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

Full story: Asheville Citizen-Times

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 ...
Comments
107,821 - 107,840 of 134,506 Comments Last updated 4 hrs ago
LowellGuy

Lawrence, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109864
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I'm just saying, there are exceptions to the norm, and when you have evolutionists finding a pigs tooth and from that tooth drawing the entire family of the non-existant human, then they zeal and exageration must be greeted with extreme skeptisim. And because Evolutionists have had Piltdown, Nebraska Man, Lucy, Haeckles....etc...This extreme skeptisim is warrented.
But extreme skepticism is not regarding talking snakes and donkeys, giants, angels, global year-long miles-deep flooding, resurrection, walking on water, turning water into wine, healing the blind with dust and spit...that you just accept, but science, which ferrets out the false continuously, deserves extreme skepticism. What's the latest discovery with real world applications that was made using creationism? Nothing? Hm...how can that be?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109865
Feb 6, 2013
 
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>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.
You said that you disagreed that chimps were better climbers than humans. Show me humans swinging from tree to tree faster than a chimp.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109866
Feb 6, 2013
 
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Refute the statements, not the source.
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.
Then why did Stephen Gould say....

"Haeckel’s drawings, despite their noted inaccuracies, entered into the most impenetrable and permanent of all quasi-scientific literatures: standard student textbooks of biology (p. 44)….Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because…textbooks copy from previous texts (p. 45).

Prof. Gould then made this absolutely startling admission:
…[W]e do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, IF NOT A MAJORITY, of modern textbooks!(p. 45, emphasis added)

He then goes on to quote a colleague, Michael Richardson of the St. George’s Hospital Medical School in London, who stated,
"I know of at least fifty recent biology texts which use the drawings uncritically" (p. 45).
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.
These facts are both frightening and heartening. They are frightening because they demonstrate the colossal dishonesty of the evolutionary movement, as well as the widespread nature of this dishonesty. However, it is heartening to know that even a militant anti-Creationist such as Dr. Gould would admit in the pages of a respected journal like Natural History that one of the major pieces of evidence for evolution is not only fraudulent, but is shamefully being propagated among the world’s youth to this very day. With hope, this might serve as a wake-up call for people who have been deceived into believing Darwin’s theory as scientific fact beyond the scope of doubt or question."

http://www.creationism.org/caesar/haeckel.htm
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!

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109867
Feb 6, 2013
 
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>There is a wrestler named Paul Wright. His wrestling name is The Big Show. He is over 7 feet tall and almost 500lbs. If his fossil was found today, there would be claims of a race of giants. He tag teams at times with a miget that comes to his knee. What would they think about him? See, they could be found side by side and it would mean absolutely nothing. When will you learn that fossils can't support evolution because they can't give you their heritage. All you have is interpretation of a lot of different images and bones, and just like Nebraska man, evolutionists from one tooth can draw a picture of the whole family even though it is the tooth of a pig!!
You've been told this before, Marky.*I* told you this before. Poor memory or outright dishonesty? The picture was done by a *artist*. Even Osborn said the picture was bullshit.

'It was originally described by Henry Fairfield Osborn in 1922, on the basis of a tooth that rancher and geologist Harold Cook found in Nebraska in 1917. An illustration of H. haroldcookii was done by artist Amédée Forestier, who modeled the drawing on the proportions of "Pithecanthropus" (now Homo erectus), the "Java ape-man," for the Illustrated London News. Osborn was not impressed with the illustration, calling it: "a figment of the imagination of no scientific value, and undoubtedly inaccurate."'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_man

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109868
Feb 6, 2013
 
marksman11 wrote:
And because Evolutionists have had Piltdown, Nebraska Man, Lucy, Haeckles....etc...This extreme skeptisim is warrented.
Exactly my position on organized religion and for the same reasons.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109869
Feb 6, 2013
 
