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

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

There are 151277 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.

marksman11

Asheville, NC

#110068 Feb 10, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me get this straight.
If the Immaculate Conception hasn't been disproven, does that mean that it is true?
It is plainly explained as a supernatural event, thus accepting it is a faith based belief. You can accept it or reject it, but you decision doesn't negate whether it is fact or fiction, nor does a materialistic worldview.
Thomas Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
If Piltdown Man has been disproven, does that mean that all of Evolutionary theory is false?
No, but it doesn't speak well of a theory that has to have faked evidence planeted in order to give it the appearance of validity.
Thomas Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
You have to be patient with me because I don't understand your brand of logic.
I am a patient man:-)
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#110069 Feb 10, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Does anyone want a Latin lesson?
That's an argumentum ad baculum.
Call it what you want.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#110070 Feb 10, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>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.
That would be an appeal to ignorance.
Though only to a certain group.

Simple biology will tell you that the female of our species does not clone herself.

But i wonder whether you really understood my bad phrasing.
The chruch in 1950 wrote - not that jesus was received without Mary having intercourse- but that Maty was special because SHE was born without her mother having had intercourse.
That made her free of original sin.

I'm not saying it makes sense. Even tually you would end up with the prototype Eve. And that would lead to the conclusion that Eve was not considered sinfull.
Which wold bring christianity in line with judaism, but which creates a lot of trouble for people that believe original sin is the driving force for god dying on the cross.
So these concepts do not come from the 'O.T.' but from other cultures.

I would say that the same mindset is operative on interpreting evolution as is in the quote mining and twisting that must be practiced to reconcile tanakh with the gospel.

B.t.w. brit chasash-renewed covenant.(like the moon becomes new every month. See Jeremiah 31)If it was truly that and still related to the Torah and Tanakh we would not have John's theology quoted at us, about god becoming flesh.

So i will maintain that a lot of interpretation came from mis-translation that was however build upon by church-fathers, to bring it in line with vigorating roman ideas. Every roman god has some original in a different culture.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110071 Feb 10, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>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.

This is not what Jesus nor his disciples believed.

Essentially you have chosen to believe theology that was made up 200 years after Jesus. The followers of Jesus were the true first Christians and they did not believe your heretical nonsense.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110072 Feb 10, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>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.

Okay little malarkey. Time to put an end to your pretend play for the day and get back to reality.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110073 Feb 10, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>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.<quoted text>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 .

I am not sure how you even make this shit up. Utter crap. Why don't you respond like an adult and not a little child?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110074 Feb 10, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>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.

No, you did name the scientist but it was part of a rant and you did not even try to make it clear you were answering the question.

There is no doubt that science lost the fumble on piltdown man. But science got the ball back on defense and have continued to run up the score since then. It is hard to say how many thousands of touchdowns science has scored since then, but creationism still stands at zero.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#110075 Feb 10, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Is that Jesus's fault?
Not at all. It is the ignorance and avarice of man who despoils the memory of the man's insights and courage.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#110076 Feb 10, 2013
Less literal minded, and at the same time more literal, would have Adam properly translated as Fertile soil and Havvah/Eve as Wide Birth.

That would thus mean that it makes no sense whatsoever to project 'evil' on the female of the human species.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110077 Feb 10, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
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.

The virgin birth was another later addition to Christianity, again for sales purposes. It was not part of original Christian belief.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110078 Feb 10, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Does anyone want a Latin lesson?
That's an argumentum ad baculum.

It is also a version of Pascal's fallacy.

argumentum ad baculum has a nice ring to it though.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110079 Feb 10, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> 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.

No, sorry. This is just incorrect as anyone who has any experience with fossils well knows. You can make up anything you want, but that does not make it true.
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> Yes it evolved, but not into something else.

