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
Elohim

Branford, CT

#109810 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!!
LMAO!!! You are the epitome of willful ignorance.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109811 Feb 5, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>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!!

Humans ARE apes. So there is no need for anything to "morph"

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109812 Feb 5, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Well, dummy, that was never the claim. I said that some humans if they decide too, can be better climbers than chimps. THe video proved I was right, and you just lied and made up something I didn't say. I'm not surprised. Liberals have to do that.

Ah,

So evolution = science = liberal.

Good to know.

Do you know any human who would be willing to fight a chimp hand to hand?

For good reason, too.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109813 Feb 5, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>What a ridiculous reply. My pointing out that there are liberal scientists with an axe to grind has nothing to do with the dark ages, of couse that never stopped you from making a pointless rely before.

Scientists are both liberal and conservative and they agree on evolution. Only fundies who are also scientists try to make a case for creationism.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109814 Feb 5, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>How childish!

Yes, you always are.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109815 Feb 5, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I said "a" human. I didn't say all humans like you infured. You are really coming more and more dishonest and frustrated.<quoted text>Lowell guy says,
"Newton's law of gravity are violated all the time. It's a KNOWN SCIENTIFIC LAW!!!!"

Newton's Law is useful, but it has limits (that is so say it is "violated"). Why not look up the definition of a scientific law so you can speak sensibly about the subject?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109816 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!!

Generally poor argumentation. What would atheists be if not "evolutionists"? The other choices are religious beliefs that live in denial of modern science.

Science is neither liberal nor conservative. Pseudoscience, however, is mostly a conservative agenda.

Since religion has been left at the doorstep of science it has never progressed faster. At no time in history has science been progressing as fast as it is now, and the pace of scientific discovery is ever accelerating.

Creationists, IDers, Flat-earthers, geocentricics, etc, are all living in the past.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#109817 Feb 5, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I don't care.
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>How childish!
Impressive.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#109818 Feb 5, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I said "a" human. I didn't say all humans like you infured. You are really coming more and more dishonest and frustrated.
I've never been dishonest and I'm far from frustrated. I think you're somewhat funny. Sort of like watching a dog chase it's tail.
marksman11 wrote:
"Newton's law of gravity are violated all the time. It's a KNOWN SCIENTIFIC LAW!!!!"
Yes. We've already caught on the the fact that you are to freakin stupid to grasp the neuance of the statement.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#109819 Feb 5, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Newton's Law is useful, but it has limits (that is so say it is "violated"). Why not look up the definition of a scientific law so you can speak sensibly about the subject?
Hey.

Ptolemy worked - sorta, and you had to squint a lot.

Copernicus fixed a lot of that, and worked a great deal better

Then Newton tidied up a lot of the loose ends.

Einstein got most of the rest - there are still quantum effects needing a bit of work.

This is called "learning new sh!t". A phenomenon conspicuous in fundamentalism only by its utter absence.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109820 Feb 5, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
My mistake, for which I admit and apologize for. It wouldn't honor myself or my parents to persistently pretend I'm right when I'm wrong... I'm sure you'd AGREE?
It was KAB who said, "...that the Bible has not been convicted of even a single error in spite of claims of tens of thousands of points challenged." Oddly enough, I don't recall that you had any thoughts on that point at the time... I guess you must not have noticed it or you would have had the integrity to say something. In any case, there was a mistaken identity for which I am sorry.
Absolutely no problem. I'm sure I've done the same thing.
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
The "mental image that your ganglia are all robed and chanting over sacred relics in a cavernous void" is still contingent on a couple items. Did you say that the biblical Creation, the biblical account of the Great Flood, the parting of the Red Sea, Jonah and the big fish, etc. are mere primitive myths?
Some I have addressed, some I have not. I think that GOD can cause each one to occur in the literal should he want to. Are some literal, some alagory? I don't know. Sometimes I think supernatural events can have a double fulfillment and are prophetic in nature. Like Jonah and the great fish. I think the point is it is referencing the coming resurrection of Jesus. So was Jonah actually swallowed or is it a parable? I don't know, but either way, the point is the same.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109821 Feb 5, 2013
Elohim wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! You are the epitome of willful ignorance.
In your dreams!
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109822 Feb 5, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
I've never been dishonest and I'm far from frustrated. I think you're somewhat funny. Sort of like watching a dog chase it's tail.
So when I make the statement that a human can climb as good as a chimp if they want to, and supplied a video of those who have chosen to become excellent climbers proving my point, then you somehow falsely accuse me of saying a humans can climb better than chimps, and you know the point I was making, and you were wrong. You were one of two things. Either you were dishonest, or incorrect, and sadly you don't have the character to admit one or the other.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109823 Feb 5, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Absolutely no problem. I'm sure I've done the same thing.<quoted text>Some I have addressed, some I have not. I think that GOD can cause each one to occur in the literal should he want to. Are some literal, some alagory? I don't know. Sometimes I think supernatural events can have a double fulfillment and are prophetic in nature. Like Jonah and the great fish. I think the point is it is referencing the coming resurrection of Jesus. So was Jonah actually swallowed or is it a parable? I don't know, but either way, the point is the same.

