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

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

There are 143901 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.

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 I thas been replaced by teaching "green" science....which is just replacing one liberal fantasy with another,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.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#109905 Feb 7, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
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.
The observable Cambrian was originally almost all from one site - one snapshot in time - The Burgess Shale. We did not know what was before as there were precious few fossil sites. As more are discivered two things become clear.

1. There is significant evolution during the Cambrian period, with the simplest forms earliest.

2. There is multi-cellular life before the snap-shot period and the Cambrian itself, right back into the Ediacaran.

None of this violates the concept of punctuated equilibrium, but it should remind you that this period of evolution it was not "sudden" except in the millions of year timelines used in geology and evolution. You keep acting like PE was "poof!" one day nothing and the next, a seabed teaming with life. Nobody has EVER suggested that.

You have also been told, before, that the few Ediacaran fossils we have are soft bodied. If the Cambrian was the time when creatures started to develop hard shells and skeletons, which preserve more easily, of course it would look like a sudden increase in the fossils!

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#109906 Feb 7, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
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.
Well, I would have to read Scott to comment.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#109907 Feb 7, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Yeah, they are the same thing: evolution.

Just like a pound and a ton are both weight.

And a yard and a mile are both distance.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#109908 Feb 7, 2013
marksman11 wrote:

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.
We do require observation: observation of the predictions the theory of evolution makes.

We have found them in spades. Meanwhile creationists have tried their darndest to find observations that do not match the predictions of evolution, and failed miserably. For 150 years.

That is science, Marksman, whether you think it should be or not.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#109910 Feb 7, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>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...
At least you're admitting that ID is pseudo-science.
marksman11 wrote:
...while taking decades to get Haeckles drawings, and piltdown man out of science books!!
So? It still was scientists that corrected the mistakes. Your fundies didn't contribute anything.
marksman11 wrote:
I guess it's ok to teach lies in schools as long as they are lies that supports your philosophy?
Now you know I wouldn't agree that teaching lies is OK. Why would you even say bullshit like that?

You want to know where it's OK to teach lies? Just look at Texas.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#109911 Feb 7, 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.<quoted text>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?
You just stated that jesus equals god. GOD the biggie thus, of creation.

Have to let that sink in for a while.

Kind of annuls anything else you state.

GUYS...I FOUND ONE!!

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#109912 Feb 7, 2013
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.
http://ncse.com/about/speakers#scott

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#109913 Feb 7, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>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.
What? They evolved but they didn't evolve? I suppose this is Marky's Theory of Semi-Evolution.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#109914 Feb 7, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The observable Cambrian was originally almost all from one site - one snapshot in time - The Burgess Shale. We did not know what was before as there were precious few fossil sites. As more are discivered two things become clear.
1. There is significant evolution during the Cambrian period, with the simplest forms earliest.
2. There is multi-cellular life before the snap-shot period and the Cambrian itself, right back into the Ediacaran.
None of this violates the concept of punctuated equilibrium, but it should remind you that this period of evolution it was not "sudden" except in the millions of year timelines used in geology and evolution. You keep acting like PE was "poof!" one day nothing and the next, a seabed teaming with life. Nobody has EVER suggested that.
You have also been told, before, that the few Ediacaran fossils we have are soft bodied. If the Cambrian was the time when creatures started to develop hard shells and skeletons, which preserve more easily, of course it would look like a sudden increase in the fossils!
There were a couple of extinction events.
The oldest softbody imprint is 540 million years old.
That alone might not be convincing but they also found that oxygenation of the atmosphere and sea started earlier then previously surmised.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#109915 Feb 7, 2013
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.
Observable authority... when where. Never mind.
But the critical approach did not extend to the first major claim.

I believe this could be because the critical approach would at best talk about dinosaurs being in the garden and at worst give the most detrimental science-class ever.

Biology is one thing, but 'examining it'?
Who?... the observable authority of Jesus-GOD and his emissary, some creationist?
forreal

Refugio, TX

#109916 Feb 7, 2013
Now that you are all still stupid accept the President and your KING of the APES! APEMan evolve to be President another 4yr term! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#109917 Feb 7, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
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!
<quoted text>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.
Chimney was right.
The quotemine, and source: an interview, and the twists made by 'anti-evolutionists' dissected.
The usual mispresentation, quotes out of context, ascribing of ulterior motives.

https://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2009...

She should sue.
This is abnormal.
forreal

Refugio, TX

#109918 Feb 7, 2013
Evolutions is still evolving before your eyes Gays Lesbians, Trans,Bi, Mad mad mad plain mad science has created a Mad world!

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#109919 Feb 7, 2013
I frankly find it normal that state and church/organised religion are seperated.

The French system is even more to my liking, where the state can force religions to treat people as human beings with human rights.

In other countries we see representation also in chambers, and it's a mismatched balance.

I never understood why churches should not pay tax.
At least utility and county tax.

But that's a different topic.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#109920 Feb 7, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Until you get the wording correct, you will always look like a fool. There is no difference between "macro" and "micro" .... except the time scale. If moths split into two groups, one where they developed stingers and the other where they developed pincers, would they still be moths?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#109921 Feb 7, 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.
Wow, the irony. You are one of the least self-aware people alive.
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>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?
Why only evolution? Why not EVERY scientific principle in existence? Why not have them "critically examine" the existence of einsteinium? Why should they just accept the periodic table of elements? It could be completely wrong. I say, if you're going to "critically examine" things, start with the most fundamental things and work your way up. Ignore every scientific discovery and the rigorous review process it's undergone over the last few centuries, and just assume we know nothing. Let's undermine the entire scientific method to satisfy the bass-ackward religious bias of backwoods retards who think a magical invisible Jewish wizard made people out of dirt and his breath, and flooded the entire planet but eliminated all evidence that it ever happened. Yes, rather than advancing scientific understanding of the universe, let's pretend not only that we have none, but that schoolchildren, and not the scientific community, are the best people to discern fact from fiction starting with the most fundamental concepts all the way up to the most sophisticated. And, let's force them to start from scratch EVERY YEAR, because what the previous class learned might be a big atheist conspiracy.

This is what you're REALLY proposing. You don't realize it, but to be intellectually honest and without bias towards any particular scientific principle, this is what you must propose. And, you being the world's preeminent scientific authority, you must realize the folly of it all.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#109922 Feb 7, 2013
LowellGuy

Compared to our faith when the first christians then aspired to becomes gods.
(Not like ...no the same...for the bible said so.)
If history is a guide to go by, you're not of the mark.

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 Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr NoahLovesU 173,405
Beware of Kamikaze Snakes. They Are Evolving in... 2 hr Zog Has-fallen 82
The Definition of a Creationist Scientist 8 hr Zog Has-fallen 119
What Motives Created Social Darwinism? 8 hr Zog Has-fallen 97
Darwinism: Science or Philosophy? Fri Zog Has-fallen 55
Is the Evolutionary theory mathematically prove... Fri Chimney1 134
News Pope Francis Affirms Evolution and Big Bang Theory Thu Chimney1 420
More from around the web