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
107,861 - 107,880 of 135,623 Comments Last updated 22 min ago

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109916
Feb 7, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109918
Feb 7, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109923
Feb 7, 2013
 
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?

In what class? It might be interesting in a debate class or a logic class. Since there is nothing of scientific value in creationism/ID they do not belong in in a science class. Maybe if they could come up with a scientific theory of creationism/ID.....

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109924
Feb 7, 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.

The Tea Party is nearly as politically dead as creationism is scientifically dead.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109925
Feb 7, 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?

The formulation of PE had nothing to do with the Cambrian period.

Do you make up this nonsense yourself?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109926
Feb 7, 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 have rejected:

Discipline (example)

Biology (evolution)
Chemistry (abiogenesis)
Physics (radiometric dating)
Geology (stratigraphy)
Anthropology (human evolution)
Paleontology (fossil evidence of evolution)
.......

You want the full list?

You reject all real science.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••