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

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

There are 154610 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.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110028 Feb 9, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>OK,.....one question, Read my statement again above. Is it not true?


No.
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> Even evolutionists in this group agree with it.


No
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> Your "succession of fossils" I have said many times, is mere interpretation.


This is an assertion which only proves you are not actually acquainted with the fossil record.
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>
I gave the example of Paul Wright. Piltdown was interpreted as an intermediate, and look how that turned out. Nabraska Man was interpreted as an intermediate....all interpreted from a pigs tooth!!! So scientists can make all these claims, but it is all interpretation, and often proven wrong.


No, professional scientists did not have access to the fossils at first and debunked them quickly after they did.
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> Don't worry about falsifying it until you have observable evidence that it is true.


That leaves out creation/IDism.
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> When observable evidence is presented, then we'll work on falsifying it.


The observed evidence is 100% in support of evolution (and we are talking hundreds of BILLIONS of observations).
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I just proved you wrong in the same post. I addressed both points and you know you've seen me say the same things before. You don't have to agree with me, but you are forced to admit that I address your claims each time!! Do I not?

No, you don't actually ADDRESS anything. That is the point. You just repeat the same nonsense over and over and are immune to our constant refutation of your points. You PRETEND the refutations never happened and repeat it again.... and repeat it again,.....and repeat it again......

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110029 Feb 9, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>It says I have my opinions and you have yours, and because your opinions are your own does not necessitate that they are correct.

Our "opinions" are backed by empirical facts, observation, testing, retesting, hypothesis formulation and testing, theory formulation and testing, prediction making, prediction testing,....

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110030 Feb 9, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Marky, ol' boy, I'm afraid you and I didn't study out of the same logic textbook.

Marksman has never perused a logic textbook in his life. He creates more fallacies per minute than Rushed Limbaughtomy.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110031 Feb 9, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>"In May, Smith Woodward took charge of the first pieces of Piltdown skull and concluded they belonged to a previously unknown early human named Eoanthropus dawsoni"
"A few weeks later, at the Geological Society, Smith Woodward outlined further details to general scientific approval. Only one scientist, anatomist David Waterson, voiced doubts."
"Palaeontology in Britain was going through a lean time and its practitioners desperately wanted to believe that fossil gold had been struck."
"This was clearly not a genuine artefact. The scientific establishment accepted it because they wanted it so much."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/feb/05...
CRACK!!! IT'S OUTTA HERE!!!!!

Almost from the outset, Woodward's reconstruction of the Piltdown fragments was strongly challenged. At the Royal College of Surgeons copies of the same fragments used by the British Museum in their reconstruction were used to produce an entirely different model, one that in brain size and other features resembled a modern human.\
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_man

Seems "OUTTA HERE" translates to 'landed on the plate'.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110032 Feb 9, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh my. David Koresh incarnate. The transitive property of equality: a=b, b=c, a=c.
I=my church, my church=Jesus, Jesus=God, I=God

I noticed that little literary Faux pas as well. But marksman generates too many of those idiosyncrasies to keep up with.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110033 Feb 9, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> On December 18, 1912, the Geological Society of London announced to the world that it had uncovered the "missing link" between our primate kin and Homo sapiens: the "Piltdown Man."
Henry Osborne, president of the American Museum of National History, proclaimed that the fossil remains were "without question" was proof of the evolution of ape to man. A monument to the discovery was erected at Barkham Manor to Charles Dawson, the founder of the fossils of this missing link.
The New York Times proclaimed "Darwin Theory is Proved True," and Nature, one of the most influential scientific journals in the work, announced that the Piltdown Man was an improvement proof of Darwin's theory. Textbooks included the Piltdown Man as evidence that Darwin was right.
As late as 1950, Nature was citing "New Evidence on the Antiquity of Piltdown Man" and announced that fluorine tests made it even more likely that the Piltdown Man was a single creature. From 1912 to 1953, college textbooks would treat the Piltdown Man as scientific evidence of Darwin's theory. The bulk of the scientific community accepted the Piltdown Man as true.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/the_pi...

I am not sure what point you are trying to make at this point. We all know Piltdown man was a fraud and we also know that science uncovered it.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110034 Feb 9, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Doesn't make one lick of sense. Why should it? You posted it!!

He was making fun of your strained use of the English language.

