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

#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

Dubai, UAE

#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

Dubai, UAE

#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%

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#109739 Feb 4, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Tangled Bank was brilliant.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109740 Feb 4, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
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!
No worries. For one, I don't think humans are just another ape. THere is no ape even close to us. There is no ape that is a musician, carpenter, artist, poet, contractor, doctor, plumber, electricain, multible language expert, pilot, engineer, mechanic, politican, lawyer, surgeon, mason,....etc. I believe the bible where it says that humans are superior. Evolution says we are just another animal. It is obvious we are not.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#109741 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.
You were on that page too! And your fallacies are discussed by Tangled on that page or the previous one.

What is wrong, was the changing goal-post.
So crea never developed a solid reference system.

When i try to explain that concestor (in the swedish study and the other one) are a term meaning that we were then alike, but groups moving away from each other change in slightly different ways, so that after some time they become quite distinct.
Fossils are too wide spaced to really envision it.

The point is that you can also reason that simians and other bipedals (a term as Tangled introduced to prevent confusion) derived from us.
Merely for the reason that we are slightly faster in duplication.
After our last split from the simians we really went ahead full spead.

The puzzle for me is still homo erectus. That held on way longer than we did sofar, but nevertheless seems to have been concestor with us. And seems to have a link with early homo sapiens.
So 'retro-mating'(wrong term, but since mating was still possible and bringing forth descendants)and thus making the tree more like a bush with loops seems to have happened too.


What is wrong is that

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#109742 Feb 4, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I don't criticize science in general.
Yeah, you do.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109743 Feb 4, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No offence taken, but I think you are wrong.
That is a given:-)
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
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%.
I have no problems with "maybe", but I don't give you the authority to judge which is which. IMHO it would be more like.....

GOD? yes
ABIOGENESIS? no
EVOLUTION? no
LITERAL GENESIS? maybe

See how opinions come into view? You praclamations are not emperical science. Just your biased opinion.
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>

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%
I don't think you have the knowleadge to make that statement. There has only been one person who has passed through that curtain of death and returned to tell us about it, and that was Jesus.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#109744 Feb 4, 2013
'Co-ancestors' i find a really confusing term.
Saw that in a study on population economics, but they state they borrowed it from Dawkins,as in groups splitting in distinct populations. Namely 1 and 2,for purposes of the study.

Concestors -common ancestors.

Laughter evolved about 10 million years ago.
Human laughter changed with changes in the voicbox (FOX2 gene, should i look it up or trust my memory.)after the split from chimpanzees and bonobos 5,5 million years ago.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/jun/04...

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#109745 Feb 4, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>That is a given:-)<quoted text>I have no problems with "maybe", but I don't give you the authority to judge which is which. IMHO it would be more like.....
GOD? yes
ABIOGENESIS? no
EVOLUTION? no
LITERAL GENESIS? maybe
See how opinions come into view? You praclamations are not emperical science. Just your biased opinion.<quoted text>I don't think you have the knowleadge to make that statement. There has only been one person who has passed through that curtain of death and returned to tell us about it, and that was Jesus.
You are as usual a bit behind on information.
In the meantime we've read up on scientific studies.

Jesus is common as mud. A dime a dozen returning from death.
Does the term 'netherworld' ring a bell?
Been a theme for thousands of agricultural years to bring spring back.
Man dying, after three days after midwinter the rise would be complete.
Besides who says he arose?
The vatican does not claim that; and the gospels contradict each other. If a guy can eat fish, he has maybe never been dead.
Loosing conscious, as in loosing the ghost.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#109746 Feb 4, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>No worries. For one, I don't think humans are just another ape. THere is no ape even close to us. There is no ape that is a musician, carpenter, artist, poet, contractor, doctor, plumber, electricain, multible language expert, pilot, engineer, mechanic, politican, lawyer, surgeon, mason,....etc. I believe the bible where it says that humans are superior. Evolution says we are just another animal. It is obvious we are not.
The term for animals and people is the same.
Upon 'creation'(just playing along here, Alzheimer seems to be a concern somehow)the term for both is the same : nephesh.

In the later narrative they become named, and thus particular.

God makes it clear that adam is not to be seen as the same as god.
God is responsible for the wellbeing of Adam.
As adam is of the well-being of the planet he inhabits.
And so be it. A responsibility thus.

Superior is for those that suffer inferiority complexes and get a power-kick from a little bit of say so. Sorry sort.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109747 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.


Nor does basic science nor the scientific method make sense to you.

Modern apes are not our ancestors so it is misleading to say "apes our are ancestors".

We ARE an ape, so again the expression is paradoxical.

It is more accurate to say humans and other apes have a common ancestor.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109748 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.

"Parroting" is not "talking". Sorry but Fail.
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> 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.

Naturalism does not state the supernatural does not exist. Naturalism states that we only have evidence for what we can experience or measure. So far science has not found anything that cannot be explained under naturalism, but it is not for naturalism to assume that it cannot happen.
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> Yet you accept abiogenesis as valid, with zero evidence to support it.

This has been shown to be a lie on your part. There is massive evidence for abiogenesis. Even you believe in abiogenesis though you refuse to call it by it's true name.
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> You accept punctuated Equalibria, but the only way you can is in faith.

No, PE is a scientific OBSERVATION. Subsuming PE under the guise of biological evolution makes it part of the modern Theory of Evolution. PE is an OBSERVED FACT that had to be explained and is now successfully explained under the ToE.
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> So you are not comparing apples to apples. I don't mean to insult you, but my views are much more honest than yours.

Actually, your views are predicated upon a fundamental dishonesty with yourself and your fixed religious delusions. It is not necessary to have religious delusions to be a Christian. In fact, it is a massive hindrance.
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> I accept the supernatural and admit I accept it in faith.

Blind faith, in this case, as you have never observed one supernatural event in your life. Don't feel bad. I have had mystical/religious experiences but never observed a supernatural event either.
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> You accept naturalism, but can't admit the ovious, that you are forced to also accept some of it in faith.

The whole point of naturalism is to get science away from faith (which has allowed it to make massive progress) and keep it objective. It has done well in that. Science has made progress and religion (at least as practiced by many) seems to be regressing.

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
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 49 min Historian 175,494
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 2 hr Aura Mytha 128,016
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 7 hr TurkanaBoy 105
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) Thu Ooogah Boogah 13,578
Ten Reason Why Evolution Is a Lie (Jul '09) Nov 26 MikeF 1,902
More Theories to Disprove Creation Nov 26 The Dude 64
Atheism - A Non Prophet Organisation (Mar '11) Nov 25 The Dude 996

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE