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

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

There are 159361 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.

LowellGuy

United States

#109885 Feb 6, 2013
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
You speak bullsh!t.
An observation is an observation. Period.
And the observation is that there are finely tuned aspects of the universe.
WHILE the fine tuning of the universe does NOT immediately suggest an intelligent influence; IT IS AGREED THAT THERE IS FINE TUNING.
"Physicist Paul Davies has asserted that "There IS NOW BROAD AGREEMENT among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe IS in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life". However, he continues, "the conclusion is not so much that the Universe is fine-tuned for life; rather IT IS fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires."
[wikipedia.com]
However, man is justified in speculating that fine tuning is the effect of intelligent influence, because he fine tunes with the potential given to him by his intelligence.
It doesnt surprise me when people like you say things like that.
The surprise would be if you actually did not say something like that.
You would deny even the hardest facts and most concrete observations as long as you get to feel the way you want about the world. You are a joke.
You tards come in here speaking as if you are interested in science or fact for its own sake, but you deceive only yourself.
All a man does, he does for in his own interest and at and towards his own convenience; and it must necessarily be that way.
Or else, show me the man who pursues anything, even knowledge to his own hurt and I will show you a facking fool.
Is a pothole finely tuned for the puddle that forms in it? Is the loaf of bread finely tuned for the loaf pan it came from? What is the sharpshooter fallacy?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109886 Feb 6, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I don't think you have it right at all. I think it's more like liberal, socialist,secularists...vs.... .Conservative,capitalist, anti-psuedoscience, theists.<quoted text>You are way off the mark here and your biases are showing. Who says religious beliefs aren't rational? Idiots like Richard Dawkins? He's not the authority of truth. Christianity is very rational to those that study it and take it seriously. Just because you reject it doesn't mean it isn't rational. In fact, it could mean that you are not rational. Until scientists can replicate the origin of life, creationism will be rational.<quoted text>So? She is like you. Not the norm. She was right about conservatism, and wrong about GOD. You are right about conservatism, and wrong about GOD.(IMHO).<quoted text>Well, it's definately not a scientific theory. It's more of an atheistic philosophy, and yes there are christians that buy into it. That just tells me that they have a surface faith, and a personality that follows rather than researches. I'm not judging their salvation, only GOD can do that. They can be right about Jesus and go to heaven, and still have been completely wrong about human from non-human evolution.

All this is just your personal bias showing. It take more faith to acknowledge science and still believe in Jesus that it does to go along with the posers who have to believe in literalism or bust.

If this is not so then why are you so afraid of learning what science actually knows?

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#109887 Feb 6, 2013
I'm not folowing. Are you in agreement with Chimney1, since it seems to me that you are seconding him.

quote:
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Paul is a rare specimen. So is the midget. In any sample of 1000 people you would be lucky to find one of each. Unless you think that fossilisation especially picks out the freaks, its exceedingly unlikely that the fossils we have are Paul Wright equivalents. They are far more likely ordinary individuals of the time.
We have many specimens of species like Neanderthal, H erectus, and Heidlburgensis. Your argument simply does not wash when we have multiple specimens of a species. To imagine that only the "Paul Wright" equivalents were fossilised and found multiple time is not credible.

DOGEN:If we only had one example of a species this would be a valid criticism, I think. But as we have many specimens of a number of human/prehuman/protohuman species this has no validity.

It just goes to show, creationists will try to roll the dice on any notion that comes to their little minds.

end quote.

(I consider crea fundies people that see every fossil as a pointmutation. So when confronted with multiple examples a new rational is invented.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#109888 Feb 6, 2013
Elohim wrote:
<quoted text>"Tell people there’s an invisible man in the sky who
created the universe, and the vast majority believe you.
Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure." George Carlin
I put that excellent quote on the forum with more folks from CT.
This came back:

rabbee: well there is much more evidence for G-D, than there is for wet paint. and obviously i was still wet paint, when G-D came to visit me, as adam for the first time again.

:)))
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109889 Feb 6, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>

