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

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#109770 Feb 5, 2013
Sorry folks, those were just getting too long.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109771 Feb 5, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, you do.
Nope, just psuedoscience. If it's observable, testable, and replicatable, like explaining an eclipse, then I'm cool with it. If it isn't, I'm skeptical, and I love challenging the ones presenting it. THey think that just because THEY claimed something, everyone should believe it. VEry funny.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109772 Feb 5, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I don't care about the Vatican nor the pope. I'm sure all the apostles but John died to cover the lie of the resurrection.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109773 Feb 5, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Genesis 1

"26 Then God said,“Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

He gave this to no other living thing. He obviously made man superior. If you think a grub worm is superior to you, then fine.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109774 Feb 5, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Although "superior" is a value laden, not a scientific word when used in the sense you mean it, I get your point.
We are superior at music, carpentry, art, etc, just as you say. Politics I am not so sure.(Tongue in cheek, but actually chimps have highly complex and shifting power structures based on temporary alliances, favours, and privileges)
Chimps are superior at climbing, pretty good at cracking nuts with stones, group hunting and warfare, and making little tools to fish out termites.
Really, the common denominator in all your list is the fact that our brain has expanded to 3 times a chimp's one, and chimps already have huge brains by mammal standards. We are the world's best abstract thinkers and communicators. Our hands are also better for fine precision work than a chimp's, but the chimp still needs his kind of hands for climbing, and we don't. These differences together account for us being able to do all these things.
However, to continue your line of thought, in evolutionary terms there are really only two measures of "superiority" and these are fitness and adaptability. Humans are not necessarily the most fit for a given environment but they are extremely adaptable because their intelligence allows shortcuts. Don't have fur? Drape yourself in a bear-skin.
So we are not "just another animal", we are an animal that has made a breakthrough in terms of applying abstract thinking to the trials of survival, and on the scale we do it, this is unprecedented in billions of years. Whether this new strategy works in the end only time will tell. Intelligence is not the goal, its a means.
And when we look back at that succession of ape-hominid intermediates that I say are ancestral and you say are not, we see the gradual emergence of advanced tool making and range increase into difficult environments that this emerging intelligence enabled. Boiled down: vastly increased adaptability.
Of course I disagree that we are superior because we have evolved to be superior. I think we are superior because we were created to over see all these life forms. THere is scripture to support that. Also, I disagree that chimps are better climbers. If a human sets out to do something like climbing, then without evolving, they can do it.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#109775 Feb 5, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Nope, just psuedoscience.
You're referring to creation science, of course.
marksman11 wrote:
If it's observable, testable, and replicatable, like explaining an eclipse, then I'm cool with it. If it isn't, I'm skeptical...
Using your own personal definition of observation, testing and replication rather than the one science itself uses.
marksman11 wrote:
...and I love challenging the ones presenting it. THey think that just because THEY claimed something, everyone should believe it. VEry funny.
Yup. Those damn scientists. Always claiming something. The world would be so much better off if we got rid of the whole lot and replaced them with preachers.
/sarcasm

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#109776 Feb 5, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
Also, I disagree that chimps are better climbers.
{head/desk}
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109777 Feb 5, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, so the basic question here is, how do we know what we know?
We are looking at reliability of source information, upon which we must make judgments (we have no choice but to choose!).
You have attached yourself to a single source that is at odds with other sources in some respects. You are convinced that this source comes from a higher power, and should therefore be trusted over the fallible theories of humans.
You are 90% correct. My philosphy or religious views are not based solely on one source. I have many reasons for believing the way I do. It is outside reasons I believe the bible to be true. I don't believe it is true because it says it is true. That is from books designed for the gullible. I believe it true because it has presented itself to be true every time I have applied it to my life.
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
And you may hear religious fundamentalists claim the Darwin's Origin of the Species is just an "atheist manifesto", but those fools are forgotten eventually too.
But you make the mistake of thinking that only religious fundis reject Darwinism. Not true. Many scientists, thinkers, and influenial people reject it. It doesn't matter the status of those that reject it. It matters why they reject it, and the reason why is because they are skeptical that Darwinism can produce what it is claimed.
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>

