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

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 ... Full Story

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#110014 Feb 9, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
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. So if micro evolution didn't exist, then Macro evolution wouldn't exist.....RIGHT??
Marky, ol' boy, I'm afraid you and I didn't study out of the same logic textbook.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#110015 Feb 9, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
Marksman, name one scientist who fully accepted the Piltdown Man, just one.
"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!!!!!

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#110016 Feb 9, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Believe what you want. I my church, Jesus and GOD are the same person. It is just basic christianity.
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
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#110017 Feb 9, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
Marksman, name one scientist who fully accepted the Piltdown Man, just one.
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...
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#110018 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
Doesn't make one lick of sense. Why should it? You posted it!!

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#110019 Feb 9, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Believe what you want. I my church, Jesus and GOD are the same person. It is just basic christianity.
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.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#110020 Feb 9, 2013
So now we have a contest between 1950 ideas.
Piltdown man versus the immaculate conception of Mary.
And i bet the Vatican wrote this from the chair, because of evolution becoming a real threath.
Apart from millions of believers demanding the upgrade of Mary.

So SHE became the New Eve and gave birth to the church.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#110021 Feb 9, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Doesn't make one lick of sense. Why should it? You posted it!!
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Believe what you want. I my church, Jesus and GOD are the same person. It is just basic christianity.
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.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#110022 Feb 9, 2013
Correction:
"In my Mary, Jesus and GOD are the same person."

Sounds way more sensible.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110023 Feb 9, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Believe what you want. I my church, Jesus and GOD are the same person. It is just basic christianity.

No, that is revisionist Christianity. That is not what most early Christians believed and it is not what many Christians believe today.

If you read this book called The Bible, you might even wonder where this notion even came from as there are so many quotes by Jesus that bring it into question.

You want a list?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110024 Feb 9, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I'm not talking about people in polls. I'm talking about people in this forum. <quoted text>What I provide is the continual proof that evolutionists left the authority of the scientific method years ago. Their science has become a fairy tale of just anything you can dream up.

No, this is what you assert. You have never provided any support for this contention that has held even a drop of water.

Evolution passes all the steps of the scientific method and does so as well or better than any other theory.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110025 Feb 9, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I don't care who did it. It took 42 years for scientists to finally admit it was a hoax. Sure there are some honest ones who wheren't buying it from the start, but then there are those that would buy anything to fill the void of evidence they were suffering.

This is a lie. It took no time at all to admit it was a hoax once it was shown to be so. It did not fit with even the primitive understanding of human evolution that existed back then.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110026 Feb 9, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I don't need it, you were the one that brought it up. <quoted text>You act as if church members don't pay taxes at all. Church members pay federal taxes, state taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, gas taxes, road tolls, liesence renewal, inheritence taxes, captial gains taxes,.......and on and on and on, plus they tithe to the church, so don't give me that BS.<quoted text>Set myself apart? What are you talking about?<quoted text> That doesn't even make sense. You act as if private christian schools are funded by tax payers dollars. THey are not. THey are funded by the parents who want to keep them away from psuedo science that is taught in the public schools. Evolution is one of the biggest supporters of private christian schools. Parents don't want that garbage taught to their kids, and those that can afford it, see that it isn't. Eugeneie Scott is battling an OPPSIEs (or something like that) program that allows parents the ability to Op-out their kids from evolution is the public schools. Isn't it strange how she would rather battle the parents over the science teaching of their own kids, than allow them the freedom to choose?

I don't think you understand. No religion benefits more by the separation of church and state as does the Christian religion.

Second, do kids or their parents have the right to choose what language they will be taught? Do they have the right to choose what history will be taught? The right to choose what math will be taught? No. They have influence as to HOW those are taught via the school board (curriculum choices), but they are still going to be taught actual history and not revisionist history. Will these classes be perfect or value free? Doubtful. Actually the teaching of science is probably the most objective thing they will learn in H.S.(outside of math, obviously).

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110027 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.


Platypus DNA is an equally cobbled-together array of avian, reptilian and mammalian lineages....

http://www.science20.com/news_releases/patchw...

Humans have mammalian DNA as well.

We also have DNA that overlaps reptiles and birds (we share some of this DNA with the Platypus as well.

"Better insight into monotreme biology, or the biology of mammals that lay eggs, provides a "baseline" for understanding immunity, reproduction and chemoreception, which can further the study of the evolution of human biology."

". The study of the platypus has revealed that it shares 82 % of its genes with human, mouse, dog, opossum and chicken gnomes"

Read more: http://scienceray.com/biology/the-platypus-an...

"The platypus Ornithorhynchus anatinus is part of a group of mammals known as Monotremes, who last shared a common ancestor with us between 160 and 200 million years ago."
http://www.science20.com/adaptive_complexity/...

"The platypus is not part anything: it's 100% mammal, with some primitive traits of ancient mammals, like egg laying, and a few newly invented traits like the bill, the webbed feet, and the venomous spines."

ibid.

marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> Evolution is evolution right? I mean Macro has to be true because micro is true....right?


That is not exactly the logic nor the reality, but it is close enough for now.
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> Well, chemical evolution has failed terribly as having the ability of even getting close to causing the origin of life.


This is false. Studies related to the origin of life have be resoundingly successful and rapid progress.
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> So if micro evolution didn't exist, then Macro evolution wouldn't exist.....RIGHT??


But you already accept microevolution, RIGHT???
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> So chemical evolution fails, 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.


Slippery slope fallacy. Also begging the question and false analogy.

BTW, the claim is that they are two different areas of science, not that are independent. Please try to get this right in your thinking as well as in your posting.
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> You want to belittel Intelligent design? then simply present a naturalistic observation to the origin of life!!!


ID does not need to be belittled. It is simply creationism with a new name tag. It is not science.
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> 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.


No. That is clearly not true. RNA is natural. Left handed amino acids have been explained. DNA is a chemical, not a sky scraper. DNA contains atoms and the information is not unrelated to any other source of "natural" information.
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> ID explains it perfectly.


This is completely false. ID explains nothing. ID predicts nothing. ID has never been observed. ID is non parsimonious. ID is derived from religion and religious philosophy. ID is not science. ID is not falsifiable. ID does not make testable prediction.
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> Chemical evolution fails at every test.


This is just your assertion. The evidence is just the opposite of your claim.

The rest is just a rant. No help there.

You need to get past your assertions and provide facts. Even your philosophical notions are unsupported.

“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.

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
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 6 min Aura Mytha 134,776
Atheism - A Non Prophet Organisation (Mar '11) 1 hr Kong_ 998
How would creationists explain... 6 hr Dogen 449
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 6 hr Ooogah Boogah 13,641
Intelligent Design: Still Dead [EvolutionBlog] 10 hr geezerjock 1
Why Are There No Transitional Animals Today? (Mar '09) 10 hr The Dude 514
Evolutionists staes that white people are more ... (Jun '06) 14 hr spiderlover 77
More from around the web