A game I find far to easy to pursue.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110035 Feb 9, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
John 16:7
God needs to move out of the way...enter jesus...enter the spirit/redeemer for the accuser(aramaic john, all by the way written later then the 5th century. John is theology and reflects the discussions of the churchfathers.)
So replacement happens.
The trinity is basicly a fallacy of authority.
bad tranlations allover.
alma, son of governor (from the aramaic peshitta),adopted/begat a.s.o.
1950 The Vatican stated that Mary, SHE was immaculately conceived.
If the very act makes jesus a son of god then she is at least a daughter of god. If not from a long line of women miracles.
i.m.o. It is a play written by Josephus.
Theology is what it became later.
I also discuss on the judaism forum, so keeping it short here, but you would be the first in my recollection that made that statement.

The Trinity error dates to around 260 a.d. It was one of the attempts made by the church to popularize Christianity (basically a marketing campaign).

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110036 Feb 9, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Marksman11 wrote:
"I my church, Jesus and GOD are the same person."
Maybe you meant "In" my church or maybe it was a Freudian slip?
One might get the idea that "Crack - it's outta here!" was more likely your counselor's favorite phrase than your coach's.
Basic Christianity? You can't get much more basic without sliding into a coma. Here's the real deal, Marky Boy. Jesus was a sociopolitical rebel who was martyred. You have bought the metaphysical spin that was written about him in the following centuries hook, line and sinker. You're one of the guys turning the ladder while your preacher holds the light bulb.
At the end of each day as you cuddle your pillow with comforting thoughts of how you bested everyone in these threads in the name of the Heavenly Father, it always boils down to layers of delusion.

Maybe I am an optimist, but I see early (pre-deification of Yesuha) Christianity to be at least partially knowable and worthwhile. He was a religious as well as political and social, leader. The words that appear to be original to him seem quite profound and rational.

To rational people, that is.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#110037 Feb 9, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
The Trinity error dates to around 260 a.d. It was one of the attempts made by the church to popularize Christianity (basically a marketing campaign).
I would have to look back.
As i use an entire thread on the judaism forum for allsorts of exactly thse kind of facts and what the history behind them was.
Some christian fora have even more.
But Eusebius wrote the history almost at the same time as the order fot the 50 copies went out. So the idea might be closer to 360 CE. The history contains the canon the bibles have. And is listed again, and refered to Eusebius in those bibles...

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#110038 Feb 9, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe I am an optimist, but I see early (pre-deification of Yesuha) Christianity to be at least partially knowable and worthwhile. He was a religious as well as political and social, leader. The words that appear to be original to him seem quite profound and rational.
To rational people, that is.
That is where i use 'ascribed to him.'
It is hearsay the way it is written to start with.
Discussion and exploration of also budhism is attested in those days. Meditation technics were explored.
The way we would discuss footbal they would discuss 'religion' or rather exotic ideas.

Well that would be self-evident since it borrows, though sometimes out of context from the tanakh and various greek philosophers and ofcourse we also find Ceasar: give unto Ceasar etc.
At least some effort was put into it.

But it stays basicly a mess. Various ideas are contradictory.
I'm always amazed when some people state that it all fits so nicely together.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110039 Feb 9, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
I would have to look back.
As i use an entire thread on the judaism forum for allsorts of exactly thse kind of facts and what the history behind them was.
Some christian fora have even more.
But Eusebius wrote the history almost at the same time as the order fot the 50 copies went out. So the idea might be closer to 360 CE. The history contains the canon the bibles have. And is listed again, and refered to Eusebius in those bibles...

Actually the first to use the term was Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus (AKA Tertullian). Since he died in A.D. 225 it would have had to have been before that. So I am reguesstimating around 200 a.d.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trinity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertullian

So it was certainly not part of the original Christian beliefs.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110040 Feb 9, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
That is where i use 'ascribed to him.'
It is hearsay the way it is written to start with.
Discussion and exploration of also budhism is attested in those days. Meditation technics were explored.
The way we would discuss footbal they would discuss 'religion' or rather exotic ideas.
Well that would be self-evident since it borrows, though sometimes out of context from the tanakh and various greek philosophers and ofcourse we also find Ceasar: give unto Ceasar etc.
At least some effort was put into it.
But it stays basicly a mess. Various ideas are contradictory.
I'm always amazed when some people state that it all fits so nicely together.

Oh, I don't think it all fits together that nicely. The gospels are a study in contradiction. But using Textual Criticism it is possible to sort out what was probably original, from what was probably added. The view of Jesus that comes out of this analysis is more coherent (and more human) than what modern Christianity can offer.

