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
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#110662 Feb 21, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
Shall we discuss Marksmanís Ten Commandments?
Love too!!
Thomas Robertson wrote:
1.[always avoid] the origin of life.
I agree.
Also avoid basket weaving, bicycle mechanics, or any other irrelevant topicóunless you can tie it in.
I can tie it in. In order to have biological evolution, must a body experience chemical evolution? Also Bicycle mechanics and basket weaving is observable. The origin of life and human from non-human evolution are not observable, thus failing the scientific method.
Thomas Robertson wrote:
2...don't admit that evolution is indeed a part of the origin of life.
I agree.
Donít admit that, because itís not true.
It most certainly is true. It's called chemical evolution.
Thomas Robertson wrote:
3...always say your opponent doesn't grasp science, when they demand you adhere to the scientific method.
Iím at loss on this one.
When did a Creationist ever demand that an Evolutionist adhere to the scientific method?
Just abput every post I've made in 3 years!!!
Thomas Robertson wrote:
Iíve only seen it happen the other way around.
Not with me. I'm honest and admit matters of faith, unlike you guys.
Thomas Robertson wrote:
4...avoid attempts to explain extreme complexity unless your opponent is uneducated about the scientific method. Then befuddle them with fantasies.
Weíre talking about Michael Beheís arguments here, are we?
No we are not. Michael Behe's concept is irreducible complexity, and is a valid concept.
Thomas Robertson wrote:
I admit, they get rather complicated.
But Iím not going to cut and paste just because my opponent does.
Then you lose!
Thomas Robertson wrote:
5....avoid the anthropic principle, if you are atheist.
I agree. Also, avoid the anthropic principle if youríe NOT an atheist.
Also, avoid basket weaving, bicycle mechanics, or another irrelevant topicóunless you can tie it in.
Again I can tie it in. THe anthropic Principle says that the big bang occured in the such a razor thin peramiter that it appears it was designed to support the life that was going to be placed within it. If you are an atheist, it is a stong argument that the universe was designed, and knew we were coming!!
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#110663 Feb 21, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
6....avoid attempting to explain an evolutionary path to the two genders.
We faced this subject head on.
I asked what male boobies were if they werenít a vestigial organ.
You merely handwaved that argument away.
It was a ridiculous argument. Just because you are a terrible biological designer, and are ignorant of the origin of human biology by definition says you are not the authority on what is vestigial and what isn't. Many organs in the past were proclaimed "vestigial" by much more educated and biological authorities than you, and were found to be completely wrong. Evolution of the 2 genders has never been observed, explained, and can not be replicated. Please explain how a male and female can evolve, at the same time, both with working plumbing that can be used to precreate, when this happened, the mutation that caused it, and where this occurred. Don't worry, I know you have no idea.
Thomas Robertson wrote:
7....never attempt to explain what changed or evolved that changed a nonhuman to a human.
I think Chimney1 explained that very well.
In case you donít recall, he said that our ancestors had to adjust from the jungle to the savannah.
HAHAHAHAHA...and that answers what evolved that made non-humans evolve into humans? That is like asking what makes a car go so fast, and you reply, "I love butterflys"!!!
Thomas Robertson wrote:
8....Never attempt to explain the Cambrian Explosion by citing the millions of years psuedoexplanation. It still doesn't explain these life forms showing up with no previous ancestors.
That argument was advanced before pre-Cambrian fossils were found.
They have been found now.
The Cambrian explosion argument would be stronger if amphibians, reptiles, and mammals were found in the Cambrian layer.
No, it would be stronger if you'd present the unpresentable fossils that give the Cambrian fossils their non-existent ancestors.
Thomas Robertson wrote:
9.. Never use the fossil record as evidence for human from non-human evolution. Fossils show that something once existed, died, and left an image of itself. It does not show heritage.
Thatís a clever weasel.
It is true.
Thomas Robertson wrote:
Iíve never run across that one before.
I guess you better refute it then without using interpretation of other fossils.
Thomas Robertson wrote:
10...Never claim that all macroevolution is is more and more microevolution over time. Microevolution has been observed and tested. Macro...or human from non-human evolution has never been observed in the history of the planet.
We have mentioned cases in which a population evolved to the point that its members could no longer mate with members of their parent population.
That is ring species, and in every case mud skippers are still mud skippers, and gulls are still gulls. They have not evolved into something else and in no way supports your human from non-human evolution!!! See, I told you you shouldn't ever use these arguments!!!!
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#110664 Feb 21, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Those are not answers to my question, do you have any actual answers? I said how, not who.
I showed you the how!!! The designer of all life breathed the breath of life into man and he became a living life. You don't have to like it, and you ignorantly thought I couldn't answer, but I just showed you how!!! Don't worry, you can't do it.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#110665 Feb 21, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm researching this as we speak. The writer of the article is Hershel Shanks is the editor of Biblical Archaeology Review magazine and founder of the Biblical Archaeology Society so there is an automatic bias to his writings.
Knowing the truth often makes one biased towards it.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#110666 Feb 21, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
I think Thomas Robertson answered you pretty well on this subject. It's post #110673 in case you haven't seen it yet.
Been there, refuted it. NEXT!!
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't forget its been proven that humans mated with Neanderthals (long ago) and made fertile offspring and we (non-Africans) have a small percentage of Neanderthal genes/blood now.
Neanderthals were human, so your claim is no big deal. No different that a oriental person mating with a Indian. They are still producing humans. That doesn't support human from non-human evolution. It is just irrelevant gibberish.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#110667 Feb 21, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Daniel knew how to become a Christian,
even though Daniel lived in Old Testament times?
He had faith in the coming messiah, just as modern christians have faith in the messiah that has come.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#110668 Feb 21, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you determine that thru a more careful open-minded reading of Genesis?
An open mind is a good thing, so long as your mind is not so open any old garbage can be tossed in. Your's is way too open, and now the garbage fills your mind not allowing reality in. I feel sorry for you.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#110669 Feb 21, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>One question. In order to have biological evolution, do you have to have chemical evolution?
So you read Ken Hamm's garbage and recite it, should have guessed.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#110670 Feb 21, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
So you read Ken Hamm's garbage and recite it, should have guessed.
I have never read a word by Ken Ham. Now care to address the question you just dodged. Can you have biological human from non-human evolution without chemical evolution?

