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

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

There are 142549 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.

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.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#110050 Feb 10, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
They think picking a point of uncertainty in one part applies to all.
That explains a lot, too.
If I recall correctly, Duane Gish was maliciously pleased when a research team challenged the majority opinion on bird evolution, and suggested another possible ancestor instead.
I could not understand that. After all, the team wsa still proposing evolution, so the tally was still the same.

Nor could I understand why the Creationists were so upset over the pickuyune details of Kettlewell's study of peppered moths. So what if a population of peppered moths does return to its original color if taken back to their original habitat?

I haven't read Kettlewell's study, but I imagine that he had no intentions of doing Adam and Eve any harm. Rather, he only wanted to learn a little more about peppered moths.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#110051 Feb 10, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
That explains a lot, too.
If I recall correctly, Duane Gish was maliciously pleased when a research team challenged the majority opinion on bird evolution, and suggested another possible ancestor instead.
I could not understand that. After all, the team wsa still proposing evolution, so the tally was still the same.
Nor could I understand why the Creationists were so upset over the pickuyune details of Kettlewell's study of peppered moths. So what if a population of peppered moths does return to its original color if taken back to their original habitat?
I haven't read Kettlewell's study, but I imagine that he had no intentions of doing Adam and Eve any harm. Rather, he only wanted to learn a little more about peppered moths.
Evolution is a field rich in debate, but its around relatively minor details in an established framework. Great pickings for quote mining parasites who wish to misrepresent the significance of this.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#110052 Feb 10, 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.
Samuel Clemen's and Bertrand Russell's words seem quite profound and rational too, but I've never noticed a weeping and gnashing of teeth to posthumously saddle them with a godhead.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#110053 Feb 10, 2013
Oh, that Ken Ham, he's a funny guy.

(from Pharyngula)

"After that silly exercise in which Ken Ham looked at a fossil and dismissed Eosinopteryx as only a bird — a bird with clawed forearms, teeth, and a bony tail — he got chewed out not just by me, but by one of his fans, who wrote in to call him on his “handwaving” and to say that it was plainly not just a bird. Ken Ham can ignore me, but when one of the faithful can see right through him, he has to repair the damage.

And it’s great! He has to say that ancient forms of birds looked different, and that it has some features consistent with modern birds and others more like ancient..."

That last bit: "...ancient forms of birds looked different, and that it has some features consistent with modern birds and others more like ancient..."

Sure sounds like evolution to me.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#110054 Feb 10, 2013
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
Oh, that Ken Ham, he's a funny guy.
(from Pharyngula)
"After that silly exercise in which Ken Ham looked at a fossil and dismissed Eosinopteryx as only a bird — a bird with clawed forearms, teeth, and a bony tail — he got chewed out not just by me, but by one of his fans, who wrote in to call him on his “handwaving” and to say that it was plainly not just a bird. Ken Ham can ignore me, but when one of the faithful can see right through him, he has to repair the damage.
And it’s great! He has to say that ancient forms of birds looked different, and that it has some features consistent with modern birds and others more like ancient..."
That last bit: "...ancient forms of birds looked different, and that it has some features consistent with modern birds and others more like ancient..."
Sure sounds like evolution to me.
And looks like the fastest tapdance since Mick Flatley.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110055 Feb 10, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Samuel Clemen's and Bertrand Russell's words seem quite profound and rational too, but I've never noticed a weeping and gnashing of teeth to posthumously saddle them with a godhead.