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Refute the statements, not the source. I think that many of the links you guys post are ridiculous and biased, but I address their statements, not give them a handwave because of the name of the site.
Not the name. Tjhe bias they plainly admit to.
marksman11 wrote:
It was taught to us in high school as a part of evolution in 1976.
The school you might have gone to? No surprise. Nebraska Man was retracted in 1927.
marksman11 wrote:
These facts are both frightening and heartening. They are frightening because they demonstrate the colossal dishonesty of the evolutionary movement, as well as the widespread nature of this dishonesty. However, it is heartening to know that even a militant anti-Creationist such as Dr. Gould would admit in the pages of a respected journal like Natural History that one of the major pieces of evidence for evolution is not only fraudulent, but is shamefully being propagated among the world’s youth to this very day. With hope, this might serve as a wake-up call for people who have been deceived into believing Darwin’s theory as scientific fact beyond the scope of doubt or question."
http://www.creationism.org/caesar/haeckel.htm
Don't hand wave the source. THese are the words of a pramanant evolutionist who is quoted from a scientific journal you can research. Also, please give a link to a genetists that can show me why an embryo would in anyway follow an historical past of distant evolution as it developes? Who came up with that BS? What were claimed as gill slits never were gill slits but pouches that developed into the shoulder and ear mechanics.
Haeckel’s drawings were incorrect. No one's denying that. Even Haeckel made corrections.

Science corrects mistakes. Why is that a problem?

BTW, http://www.creationism.org/

Klingon? Funny.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109870
Feb 6, 2013
 
marksman11 wrote:
<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.
Switching at will between allegory vs literal vs parable vs prophesy vs ...? The point IS the same. "The Bible says it, you believe it and that settles it." The entirety of your contention and comprehension of Evolution vs. Intelligent Design revolves around a bumper sticker.

At least the resonances of your neural pathways will be saved forever and ever, right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch...
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109871
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
We can created life in a lab.
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?
KittenKoder wrote:
Our machines are more efficient than anything found in nature.
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?
KittenKoder wrote:
Yes, we are more efficient if your assertion were correct.
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.
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109872
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no evidence for fine tuning. It is just another philosophical notion creotards believe because they think it mitigates the fact of evolution.
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.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109873
Feb 6, 2013
 
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe you're right.
;)
Maybe', is gone viral.:))

But take note of Dogen's mitigating wink, Watson...i'mean Chromiumman.
And CM also added a thank you!

I think that proves the point.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109874
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.
In the beginning there is the false premise <insert 1700 pages> in the grace of ignorance forever and ever, amen.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109875
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.
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 must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109876
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!
I totally agree with that estimation.
It's been a while back that i looked at the way such a process goes and what laws govern what is being thought in American schools (too broad a category, since they seem to be islands of curriculea). The rest of the world looks on incredulous is all i can say.

Add HFCS and by 2030 half of America talks like marky and GH's.
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109877
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

The Dude wrote:
...
No, for here is the actual quote:
The actual quote demonstrates your idiocity regardless.

You said:
""Efficiency" does not mean "it works". It means it works efficiently."

Are you saying that "efficiency" means it works efficiently?

Even if I disregard the fact that you attempt to use a term to define itself; YOU CANNOT "SEPARATE" EFFICIENCY FROM "WORKING".

The efficiency of a thing is described according to how it works.
The Dude wrote:
Meaning that like most fundies you're willing to dishonestly ignore context to promote a point. I state that if you are required to do so it undermines your point. I also still maintain that your point is still irrelevant.
I have made many points; which particular point are you speaking of?
The Dude wrote:
It is not a fact until you can demonstrate it. You can't.
Demonstrate what exactly? It doesnt even matter.

"Not all facts are capable of being proven by science, but this does not make them any less true."
[http://my.veritas.org/science -and-faith/]

So for you to say "It is not a fact until you can demonstrate it", merely demonstrates how ignorant you are.
The Dude wrote:
Does a cat deny its felinity if it denys the existence of God? Or what if it thinks the Gods are something different? It's still a feline. Because we named it so.
No.

It is not a feline because you named it so.

It does not become feline because you named it so.

"Feline" is a symbol that you use to store the data associated with "cat" in your mind.

Your description or labelling of the world does not affect the reality of the world.

The same "because we said so" method is the same thing you are attempting to do with "evolution" theory.
The Dude wrote:
Here:
You attempted to substitute efficiency with performance. I pointed out that a performance can be inefficient. You did not deny this, then went right back to arguing "efficiency=God". In the meantime I am still no closer to finding out who or what "God" is, where it is, what it looks like, how it did whatever it is you think it did, where it did it and when it did it.
No. I attempted no such thing.

I attempted what I attempted and what I attempted is just as it is written before your very eyes.

I suggested that a relationship can be found between deficiency and performance.

"And you can see no RELATIONSHIP between performance and efficiency?
To say that PERFORMANCE DEMONSTRATES intelligence ins not different from saying EFFICIENCY INDICATES intelligence."