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#110671 Feb 21, 2013
I Google searched "evolution" and got:

evolution of dance
evolution of smooth
evolution of Batman
evolution of bathing suits
evolution of batteries
evolution of rivers
evolution of dance songs
evolution of computers

According to marksman, we will have to investigate all of these topics, because they all have the word "evolution" in the title.

No telling what you can come up with if you change definitions of a word in the middle of a syllogism:

Only some dogs have floppy ears.
My dog has floppy ears.
Therefore, my dog is some dog!

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#110672 Feb 21, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I have never read a word by Ken Ham. Now care to address the question you just dodged. Can you have biological human from non-human evolution without chemical evolution?
Atoms don't evolve because atoms don't reproduce on their own, they don't reproduce at all, they are altered in structure through other forces, forces that would destroy life if it was to come close enough to alter the atoms. So your red herring is stupid, it's pointless, and has nothing to do with biology ...

... and Ken Ham made up the "chemical evolution" garbage.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#110673 Feb 21, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Cloud cover: Gen. 1:6,7
Wow. That's a stretch.
KAB wrote:
No revision on the great lights location. Still 4th day. Probably always will be. The significance is not in the time location of the activity. It's in the possible meaning of the word rendered "made".
Since the word "made" can mean almost anything when you use the KAB Flexible Dictionary. Now available in Hebrew, Greek and Semitic.
KAB

United States

#110674 Feb 21, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I take it as you could only find one thing on the whole page to dispute.
That is clearly a point for me.
I have no use for someone so blinded by his emotional bias that he makes such a patently nonsense statement. No one disciplined by objectivity would commit such an error. Bias may manage to include some truth but works against that objective. Objectivity, on the other hand, drives truth as a matter of course. I always look for signs of objectivity, or lack thereof, in a source.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#110675 Feb 21, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>One question. In order to have biological evolution, do you have to have chemical evolution?
One precedes the other, yes. They are still two distinct fields of study.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#110676 Feb 21, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I showed you the how!!! The designer of all life breathed the breath of life into man and he became a living life.
That has never been observed. By your criteria, it means nothing. Besides, you weren't there.
KAB

United States

#110677 Feb 21, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Also false, you use the dictionary to try to limit the meaning of words to what you want them to mean. You even quotemine the dictionary. You also avoid field specific meanings like the proverbial plague.
An assertion easily proven incorrect if you can provide confirming data for even one error.
Give it a crack.
Indeed your assertiion is easily proven incorrect. Here's proof,

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TFA...

Who's seeking to restrict what here vs sticking to established, accepted, "official" definition?
KAB

United States

#110678 Feb 21, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
The text does not say anything about cloud cover.
This is called Rationalization. It is a favorite defense mechanism of fundies and fundie cultists.
Gen. 1:6,7. You're free to rationalize otherwise.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#110679 Feb 21, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You're entitled to your opinion, and that puts you on the opposite side from those who hold the opposite opinion. You, of course, have the opportunity to provide data confirming your side, which would simultaneously nullify the contention of the other side and thereby eliminate it. Then you would be correct. I don't, however, suppose you are going to provide such data, so you will remain relegated to the side, notwithstanding that being anathema to you.
http://c.cslacker.com/1401l.jpg

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#110680 Feb 21, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>One question. In order to have biological evolution, do you have to have chemical evolution?
One question. In order to have biological evolution, do you have to have matter? Can't explain matter? Can't explain ANYTHING! Therefore, science is bullshit, therefore God did it. QED.

Your "argument" is stupid. You are stupid.
KAB

United States

#110681 Feb 21, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I now assume you are joking.
Characteristically wrong again. Bob asks if you've tried therapy to modify this socially undesirable behavior, Doc?

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) 4 min DanFromSmithville 133,720
How would creationists explain... 34 min replaytime 403
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 6 hr Kong_ 650
Science News (Sep '13) 22 hr positronium 2,944
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) Dec 22 Chimney1 13,624
Creationism coming to Ohio classrooms? Not with... Dec 20 nobody 7
24 hour dental emergency (Nov '13) Dec 19 Zach 4
More from around the web