Is that Jesus's fault?
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#110056 Feb 10, 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.
You can believe that BS if you want to. You go to your church and I'll go to mine. Jesus, GOD the father, and the Holy Spirit are the same GOD. If you want ot reject that, go ahead. I don't.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#110057 Feb 10, 2013
MAAT wrote:
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.
The immaculate conception of Mary has not been disproven. Piltdown man has. Evoluyion has never been a threat to christianity. It isn't undermining christianity. It is undermining science.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#110058 Feb 10, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<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.
It was a typo. You are correct, it should have been "In my church". Crack...it's outta here!! Is my personal concoction that pushes your buttons. It works great, as you are evidence too.
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Well, one day when we take our last breath we'll see if I was the one that is correct or not. I'm betting I'm the one that is correct. Even you just admitted that I'm besting you guys that human from non-human evolution is the biggest scientific fantasy in history .
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#110059 Feb 10, 2013
MAAT wrote:
Correction:
"In my Mary, Jesus and GOD are the same person."
Sounds way more sensible.
To you, I'm sure it does.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#110060 Feb 10, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
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.
sure is a lot of BS. 1...You are quoting Discovery. I wasn't. 2....I posted the references. 3....you asked for evidence of one scientist that supported Piltdown Man. I provided exactly that, and you didn't even say thank you.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#110061 Feb 10, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
The immaculate conception of Mary has not been disproven. Piltdown man has. Evolution has never been a threat to christianity. It isn't undermining christianity. It is undermining science.
Let me get this straight.
If the Immaculate Conception hasn't been disproven, does that mean that it is true?
If Piltdown Man has been disproven, does that mean that all of Evolutionary theory is false?

You have to be patient with me because I don't understand your brand of logic.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#110062 Feb 10, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
Well, one day when we take our last breath we'll see if I was the one that is correct or not.
Does anyone want a Latin lesson?
That's an argumentum ad baculum.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#110063 Feb 10, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
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).
Already addressed with the fact of flaws in interpretation. Fossils can not give heritage, so you take the vast amount of fossils and interpret them to be what ever you want them to be. You've been caught doing such to many times in the past.
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Secondly, a nested hierarchy of variation in the ERVs, pseudogenes, and ubiquitous proteins showing the same relationships.
ER
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>ERV's are not evidence of human from non-human evolution. ERV's seek out comfort zones in the genome. And since apes and humans genome is so simular because of a common design by and intelligent designer, it is most likey they will resign at the same places in both genomes.[QUOTE who="Chimney1"]<q uoted text>
If evolution were false, we would have no reason to see either. Evolution explains the pattern, creationism dos not.
THen how did I just explain that it does?.
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
No you don't. That is another one of your word games. Yes it evolved, but not into something else. That is why I always clearly state "humn from non-human evolution" because, no, you don't know it happened..
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>

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.
One is observable, and the other has never been observed in the history of the planet. One has observable evidence, the other has none..
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
False, but irrelevant anyway. Chemical evolution and biological evolution (whether micro or macro) are completely different processes.
Both are evolution, and both have vast amounts of randomness involved which supposedly has the ability to do magic. You have way to much faith in them..
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
EVOLUTION OF THE GAPS!!!!
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#110064 Feb 10, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Listen....you say that apes were humans ancestors. I would give you one point if the fossil record showed apes disappearing, and humans gradually appearing ( even though you can't define the difference between the two), but due to the obvious facts that apes still exist, and humans exist, I don't trust in the authority of scientists to interpret a mixuture between the two when they are obvious exceptions in each life form. Boy, Paul Wright skeleton sure looks like a big gorilla!!! Hey, here's another large ape. Look at the protruding forehead. What does this here mean? What is a Patrick Ewing?
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#110065 Feb 10, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
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.
I don't hate anyone. I feel pity for atheists and evolutionists. THey are both so lost.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#110066 Feb 10, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>

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.
Could I scream "observation" any louder?!!!!!!

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 min DanFromSmithville 20,540
News Pope Francis Affirms Evolution and Big Bang Theory 1 min MikeF 264
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 min Paul Porter1 171,651
Science Suggests That A Quantum Creation Force ... (Jun '14) 3 hr Paul Porter1 23
evolution is correct. prove me wrong 5 hr Paul Porter1 4
Beware of Kamikaze Snakes. They Are Evolving in... 6 hr Paul Porter1 12
Darwinism: Science or Philosophy? 21 hr Paul Porter1 30
More from around the web