Compare:
"Performance demonstrates" with "Efficiency Indicates".

How much did you score on your English Literacy exam?
The Dude wrote:
...if stars are the most efficient fusion reactors we know then they must have had an intelligence behind them. Conveniently though you do not have to tell us anything about who it is, how it did it, where it did it or when it did it...
Reference to the identity of the agent is superfluous to the study of the object created by the agent; whether the object is a car or a universe.

Duh.
The Dude wrote:
...if in the future we invent a fusion reactor that can perform more efficiently than stars then we can consider stars inefficient and therefore not designed.
Then we could speculate that God has revealed His intelligence to us to make us progress creatively.

So?
The Dude wrote:
Or more likely efficiency will again be irrelevant and you will be back to claiming performance is enough...
And at this point you demonstrate that you are ignorant.

Efficiency is judged by performance (how it works); so no sensible person would separate the concept of "efficiency" from "performance".
The Dude wrote:
, in which case the whole concept becomes unfalsifiable and therefore non-scientific...
Your premise was misguided so the rest of your conceptions that are based on it arent worth sh!t.
THOG_The Hand Of God

Kingston, Jamaica

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109878
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

The Dude wrote:
Correct, the efficiency is not relevant...
Seriously?
The Dude wrote:
...it's the mechanisms which went into figuring them out (biological neurological cognitive processes) which demonstrate intelligence.
But since "efficiency is not relevant", what is the function of mentioning the mechanisms?
Is the efficiency of those "mechanisms" which demonstrate intelligence relevant; while "efficiency is not relevant"?
LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!
The Dude wrote:
Hence Newton described gravity, Einstein described it a little better, and quantum physics described it more efficiently again. Yet all were intelligent.
But if their descriptions were not efficient, how was their intelligence demonstrated?
OMFG!!!!
The Dude wrote:
You then simply appropriate the same scientific research, credit it to God and say that's how God did it...
So?
Can you prove otherwise?
The burden of disproof belongs to you.
LOL!!!!!!!!
The Dude wrote:
...There may be Klingons in Beta quadrant. There may not be Klingons in Beta quadrant. But so far there is no evidence. Hence no reason to consider it a valid claim.
Where have you looked for evidence of such?
Have you been to the Beta quadrant?
The Dude wrote:
The real God or the God humans describe? I merely pointed out the BEST you could do was demonstrate it as a metaphor.
I agree to some extent.
Only through logic can we experience an omnipotence and live.
The Dude wrote:
It cannot be reduced from a scientific definition you are unable to provide.
There are real and physical phenomena for which existence can only be logically inferred/deduced; take dark matter for example.
So, that the existence of God can only be inferred, does not mean no scientific definition can be provided for Him/It.
The Dude wrote:
As a practical definition for a genuine entity it is worthless.
Why?
How?
Elohim

Branford, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109879
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>In your dreams!
In reality!
Elohim

Branford, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109880
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

6

5

5

LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
But extreme skepticism is not regarding talking snakes and donkeys, giants, angels, global year-long miles-deep flooding, resurrection, walking on water, turning water into wine, healing the blind with dust and spit...that you just accept, but science, which ferrets out the false continuously, deserves extreme skepticism. What's the latest discovery with real world applications that was made using creationism? Nothing? Hm...how can that be?
"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

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109881
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.
Yada yada.. "fine tuned?" You can't even survive on the vast majority of the planet you were "CREATED" to live on without an artificial infrastructure and a body of prior knowledge. Outside of the atmosphere? Outside of the magnetoshpere? Simultaneously boiled, irradiated, fried, flash frozen and sublimated.
As typical with those of your mindset, you place effect before cause and ass before cart. Is it so incredible that life as we know it is made of 3 of the 4 most abundant elements in the universe? Do the laws of physics fit together? Of course! Does it mean someone wrote them? What leads you to that conclusion? Ancient goatherd scrolls? Oh, well since you put it THAT way...
The universe is fine tuned for life in the same way that germanium is fine tuned for transistors and gravity is fine tuned for accretion. You somehow reach the conclusion that because you have eyes, a Mighty Intelligence created light and God created carbohydrates because you can digest a baked loaf of pulverized grass seeds.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109882
Feb 6, 2013
 
Ah progress. ;P
We have now BREAD agreement.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109883
Feb 6, 2013
 
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.

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.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••