When one reads the gospel of Mark (the earliest gospel) and then read the rest in chronological order (Matthew/Luke then John much later) you can actually watch the deification of Jesus in the 50 or so years between the first and last gospel. Remember, portions of Mark were added much later (for example the entire last Chapter).

So there is no mention of the resurrection at all in Mark, nor any suggestion that it even SHOULD have happened.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#110041 Feb 9, 2013
That would be the church-history.
Beating your own drum.
hard to find corroborating sources.

Thank you for this link.

I looked at eastern sources too thus.
But at a certain point languages do become an issue. Or finding exactly the right words to find a certain source. lot's of cross-referencing.

I am calling it a long day. All done.

Bye Dogen.

I'm going to watch The fifth element now.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#110044 Feb 9, 2013
1949

The fluorine test, which finally established the Piltdown Man as fake, became available.
If you want to accost us for not having the fluorine test ready in 1912, we humbly apologize.

While we’re at it, I guess we should also apologize for Galileo’s delay in announcing that the earth revolves around the sun, instead of having his discovery ready when the Old Testament was written.

1950

marksman11 cut-and-pasted:
“As late as 1950, Nature was citing 'New Evidence on the Antiquity of Piltdown Man' and announced that fluorine tests made it even more likely that the Piltdown Man was a single creature."

That’s not even a quote mine. It’s a brazen lie. The article said,“The relatively late date indicated by the summary of evidence suggests moreover that Piltdown man, far from being an early primitive type, may have been a late specialized hominid which evolved in comparative isolation.”

1953

Piltdown Man is dismissed once and for all.

marksman11 cut-and-pasted:
“From 1912 to 1953, college textbooks would treat the Piltdown Man as scientific evidence of Darwin's theory. The bulk of the scientific community accepted the Piltdown Man as true.”

This seems to be one of the favorite Creationist lies. Answers in Genesis says that “Generations were indoctrinated into the ‘fact of evolution’ via Piltdown gracing countless textbooks and encyclopedias,” but fails to offer one jot of documentation.

The Center for Scientific Creation, in their Website, claims that the finding was published in textbooks for the entire forty years, but fails to cite a single one.

Conservapedia makes the same generalization, but cites only one textbook, published in 1914.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#110045 Feb 9, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I bet you can't present observable evidence to prove that!!! I challenge you to support that BS with an observable fact.
Science can present two lines of evidence.

Firstly, a succession of fossils showing convergence, back through time, of the line of placental mammals with the two otehr main types, the marsupials and the monotremes (including the platypus).

Secondly, a nested hierarchy of variation in the ERVs, pseudogenes, and ubiquitous proteins showing the same relationships.

If evolution were false, we would have no reason to see either. Evolution explains the pattern, creationism dos not.
Evolution is evolution right? I mean Macro has to be true because micro is true....right? Well, chemical evolution has failed terribly as having the ability of even getting close to causing the origin of life.
And again, you attempt to conflate evolution and abiogenesis, because that is your last ditch desperate attempt to cast doubt on what we DO KNOW by referring to something we DO NOT KNOW. Its a failed strategy. Whether life began in a soup or God went "poof!", we know it evolved.
So if micro evolution didn't exist, then Macro evolution wouldn't exist.....RIGHT??
Even creationists accept micro-evolution exists. Its creationists who tried to put such emphasis on the difference between "micro" and "macro" in the first place, for that very reason: they could not deny evolution completely, so they tried to claim there was a real difference between these two.
So chemical evolution fails
False, but irrelevant anyway. Chemical evolution and biological evolution (whether micro or macro) are completely different processes.
and you know it, and biological evolution fails too, only you try to disguise the obvious by claiming they are two seperate, non-dependant things. They are not.

You want to belittel Intelligent design? then simply present a naturalistic observation to the origin of life!!! It is obvious it takes an intelligence to concieve and produce DNA, RNA, the all left handed amino Acids, the cell membrane, and the information that the DNA contains......etc. ID explains it perfectly. Chemical evolution fails at every test. Chemical evolution fails COMPLETELY!!! GOD of the gaps? Heck, there ain't even any gaps in chemical evolution. THere is no evidence to leave gaps in!!!!!!
This more of the same garbage Marksman. If I could explain the chemical evolution of life tomorrow, you would move onto the Big Bang, yet another irrelevancy to evolution. What we know is not disqualified by what we don't know. Ever.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#110046 Feb 9, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
Your "succession of fossils" I have said many times, is mere interpretation.