Books can be faked, especially books loaded with early and pre-historical content, and magical mythology, and miracle claims. I can see no reason to believe your source is really anything more than the words of men.
And your books are not written by men? And my book is wrong and can be faked, but yours can't ....because....????
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>Inspired at times, a magnus opus, a great chronicle of a people's struggle and development. But not written by God.
That is your opinion. I have posted the reformation of Israel prophecy many times in here. How could someone if 536 BC know that Israel would be reformed in May of 1948? THe bible says that GOD tells us the end from the beginning. Do you not see many things from revelation being fulfilled in our times? A one world bank, and (coming) one world government, the struggles in the middle east, the coming world dictator, the ability to resrtict the ability to buy or sell. We could go into a lot of depth here, but only a deity that is outside of time could know these things.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109778 Feb 5, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
On the other hand, its hard to fake scientific evidence and get away with that for long, as the Piltdown hoax demonstrates. The critical approach of science is to be skeptical of claims until they are demonstrated by evidence from multiple empirical sources that can be checked.
I don't have your faith in science. The reason is Piltdown man is not alone. Haeckles embryos were in school test books for decades, falsely presenting fabricated hoaxes to children. How about "Lucy" who was presented as a transition between ape and man? While not a hoax (the claim was the hoax)Lucy definately was NOT A TRANSITIONAL fossil as was claimed by many.Or how about Nebraska man? Dr. Henry Fairfield Osborn, head of the Department of Palaeontology at New York’s American Museum of Natural History, wrote the following ..

“The earth spoke to Bryan from his own state of Nebraska. The Hesperopithecus tooth is like the still, small voice. Its sound is by no means easy to hear... This little tooth speaks volumes of truth, in that it affords evidence of man’s descent from the ape."

It was a pigs tooth.
I could continue, but I think this is plenty to show valid reason for skeptism of human from non-human evolution.
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>

One skull is an anomaly. A succession of skulls is not. They were predicted by evolution, but not prophesised by any religion!
Very unconvincing. THere are probably trillions of human, ape, child, adult, deformed, exagerated, abnormal skulls on the planet today. If it's background is unknown, the interpretations would be insain!
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109779 Feb 5, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
{head/desk}
Click the link dummy
LowellGuy

Lowell, MA

#109780 Feb 5, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Nope, just psuedoscience. If it's observable, testable, and replicatable, like explaining an eclipse, then I'm cool with it. If it isn't, I'm skeptical, and I love challenging the ones presenting it. THey think that just because THEY claimed something, everyone should believe it. VEry funny.
You can't observe ideas. Explanations are ideas. I can't believe (but really can) that you're still riding that legless pony. You're so indignant about your stupidity. A truly fascinating case study of the power of indoctrination over rational thought.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109781 Feb 5, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>

One more thing. If you are talking bias, then you have to look as the reasons for bias. That body of evidence I mentioned makes no great personal promise of eternal life, or divine justice, or "meaning". It offers no bribes. So who is biased?
These rabid scientists like Eugeneie Scott! If she isn't biased, why spend you life battling something you are not biased against? Why does Richard Dawkins even bring up GOD? Why does Bill Maher fill the world with his hate for christians? Why would a physics professor say that stars died for you, not Jesus? Why all these things protecting a philosophy if they are not biased?
LowellGuy

Lowell, MA

#109782 Feb 5, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Of course I disagree that we are superior because we have evolved to be superior. I think we are superior because we were created to over see all these life forms. THere is scripture to support that. Also, I disagree that chimps are better climbers. If a human sets out to do something like climbing, then without evolving, they can do it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =ZFQxXI8wzoYXX
The scripture doesn't support your claim; the scripture is the claim and you merely repeat it because you've been taught to do so. Keep hitting the button, keep getting the treat. Operant conditioning 101. You're nothing more than a wrong-shaped pigeon.
LowellGuy