Every child has evolved from something else. "human" and "non-human" are just labels that have no clear definition. But to look at REALITY once our ancestors would not qualify as modern human but now we do (or at least most of us do).
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> That is why I always clearly state "humn from non-human evolution"

I love humn from non humn evolution! LOL.
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> because, no, you don't know it happened.

Yes, we do. This has been observed by examination of the evidence using the scientific method. You lose again.
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> One is observable, and the other has never been observed in the history of the planet.

No, they both have been observed. Human evidence has been observed in the genome (DNA), in the fossil record and in the anthropological record.

Therefore "human from non-human evolution" (sic) is an established fact.

You try to confabulate the fact of evolution with the Theory of evolution but this is dishonest.
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> Both are evolution

Correct.
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> vast amounts of randomness

"randomness" is a creotard canard. Evolution is not random, but neither does it have direction.
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> ability to do magic.

No, magic poofing is all yours.

More GOD OF THE GAPS nonsense!!!!


If you remember I challenged you to post something of reasonable length, that is on topic, and does not contain a fallacy.

You have apparently not even attempted to take on my challenge. You KNOW you can't do it!!!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110080 Feb 10, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>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?

This can only be considered a joke. It is not even serious by your lame standards of serious.

Grow up.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110081 Feb 10, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I don't hate anyone. I feel pity for atheists and evolutionists. THey are both so lost.

I feel sorry for fundies and creotards. Unfortunately mental retardation tends to run in families. I recommend you not breed.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110082 Feb 10, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Could I scream "observation" any louder?!!!!!!

a few Observations of human evolution:

Human DNA high degree of overlap with modern ape DNA

ERVs in human an related species show EXACTLY the same relationship as would be predicted from evolution

Missing links are no longer missing.

Nested hierarchy.

Anthropology. The known history of human evolution as seen in finds of human remains. These fossils line up perfectly by age and show an unbroken lineage of human evolution.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#110083 Feb 10, 2013
Markyii wrote:
[..] human from non-human evolution is the biggest scientific fantasy in history .

end quote.

So what do you call a man made from mud and a women from his side?

If that is science phantasy then we should conclude that at least the torah does not conflict evolution.

So one can only wonder where christians get their ideas.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110084 Feb 10, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>It is plainly explained as a supernatural event, thus accepting it is a faith based belief. You can accept it or reject it, but you decision doesn't negate whether it is fact or fiction, nor does a materialistic worldview.<quoted text>No, but it doesn't speak well of a theory that has to have faked evidence planeted in order to give it the appearance of validity.<quoted text>I am a patient man:-)

It never happened. It was copied from a number of Roman, Greek and Roman gods.

No god was any god unless he was conceived by a god!!!!

It also helped to hide discrepancies in Jesus' heritage.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110085 Feb 10, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Call it what you want.

I call it the observed fact that marksman cannot get through a single post without giving your favorite fallacies a good workout.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110086 Feb 10, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Not at all. It is the ignorance and avarice of man who despoils the memory of the man's insights and courage.

Yep. You are going to be hard to argue with if you keep demonstrating reason and insight.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#110087 Feb 10, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
This is not what Jesus nor his disciples believed.
Essentially you have chosen to believe theology that was made up 200 years after Jesus. The followers of Jesus were the true first Christians and they did not believe your heretical nonsense.
I would say that he shows an incredible disdain for ancient cultures and old cultures.
As if they were too ingorant and believed everything happened by magic.

Pagan was an invention by the church, and came down to the assumption that everybody else was wrong and backward.
That arrogance is still laddled on.
Also in ideas that creation or evolution was only intended to put man (they meant 'male because they were not sure if women were even human.) on a pedestal.

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) 5 min renee 33,900
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 46 min Brian_G 14,806
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 2 hr Truth is might 199,175
News ID Isn't Science, But That's the Least Of Its P... 10 hr DanFromSmithville 27
My Story Part 1 18 hr JanusBifrons 1
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 22 hr Don Barros Serrano 179,706
Evolution in action Jun 20 Darth Robo 9
More from around the web