Then why did Jesus Fail the test of the prophet Jonah?

"An evil and adulterous generation craves for a [b]sign; and yet no [c]sign will be given to it but the [d]sign of Jonah the prophet; 40 for just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. "

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...

So lets see.....

Friday night
Saturday Day
Okay, that's one day and one night.

Saturday Night.....

Um.....

Looks like it was 1 day and 2 nights. Not exactly Jonah's sign.

Maybe Jesus rose around supper time on Monday.

Even if you accept that Jesus was crucified on Thursday (as many contend) he still comes up a day short.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109824 Feb 5, 2013
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109825 Feb 5, 2013

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#109826 Feb 5, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
Wow, I agree with marky. This is good news. The bill was tabled in Montana, and once a bill is tabled they tend to die. And a similar bill has died in Colorado.

The anti-science bills are going to fail, even in the conservative states. Great news!

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#109828 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
My point was, yes, we are better at the things you listed.

However, "superior" in the evolutionary sense is about fitness and adaptability, and really only time will tell. Big brains, fast accurate flight, good climbing, sharp teeth are all just means to an end, and the test is survival.

The fossil record it littered with relics that became the best at something, for a time, but specialisation has its costs. In our case, it may be the ability to destroy ourselves through all the wonderful weapons this brain has been able to dream up. Lets hope not. Still, questions of future human survival are meaningless to you, because you think you know the answer to that already.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#109829 Feb 5, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>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?
Dawkins was merrily writing his books on evolution for 20 years before he became militant. I think he has gone overboard, but he has given his reasons.

1. Minor reason - getting sick of creationists deliberately quote mining and distorting his own words and the words of other evolutionists. As an academic, this is a red flag to a bull. Academic argue and disagree with great passion, but they do not deliberately twist their opponents words, which is rightly seen as low and despicable behavior. But still he said little, until

2. 911. This travesty of indoctrinated, insane thinking converted into disgusting action has led many previous fence sitters to take a more active stance against religion and religious indoctrination. If you think the criticism should have been restricted to Islam specifically, you are missing the point.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#109830 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!
No, I do not think you could continue much further, because you have just about mined out the entire repertoire of frauds in evolution.

You will note that all of these frauds (and Lucy is not a fraud but genuine intermediate as explained below), belong to an early period of the science and were uncovered by biologists themselves. A perfect example of the scientific method at work.

When we had only one or two fossils, Piltdown could be put there as a possible find (though even early on it was treated with suspicion, which you always forget). But what happens over time? More and more evidence is uncovered. Even before radiometric dating conclusively falsified Piltdown, it had become something of a joke as real finds piled up and told a very different story of what really happened in the past. There is now a continuum of fossil finds from apelike Lucy to modern humans. Lucy fits that broader pattern. Piltdown never did.

And FYI, "Nebraska Man" was never taken seriously by the scientific community. Haeckel was investigated and eventually found wanting, though not completely false.

As to your final theory of abnormalities...that was the assumption for the very first Neanderthal found! But more kept turning up...and a whole continuum. If they are abnormalities...WHY are there no "normal" i.e. modern skulls from the same periods? Why are there other "abnormal" skulls? Why do the abnormalities, tracked over time, just happen to coincide EXACTLY with a progression from apelike to human form? Nah.

That is just silly.

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) 49 min Dogen 132,572
How would creationists explain... 5 hr Dogen 331
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 5 hr ChromiuMan 529
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 10 hr Brian_G 13,618
24 hour dental emergency (Nov '13) 22 hr Zach 4
Science News (Sep '13) Fri Ricky F 2,936
Genetic entropy Thu Discord 159
More from around the web