Don't you get it? Of course he is not! He is a human putting forth his views with his reasons, which you can agree with or not.
NOBODY is an unquestioned authority. Ever, in anything. And sorry mate, but I include Jesus in that category.
If there is an emperical authority it would be Jesus (GOD). But you aren't looking at this realistically.There are big mouths and little mouths. You can dismiss the little mouths because no one cares what they say.(That is you and me) Then there are the big mouths, and they have access to many minds, and there are those in the world that are followers and simply believe things they hear because they don't critically examine the things these big mouths say. It is then up to us little mouths to tell them better.
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I have a different take. It was acceptance of dogmatic authority that enabled both. Same thing with Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao, and they were not religious. For me its this dogmatic aspect that enables men to do evil things that is the core issue, and religion is one form of dogmatism but not the only one.
The cure is rational empirical skepticism. That is, nobody and no doctrine is the automatic authority. All claims must be open to critical examination and backed by evidence.
Then why do evolutionists like Eugeneie Scott violently oppose critical examination of human from non-human evolution in the schools? If it is true, then it should be able to survive every critical examination easily, so why oppose critical examination?
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109890 Feb 6, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sounds like a good guy. Don't be so sure about norms. The Democrats have been hijacked by their more extreme elements, just as the Republicans have.
I agree with the democrats, but the republican party has left the extremeists behind. The Tea Partiers are the more rational thinkers of the GOP. And the liberal republicans are being left out! I'd like to see the Tea Party leave the republicans and form the Tea Party. This party would incorporate conservative Dems...and GOP.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109891 Feb 6, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
You said that you disagreed that chimps were better climbers than humans. Show me humans swinging from tree to tree faster than a chimp.
I'm not running your rabbits. I made my point with a video that supported it. I don't feel like wasting time arguing over who is a better climber. Believe whatever you want.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109892 Feb 6, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Normally I would agree. But when I read the statements and they are one part fact to nine parts opinion (much like most news services today), I look at the source.
<quoted text>
Sounds to me like he is discussing the abominable state of text books, not evolution. BTW, this criticism was extended by notables like Feynmann (about physics textbooks) etc...a special problem in the USA where school boards and not experts often choose the material.
<quoted text>
And there we have the propaganda piece. Look at all the b*llsh*t they are talking in that paragraph!
Shall I lay it out for you.
Emotion then emotion followed by accusation of dishonesty and its widespread! but heartening that one of the "enemy" "admits" it! Followed by more accusations of fraud and shameful propagation, wake-up call for those deceived, etc!!!
What a load of overblown, propagandist, childish rubbish. How would Gould fix it? By modernising the textbooks and eliminating these phony references....leaving 99% of the evidence for evolution intact, of course!
But what does it say about the political posturing behind the scenes of those with an agenda that they oppose critical examination of materials that even Gould admits was terrible science? Also what does it say for evolution when the one honest critiism of the terrible science in the text books, himself came up with a psuedoscientific explantation for the Cambrian Explosion called Punctuated Equalibra?
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109893 Feb 6, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly my position on organized religion and for the same reasons.
Big difference. You reject the organised church, which clearly has flaws, and in the process completely missed GODS plan for your life and eternity. I don't reject all of science. I just reject human from non-human evolution and man made global warning. I have benefited from the remainder of true science, you on the other hand threw the baby out with the bath water, much to your loss.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109894 Feb 6, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Haeckel’s drawings were incorrect. No one's denying that. Even Haeckel made corrections.
Science corrects mistakes. Why is that a problem?
Because you guys dishonestly say that the reason the evolution vs creation debate is important to you is because you don't want the psuedoscience of ID taught in the schools, while taking decades to get Haeckles drawings, and piltdown man out of science books!! I guess it's ok to teach lies in schools as long as they are lies that supports your philosophy?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#109895 Feb 6, 2013
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh yeah?
Well "nature" created life without a lab; waddya call that, inefficiency?
You cant even think without your lab and nature is creating things without a lab; I wonder which of you is more efficient?
If I can synthesize a chemical with substances from plants on my veranda, and you require the use of a lab to do the same thing; who is more efficient?
<quoted text>
Ok then.
So which one of your machines can generate solar energy to sustain the entire solar system now?
Are you stupid, or are you deliberately trying to annoy me?
<quoted text>
Not necessarily.
We learn by studying the designs created by that Intelligence in the world; so in a sense, we are intelligent beings learning from the Higher Intelligence which surrounds us and created everything inside and outside of us.
I see you still do not understand the difference between efficient and effective.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#109896 Feb 6, 2013
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
You speak bullsh!t.
An observation is an observation. Period.
And the observation is that there are finely tuned aspects of the universe.
WHILE the fine tuning of the universe does NOT immediately suggest an intelligent influence; IT IS AGREED THAT THERE IS FINE TUNING.
"Physicist Paul Davies has asserted that "There IS NOW BROAD AGREEMENT among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe IS in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life". However, he continues, "the conclusion is not so much that the Universe is fine-tuned for life; rather IT IS fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires."
[wikipedia.com]
However, man is justified in speculating that fine tuning is the effect of intelligent influence, because he fine tunes with the potential given to him by his intelligence.
It doesnt surprise me when people like you say things like that.
The surprise would be if you actually did not say something like that.
You would deny even the hardest facts and most concrete observations as long as you get to feel the way you want about the world. You are a joke.
You tards come in here speaking as if you are interested in science or fact for its own sake, but you deceive only yourself.
All a man does, he does for in his own interest and at and towards his own convenience; and it must necessarily be that way.
Or else, show me the man who pursues anything, even knowledge to his own hurt and I will show you a facking fool.
Lets accept the idea that our universe is fine tuned for life. That still leaves you jumping to a conclusion to claim it had to be God that is responsible. Our universe may be one of many.

