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

There are 141315 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

Lowell, MA

#109964 Feb 8, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Please identify what science has missed.
<quoted text>
??? What are you talking about. The theory of evolution came about BECAUSE OF observation. Evolution is an observable fact.
<quoted text>
No, science maintains that humans did NOT pop into existence fully formed. It is you that claim that.
As far as Cambrian life goes, it also did not just pop into existence, but had been evolving for BILLIONS of years before that.
<quoted text>
PE also came about from observation. It is observed throughout the fossil record.
<quoted text>
Darwin himself identified many things that would falsify evolution. And evolution has never been falsified. It is actually very easy to falsify evolution.
<quoted text>
The rest of your post is just a rant that has no contact with reality.
BTW, you do that a lot. You start off semi-logical then fall apart the more you write. FYI.
Dogen, Dogen, Dogen...have you forgotten that the theory of evolution cannot be observed, therefore it must be false? Observation, dummy! Learn the scientific method.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#109965 Feb 8, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>You definately have found one. Don't you wish you could refute him? Jesus being the creator is basic christianity. You should know that, should you not?
This was already addressed in post #1

"What a load of pre-1930's ignorant garbage.

The writer obviously has no education in anything remotely scientific, and is simply offering a simple minded opinion based on fundamentalist religious bias."

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109966 Feb 8, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>It is not the same process. We have observed small scale change, but there is no reason to think that it will lead to a totally different creature. It is even laughable to me to even think that it could. You are assuming it can and science is not about assumptions. It is about observable, testable, and replicatable facts.

It IS the same process. We have observed small scale change, medium scale change and large scale change and there is every reason to think that it will lead to a totally different creature. It is even laughable to me to even think that it couldn't. You are assuming it can't and science is not about assumptions. It is about observable, testable, and replicable [NOT "REPLICATABLE"] facts. That is why evolution is an Apex scientific theory.
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Since when does one have to prove a fantasy impossible? It's not up to me to show why it can't happen. It's up to you to prove that it did and you can't do that.

The science of evolution is not a fantasy. Creationism is a fantasy. Evolution is observable, testable (replicable), and falsifiable. Just as the REAL scientific method demands. It is up to you to prove why observable evidence should not be believe and old mythology supplanted in its stead. It's up to you to prove that it did and you can't do that.

This forum is for debunking creationist delusions.



“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109967 Feb 8, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>You can believe what you want, but if you call it science, it has to be observable, testable, and replicatable. In history, there is no such thing as historical certainy. THe best you can do is observe all the logical and available evidence and have a psychological reaction in your mind.

From history there is observable evidence.
The evidence from history is testable.
The results are replicable (NOT replicatable.... this is not a real word).

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109968 Feb 8, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
You've already been caught quotemining. You attributed a quote to Scott which was actually her quoting someone else in her book. When caught, you said that you didn't get the quotemine from a creationist website (which would have absolved you of a tiny bit of responsibility for the dishonesty)...instead you claimed full personal responsibility. You said that you lifted the quote directly from her book, which meant that you KNEW those were not her words, yet you knowingly misrepresented them as such. You eschewed the lesser sin for the greater, the lesser lie for the greater. You explicitly admitted that you are a liar. Why should anybody harbor a shred of intellectual respect for you? You are a sad little man who has to resort to lying, and (most likely) lying about his lies, all to prop up his religious beliefs. Isn't it sad that you must lie to maintain your faith? A sad, pathetic faith you have. You are a terrible and brilliant example of Christianity in the 21st century.

That Marksman is a poor example of a Christian is a given.

A real Christian should not have the (unjustifiable) ego he has. He should be humble and admit his errors. But instead he just tries to cover them up.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109969 Feb 8, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Dogen, Dogen, Dogen...have you forgotten that the theory of evolution cannot be observed, therefore it must be false? Observation, dummy! Learn the scientific method.

Oh yea. Thanks marksman.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109970 Feb 8, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Sort of. Some were amateurs. In any event, science fixed itself. Only a moron would see that as some sort of fatal flaw.
Saying that scientists corrected hoaxes is the same as saying politicians fixed the economy. THey were the ones that wrecked it to start with.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109971 Feb 8, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>Marksman11 wrote....

marksman11 wrote:
You definately have found one. Don't you wish you could refute him? Jesus being the creator is basic christianity. You should know that, should you not?

(dummy replied)

This was already addressed in post #1
"What a load of pre-1930's ignorant garbage.
The writer obviously has no education in anything remotely scientific, and is simply offering a simple minded opinion based on fundamentalist religious bias."
What in the world are you talking about? I believe the gospel of John was written a day or two before the 1930's.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#109972 Feb 8, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Saying that scientists corrected hoaxes is the same as saying politicians fixed the economy. THey were the ones that wrecked it to start with.
So you can't come up with anything intelligent to say so you simply puke this. Well done.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#109973 Feb 8, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Saying that scientists corrected hoaxes is the same as saying politicians fixed the economy. THey were the ones that wrecked it to start with.
Hoaxes to start with? Do the words sheep herder and Creator of the Universe ring any bells?

