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
107,981 - 108,000 of 134,053 Comments Last updated 12 min ago

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110040
Feb 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Yuhuan, China

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110044
Feb 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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 were at it, I guess we should also apologize for Galileos 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."

Thats not even a quote mine. Its 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

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Yuhuan, China

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Yuhuan, China

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

12 Users are viewing the Evolution Debate Forum right now

Search the Evolution Debate Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
British Ban Teaching Creationism As Science, Sh... 27 min wondering 121
Big Bang? 48 min polymath257 138
The Universe is fine-tuned for life 1 hr polymath257 36
Chicken or the egg. Lets settle this 1 hr susanblange 50
Skull Valley lawmaker wants both sides of clima... (Feb '13) 1 hr SpaceBlues 1,643
Science News (Sep '13) 2 hr Ricky F 2,835
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 2 hr Dogen 112,790
Modern YEC is Not An Aberration of Traditional ... 4 hr Gillette 116
•••
•••