But frankly, no skin off my nose if you say it. Lets say, for your argument's sake, it was God.

That STILL leaves the enormous amount of evidence for an old universe and evolution completely intact. Evolution does not "care" whether God made the universe or not. Evolution remains the best explanation for life's diversity anyway, given all the evidence we have. If God could "fine tune" a universe to make life possible, why insist that evolution was not his method when the evidence is all around you?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#109897 Feb 6, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>If there is an emperical authority it would be Jesus (GOD). But you aren't looking at this realistically.There are big mouths and little mouths. You can dismiss the little mouths because no one cares what they say.(That is you and me) Then there are the big mouths, and they have access to many minds, and there are those in the world that are followers and simply believe things they hear because they don't critically examine the things these big mouths say. It is then up to us little mouths to tell them better.
[QUOTE]

You are still framing things in terms of Authority ("Big mouths"), and you are right about challenging authority but this is not the point.

Big, little, regardless, all that matters is the reliability of the source.

I regard no data as perfect but source data coming from the process of
observation -> hypothesis -> prediction -> investigation -> confirmation, where every step is open to challenge and critical review at any time,

as superior to:

allegations of man on a hill -> hears voices -> makes predictions, written decades or centuries after the alleged fact, by humans.

Typically so vague that no interpretation makes sense until after the fact (just like Astrology!).

[QUOTE]
Then why do evolutionists like Eugeneie Scott violently oppose critical examination of human from non-human evolution in the schools?
I don't know who Eugenie Scott is or what he has said. But, if the general record is anything to go by, I expect he has been selectively quote mined in the same way that your sources quote mine everyone else (e.g. Gould, Dawkins, Coe & Prevot, Denton, Lenski, Kimura, Popper, Einstein to name a few).

Its form of false witness, BTW. But do send me his alleged statements.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#109898 Feb 6, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I agree with the democrats, but the republican party has left the extremeists behind. The Tea Partiers are the more rational thinkers of the GOP. And the liberal republicans are being left out! I'd like to see the Tea Party leave the republicans and form the Tea Party. This party would incorporate conservative Dems...and GOP.
We had a system in NZ that was much the same, "first past the post" FPP, and it always ended up with two parties, left and right, with the occasional third party or independent getting somewhere temporarily. This was abandoned in about 1990 for proportional representation.

FPP means that every issue gets squashed into a shapeless mass and you end up supporting policies you hate in order to back the ones you like. Proportional representation gives you more options and provides a finer calibration of what the public really want. It also starts to break down the knee-jerk opposition to everything one party says by the other party, and brings some reason back into the game. Its not perfect, but I like it.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#109899 Feb 6, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>But what does it say about the political posturing behind the scenes of those with an agenda that they oppose critical examination of materials that even Gould admits was terrible science? Also what does it say for evolution when the one honest critiism of the terrible science in the text books, himself came up with a psuedoscientific explantation for the Cambrian Explosion called Punctuated Equalibra?
Like I said, Gould's solution would be better science books with modern, accepted references, which would leave 99% of the evidence for evolution intact.

And there is nothing pseudoscientific about PE. I don't care how many times you repeat it, PE was embedded in evolution from the start by Darwin and you have been shown the references from Origin of the Species to prove it; its not a later add-on. And even if it was, we can modify our theories to match reality. That is science. Also, you still claim PE = "sudden" when the period in question was 52 million years long plus the 30 million years Ediacaran has now shown multi-cellular life.

Get over that one.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#109900 Feb 6, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Big difference. You reject the organised church, which clearly has flaws, and in the process completely missed GODS plan for your life and eternity. I don't reject all of science. I just reject human from non-human evolution and man made global warning. I have benefited from the remainder of true science, you on the other hand threw the baby out with the bath water, much to your loss.
You are always particular about "human from non human" evolution.

