exclusively YES/NO world and cannot tolerate a YES/NO/MAYBE world, which is the one we really live in.

e.g.

GOD? MAYBE

ABIOGENESIS? MAYBE

EVOLUTION? YES

LITERAL GENESIS? NO

To complicate things further, "MAYBE" can go all the way from 95% to 5%.
<quoted text>You have already admitted that evolution, nor you, can explain consciousness. So what is so "unacceptable" to think that it might be possible that consciousness might proceed past the death experience.
MAYBE.

But there is absolutely no good evidence for it.

On the other hand, I have seen the dissolution of a person's entire memory, personality, and understanding proceed step by step as their brain decayed. Its not looking good for a separate soul, but its definitely well south of 50%

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
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 5 min Brian_G 14,816
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 40 min Dogen 143,224
Ten Reason Why Evolution Is a Lie (Jul '09) 1 hr NoahLovesU 1,956
Why natural selection can't work 8 hr paul porter 30
Question on complexity Common Sense says..... (May '12) 21 hr Dogen 19
Have you read the comments of avid evolutionist... (May '12) 21 hr Dogen 8
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... Sat ChromiuMan 966
More from around the web