Lowell, MA

#109783 Feb 5, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I don't have your faith in science. The reason is Piltdown man is not alone. Haeckles embryos were in school test books for decades, falsely presenting fabricated hoaxes to children. How about "Lucy" who was presented as a transition between ape and man? While not a hoax (the claim was the hoax)Lucy definately was NOT A TRANSITIONAL fossil as was claimed by many.Or how about Nebraska man? Dr. Henry Fairfield Osborn, head of the Department of Palaeontology at New York’s American Museum of Natural History, wrote the following ..
“The earth spoke to Bryan from his own state of Nebraska. The Hesperopithecus tooth is like the still, small voice. Its sound is by no means easy to hear... This little tooth speaks volumes of truth, in that it affords evidence of man’s descent from the ape."
It was a pigs tooth.
I could continue, but I think this is plenty to show valid reason for skeptism of human from non-human evolution.
<quoted text>Very unconvincing. THere are probably trillions of human, ape, child, adult, deformed, exagerated, abnormal skulls on the planet today. If it's background is unknown, the interpretations would be insain!
Retard. You're too concerned with protecting your ignorance to learn. You deserve scorn and pity, though in which order I know not.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#109784 Feb 5, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Click the link dummy
I did, dummy. That fact that a couple of youngsters are good at climbing walls does not equate to the human race, as a whole, are better climbers than chimpanzees.

But then, this isn't the first idiotic claim you made here. And probably not the last.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109785 Feb 5, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>

Yup. Those damn scientists. Always claiming something. The world would be so much better off if we got rid of the whole lot and replaced them with preachers.
/sarcasm
We need good scientists. We DON'T NEED scientists with a liberal agenda to grind like Richard Dawkins, Eugeneie Scott, Franis Crick and his psuedoscientific panspermia. Not all evolutionists are atheist, but almost all atheists are evolutionists. Evolution is the air supply of the atheist. It falsely gives him a validity to adhere to atheism. They combat creationists because they understand that we know that evolution is their air flow, and in challenging Darwinism, are cutting off their air supply. We disprove human from non-human evolution, and atheism returns to the ridiculous and unreasonable philosophy from which it came. If we could just get the liberals out of sciences way, we'd be light years ahead of where we are now!!

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#109786 Feb 5, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Nope, just psuedoscience. If it's observable, testable, and replicatable, like explaining an eclipse, then I'm cool with it. If it isn't, I'm skeptical, and I love challenging the ones presenting it. THey think that just because THEY claimed something, everyone should believe it. VEry funny.
Skeptical? LOL! You aren't a skeptic, you are a SEPTIC.
Observe, test and replicate a global flood as described in Genesis - or even an ACCURATE computer simulation of one.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#109787 Feb 5, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
{head/desk}
http://www.jokefile.co.uk/office_jokes/0329.g...

Note that it doesn't say WHOSE head...

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#109788 Feb 5, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>We need good scientists. We DON'T NEED scientists with a liberal agenda to grind like Richard Dawkins, Eugeneie Scott, Franis Crick and his psuedoscientific panspermia. Not all evolutionists are atheist, but almost all atheists are evolutionists. Evolution is the air supply of the atheist. It falsely gives him a validity to adhere to atheism. They combat creationists because they understand that we know that evolution is their air flow, and in challenging Darwinism, are cutting off their air supply. We disprove human from non-human evolution, and atheism returns to the ridiculous and unreasonable philosophy from which it came. If we could just get the liberals out of sciences way, we'd be light years ahead of where we are now!!
YEAH! Bring back the Dark Age! Lots of progress made then.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109789 Feb 5, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Skeptical? LOL! You aren't a skeptic, you are a SEPTIC.
Observe, test and replicate a global flood as described in Genesis - or even an ACCURATE computer simulation of one.
By definition there is no such thing as historical certainty, but I wouldn't expect a pointless person like yourself to know that. What in the world would a computer simulation be worth? You can simulate apes morphing into humans, it still never happened!!

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
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 3 min TurkanaBoy 132,967
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 9 min Chimney1 559
How would creationists explain... 4 hr Chimney1 350
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 10 hr Ooogah Boogah 13,623
Science News (Sep '13) 11 hr Hatti_Hollerand 2,937
Creationism coming to Ohio classrooms? Not with... Sat nobody 7
24 hour dental emergency (Nov '13) Dec 19 Zach 4
More from around the web