Do you reject that other species evolved?
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109901 Feb 7, 2013
You got your quote tags a little messed up there, but you have numerous problems....1... you only look at reality from a materialist viewpoint. I think it is obvious that there is more to life than that. 2....you speak of evolution as adhering to the scientific method, when the reality is, you guys have set it up to where it can't be wrong because you say you don't require observation. Evolutionists said for decades that human from non-human evolution took eons of time. BUt then comes the Cambrian Explosion,and these life forms show up fully formed with zero evidence of any kind of ancestor to preceed it, so now we have a problem!!!! But NOOOOO.....because we fabricate another "excuse" that also isn't observable, so we can explain the other part of our theory that never was observed!!! Punctuated Equalibria!!! So you have set evolution up to where it can't be disproven because all you have to do is make up a fabricated fantasy to explain what ever todays emergency is. That is why observation is so important, because what you have done is Darwin took the truth, executed overkill that has never been observed, and ever sense then you guys have fabricated fantasy on top of fantasy to defend it. Human from non-human evolution never happened, and you guys will continue to defend it with unobservable fantasies. I will continue to battle it until it becomes observable, and we all know that ain't gonna happen!
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know who Eugenie Scott is or what he has said. But, if the general record is anything to go by, I expect he has been selectively quote mined in the same way that your sources quote mine everyone else (e.g. Gould, Dawkins, Coe & Prevot, Denton, Lenski, Kimura, Popper, Einstein to name a few).
Its form of false witness, BTW. But do send me his alleged statements.
Eugenie Scott is a female. She is over the NCSE (National Center for Science Education)I just finished her book "Evolution vs Creation" and I don't think she'd quote mine herself in her own book. One note, her book is full of holes. Often she attempts to make a point and to prove it, she references herself from one of her previous books.....lol. As far as her battle to not have evolution critically examined comes from the above book, Chapter 11 page 247...in which she battles OPPSIES, disclaimer tags, and says that no challenges should be allowed in the school room science class. Funny, I always thought that science was based on critical examination? Maybe they don't want people to figure out themselves that it isn't and never will be observable.2.... without knowing it, she hurts her own case in this book by clearly explaining that in these schoolroom court cases, that they purposely make the case a church/state issue. I guess she thinks we are not smart enough to know that she has to make a church/state issue out of it because the science supporting it isn't there. If it was, they could care less about it being a church state issue. Good science, and truth will stand on their own. They don't need to bring in an ACLU lawyer to make a church/state issue of it, if it truly had the scientific support they claim. But in every case, they make a church/state issue of it, and that speaks volums to me.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109902 Feb 7, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
We had a system in NZ that was much the same, "first past the post" FPP, and it always ended up with two parties, left and right, with the occasional third party or independent getting somewhere temporarily. This was abandoned in about 1990 for proportional representation.
FPP means that every issue gets squashed into a shapeless mass and you end up supporting policies you hate in order to back the ones you like. Proportional representation gives you more options and provides a finer calibration of what the public really want. It also starts to break down the knee-jerk opposition to everything one party says by the other party, and brings some reason back into the game. Its not perfect, but I like it.
I support the line item veto, but not until we get a conservative president...lol.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109903 Feb 7, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Like I said, Gould's solution would be better science books with modern, accepted references, which would leave 99% of the evidence for evolution intact.
I thought you said better science books. If you leave 99% of evolution in tact, you have a fairy tale, not a science book. My neice teaches high school biology and she says that evolution is no longer mentioned in her test books. I thas been replaced by teaching "green" science....which is just replacing one liberal fantasy with another,
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
And there is nothing pseudoscientific about PE. I don't care how many times you repeat it, PE was embedded in evolution from the start by Darwin and you have been shown the references from Origin of the Species to prove it; its not a later add-on. And even if it was, we can modify our theories to match reality. That is science. Also, you still claim PE = "sudden" when the period in question was 52 million years long plus the 30 million years Ediacaran has now shown multi-cellular life.
Get over that one.
Listen, you can call the Cambrian a piece of time if you want. In reality it is a depth of ground. And at it's very lowest point, not at the top, after millions of years have pasted, but at it's lowest point, you find these fully formed life forms with no preceeding ancestor. I don't care if you want to claim a billion years for the Cambrian, these lifeforms are still found at the very begining with no preceeding ancestor. PE has never been observed and is just an unobservable fantasy to explain another unobservable fantasy. You even said yourself....

" its not a later add-on. And even if it was, we can modify our theories to match reality. That is science."

It is only science if you can modify it with observation, and you can't do that. So what you do, as I explained in an earlier post, is fabricate another unobservable fantasy, to explain your unobservable mythical theory. THen proudly proclaim that evolution has not been disproven. HECK, it doesn't have to be disproven until you can prove it, and you can't do that. All you are doing is failing at supporting an atheistic philosophy.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109904 Feb 7, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You are always particular about "human from non human" evolution.
Do you reject that other species evolved?
Yes. I make it very clear because Darwinists try to morph the term when cornered as if micro and macro are the same thing. That is why I clarify. I believe they evolved, just not into something else.

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 Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 5 min replaytime 2,033
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 41 min Nohweh 27,376
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 42 min messianic114 219,618
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr Subduction Zone 58,355
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) Thu Sentinel 1,758
News Intelligent Design Education Day Feb 19 replaytime 2
News Betsy DeVos' Code Words for Creationism Offshoo... Feb 16 scientia potentia... 1
More from around the web