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#109974 Feb 8, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>What in the world are you talking about? I believe the gospel of John was written a day or two before the 1930's.
Such a doofus. Look at the FIRST POST. Clearly the author was referring to the Scopes trial.
I don't give a rat's patoot what you BELIEVE about the Gospel of John. You can "BELIEVE" that the moon is made of green cheese - and that would also be completely irrelevant to the topic. It is claimed that "It's the Darwinist crowd that lacks the facts in the evolution debate" - so provide those FACTS, and stop wasting time with fallacies, fantasies, falsehoods, folderol and FAITH.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#109975 Feb 8, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>It is not the same process. We have observed small scale change, but there is no reason to think that it will lead to a totally different creature. It is even laughable to me to even think that it could. You are assuming it can and science is not about assumptions.
Really, the opposite is true. Given the amount of change we can see through both natural and artificial selection in historical timescales, and given the environmental instability evident in the last several hundred million years, it would be very surprising if we did NOT see adaptations accumulate to the point where creatures were "totally different".

But then what does "totally different" mean anyway? You are not totally different from a chimpanzee, you are by any measure only slightly different. You are only slightly more different from a cat. Same basic body plan, organs, functions. You are a bit more different from a crab, but that is in the body plan. At the cellular level you are amazingly similar.

There is no "totally different" life on Earth when you look closely. Its all degrees of similarity.

Assumptions? Well, initially, it all might have looked like an assumption. But then scientists went out and said, now if this assumption is TRUE, what would we expect? And if it is FALSE, what would we expect.

And what they found is that the evidence was aligned to the "assumption" being true, turning this hypothesis into an accepted scientific theory.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#109976 Feb 8, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Saying that scientists corrected hoaxes is the same as saying politicians fixed the economy. THey were the ones that wrecked it to start with.
Science corrects itself by a process known well enough by you, by now.

However, you creationists do love to make arguments in the STYLE of politicians. Any good sound bite will do, any quote mine, any misrepresentation, if you think it will go over with your target audience.

In fact, your statement above is exactly such a political, rather than a rationally defensible, soundbite. Stop kissing babies and start arguing rationally, if you can!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109977 Feb 8, 2013
Science literacy is a vaccine against the charlatans of the world that would exploit your ignorance.
Niel deGrasse Tyson

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109978 Feb 8, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Saying that scientists corrected hoaxes is the same as saying politicians fixed the economy. THey were the ones that wrecked it to start with.

This represents misunderstandings of both science and economics.

Do you really think politicians wrecked the economy? If so, which ones?

You need to take a class on macro economics just as bad as you need a science class.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109979 Feb 8, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>What in the world are you talking about? I believe the gospel of John was written a day or two before the 1930's.

I believe he was indicating your view on things is out of date.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109980 Feb 8, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Such a doofus. Look at the FIRST POST. Clearly the author was referring to the Scopes trial.
I don't give a rat's patoot what you BELIEVE about the Gospel of John. You can "BELIEVE" that the moon is made of green cheese - and that would also be completely irrelevant to the topic. It is claimed that "It's the Darwinist crowd that lacks the facts in the evolution debate" - so provide those FACTS, and stop wasting time with fallacies, fantasies, falsehoods, folderol and FAITH.

He can't. He has been trying for years and can't come up with a single thing. He mixes pseudoscience with a bunch of philosophical assumptions and invents his world view.

If you bust him down enough he will stop posting to you. He has done it to me several times. It is pure bliss knowing I have destroyed him so completely.




marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109981 Feb 8, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
So you can't come up with anything intelligent to say so you simply puke this. Well done.
Hard to refute the truth, to bad you can't. It was a wonderful example and made my point perfectly.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109982 Feb 8, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Hard to refute the truth, to bad you can't. It was a wonderful example and made my point perfectly.

You even defend your own jibber jabber.

You can put up any science so you wax philosophically..... about crap.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#109983 Feb 8, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Science corrects itself by a process known well enough by you, by now.
However, you creationists do love to make arguments in the STYLE of politicians. Any good sound bite will do, any quote mine, any misrepresentation, if you think it will go over with your target audience.
In fact, your statement above is exactly such a political, rather than a rationally defensible, soundbite. Stop kissing babies and start arguing rationally, if you can!
I ALWAYS give ration replies, often with 2 or 3 points to confirm it. My political comparison was perfect for the point I was making. And if anyone draws on politics for their servival, it's Darwinists. "Oh please MR ACLU lawyer, please make a church/state issue out of this case because we don't have the science to win without it!!!"

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) 35 min Chimney1 163,593
How can we prove God exists, or does not? 1 hr Paul Porter1 71
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) Tue Kathleen 19,031
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) May 18 SoE 178,597
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) May 18 MADRONE 1,870
Science News NOT related to evolution (Jul '09) May 15 emrenil 1,243
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) May 15 MikeF 13,700
More from around the web