I gave the example of Paul Wright.
And I refuted the example of Paul Wright. With one fossil, it might work. With a large number of fossils, the odds against it compared to the interpretation that this is evidence for evolution becomes overwhelming.

Paul Wrights are "1 in a 1000", unusual specimens. A succession of Paul Wrights is 1000 to the power of the number of finds. For example, if we find 50 neanderthal skulls all looking like Paul Wright, the odds are

1/1000 x 1/1000 x 1/10000....fifty times...

that is 1/1,(followed by 150 zeroes) that your interpretation is correct.

...compared to the odds that these are merely normal skeletons of a different kind of hominid.

So there are good interpretations and bad ones. You would prefer to keep your blinkers on by claiming we should not be making any interpretations at all. This is the historical preference for ignorance that the Church has always shown.

However, those of us curious about the world do interpret data.

And when there is an enormous network of mutually consistent findings based on independently collected data pointing to evolution, millions of years of rock stratification, and throughout it we find whole successions of not only hominid but fossils showing the same pattern of changes for virtually every creature...

Well, I am afraid there just aren't enough zeroes in the universe to put under the equation above for your "itsa freak" theory against the evidence for evolution.

So you made a claim, I explained why successions of fossils are not the same thing as a single one, and all you could say was "that's your interpretation and sometime we interpret wrong!".

Yes, sometimes we do. Not this time. There is no other interpretation that comes close to explaining what is observed.

Yet odds are, that unable to refute these points, you will yet again claim that "one fossil cannot tell you its ancestry" as if this was relevant.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#110047 Feb 10, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
And again, you attempt to conflate evolution and abiogenesis, because that is your last ditch desperate attempt to cast doubt on what we DO KNOW by referring to something we DO NOT KNOW.
Oh, is that why they do it!
I've been in this game for years, and I always wondered about that!
Thank you for explaining it to me!

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#110048 Feb 10, 2013
However, I also have another explanation which I still makes some sense:

You've known people who hate both Jews and Communists,
so they pretend that Jews and Communists are the same people?
That's probably because they think it's more efficient to consolidate their hate targets.
That way, they can put them all in the same bag and drown them more easily.

By the same principle, Creationists hate both atheists and Evolutionists,
so they see that it is more efficient to pretend that they are the same people.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#110049 Feb 10, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
However, I also have another explanation which I still makes some sense:
You've known people who hate both Jews and Communists,
so they pretend that Jews and Communists are the same people?
That's probably because they think it's more efficient to consolidate their hate targets.
That way, they can put them all in the same bag and drown them more easily.
By the same principle, Creationists hate both atheists and Evolutionists,
so they see that it is more efficient to pretend that they are the same people.
You are probably right about that too, as creationists seem to see evolution as the "gateway drug" to full blown atheism. Well, I grant Marksman's point that when we have naturalistic explanations for things, God influence recedes. While evolution is not anti-God, its definitely "anti-literal Biblical scripture". There is no room for both to co-exist in the same mind, and Marksman knows that.

This tactic of conflating what we know with what we don't, is so pervasive in creationist circles that its no accident. They try to mush the whole thing together...evolution, abiogenesis, the big bang, the whole lot, into one big ball so that they think picking a point of uncertainty in one part applies to all.

I guess that is because that is exactly what does work when you pick apart the Bible. But that is only true for the dogmatic followers of the Bible who try to insist that every single bit of it is all true and given by God with no alteration. Those with less literal interpretations can agree that Genesis is allegorical while they still accept Jesus etc.

But the literalists approach science in the same way as they do their own scripture. So if some scientist questions the Big Bang or the pelvic structure of Australopithecus, they think the whole edifice of science is about to crumble. They really do not understand science at all, and think its just another dogma that competes with theirs on the same terms. It doesn't.

The only really fruitful argument we can have is to determine what the basis of "sound knowledge" really is, and we seldom get close to that. Creationists tend to back off at that point.

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
Might life have spontaneously have started mill... 1 hr In Six Days 625
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 hr SoE 48,383
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 5 hr Porkncheese 179,706
Richard Dawkins tells the truth 5 hr Porkncheese 6
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 8 hr Dogen 216,597
Science News (Sep '13) 19 hr _Susan_ 3,980
News Does Mike Pence Believe in Evolution? Thu scientia potentia... 9
More from around the web