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

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

There are 157574 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.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#110737 Feb 21, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Been there, refuted it. NEXT!!<quoted text>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.
I'm sure you wish it was irrelevant gibberish, however it isn't. The Neanderthal genome was sequenced a few years ago and it was sufficiently different from humans that they were called non-human.

“Over the past 15 years, Svante Pääbo, a geneticist at the Max Planck Institute of Evolutionary Anthropology, and his colleagues have uncovered an entirely new source of evidence about the nature of Neanderthals: their DNA. Starting with those fossils from the Neander Valley, they extracted bits of genetic material that had survived tens of thousands of years. Eventually, they were able to assemble the fragments into the entire Neanderthal genome.

It's clearly different from the genome of any human alive today, sprinkled with many distinctive mutations. These mutations accumulated in a clock-like way, and by tallying them up, Pääbo and his colleagues estimate that Neanderthals and humans share a common ancestor that lived 800,000 years ago. It's possible that the ancestors of Neanderthals expanded out of Africa then, while our own ancestors stayed behind.”

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/are-ne...

Sorry guy, but the evidence is really mounting up from lots of different science sources.

Genesis and Exodus and most of Joshua are toast, and now we know that humans DID evolve from the great ape line.

But, of course you creationists will just ignore this and go on being the way they are....backwards.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#110738 Feb 21, 2013
"Sovereign, thou hast been our dwelling place in all generations. Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art Elohim." (Ps.90:1,2).

Water atmosphere no relevance whatsoever. Simply always presumed there.
YHWH is thus particularly connected to the animal kind: The earth created for nephesh; animals humans.

Apropos flat eath ( looking for the elusive foundations and heavens verse and son of man not the venture i could read just about anything ever written on any old shape of the world ideas.
http://www.infidelguy.com/heaven_sky.htm
With very interesting depictions.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#110739 Feb 21, 2013
MAAT wrote:
But KAB if you think yotting down gen. 1:6,7
constitutes data, then no matter what we post(and you must admit that we've posted so much more then you of this kind of data and even linked and sourced it), you will always misunderstand data and the scientific method.
I have made and continue to make a good living thru the use of data and the scientific method. I can assure you it's not done by throwing vast amounts of nearly all irrelevant data onto the table expecting the recipients to find the few morsels applicable to the point under consideration. Nobody would pay for that type of data input because it's of virtually no value. A specific question/matter deserves corresponding specific data to answer/resolve it. That's why my data is nowhere near as voluminous as your "data(?)". I provide just what's needed by first doing the appropriate research to find and select it to directly address/resolve the issue.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#110740 Feb 21, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
No cloud cover.
And about waters not meaning waters i posted an entire thesis.
I'm not going to repeat information that you do not take note of anyway.
The translation is the simpleton version. From greek to latin to english. At a certain point under cultural pressure of outsiders people come to believe that the translation is ánd literal ánd correct.
It was in any case usefull to the church being created as in terms of having the god given right to dominate the world.
Any disagreement would have you burned at the stake.
Greek and latin had even less words and concepts to start with.
So now we are maybe living in slightly enlightened times were textual criticism and paleo-hebrew are properly studied and results published.
None of it dimishes what people want to believe.
Though i would frankly say that it gives more scope to the meaning.
I'm sorry I missed your "waters" thesis. I'll go back and try to find it, or if you want to speed the process you could provide a link or direct me to it.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#110741 Feb 21, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting, but understandable, that you take it upon yourself to define the core of MY religion (1 Timothy 2:4-7). What ever happened to freedom of religion?
So, your religion's core principle is not "God exists?" Fascinating. I wonder what the Watchtower folks would say about that...

Anyway, God's existence IS central to your religion. Without that premise, the entirety of the Bible is meaningless.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#110742 Feb 21, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>"In 1663, "chymistry" meant a scientific art, by which one learns to dissolve bodies, and draw from them the different substances on their composition, and how to unite them again, and exalt them to a higher perfection - this definition was used by chemist Christopher Glaser.[14]
The 1730 definition of the word "chemistry", as used by Georg Ernst Stahl, meant the art of resolving mixed, compound, or aggregate bodies into their principles; and of composing such bodies from those principles.[15] In 1837, Jean-Baptiste Dumas considered the word "chemistry" to refer to the science concerned with the laws and effects of molecular forces.[16] This definition further evolved until, in 1947, it came to mean the science of substances: their structure, their properties, and the reactions that change them into other substances - a characterization accepted by Linus Pauling.[17] More recently, in 1998, the definition of "chemistry" was broadened to mean the study of matter and the changes it undergoes, as phrased by Professor Raymond Chang.[18]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemistry
Now, are you really going to tell me that chemical evolution does not occur within biological evolution? Are you really going to try and tell me that? And since biological evolution demands chemical evolution, and we know that life is much to complex for chemical evolution to ever produce life, then it follows that biological evolution can't occur until chemical evolution can be shown to produce life. More and more each day you are moving closer and closer to having to admit an intelligent designer is required for life, and biological human from non-human evolution never was a viable concept.
And you can go eat Ken Ham as far as I'm concerned, I know nothing of him.
What part of "if we can't explain EVERYTHING, we can't explain ANYTHING" did you miss? That's a valid scientific statement, isn't it? I mean, that's the central theme of your argument.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#110743 Feb 21, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I have made and continue to make a good living thru the use of data and the scientific method. I can assure you it's not done by throwing vast amounts of nearly all irrelevant data onto the table expecting the recipients to find the few morsels applicable to the point under consideration. Nobody would pay for that type of data input because it's of virtually no value. A specific question/matter deserves corresponding specific data to answer/resolve it. That's why my data is nowhere near as voluminous as your "data(?)". I provide just what's needed by first doing the appropriate research to find and select it to directly address/resolve the issue.
Yet, you think "if a certain person/source says it, we should just accept it until someone proves it wrong" is somehow a scientifically and logically valid means of understanding reality.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#110744 Feb 22, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
What is your point?


That you were changing definitions of a word in the middle of a syllogism.
I even gave you an example.
Didn't that make it clear enough?

All right, then, I’ll give some more examples:

A baseball player swings a bat.
A bat is a nocturnal mammal capable of sustained flight.
Therefore, a baseball player swings is a nocturnal mammal capable of sustained flight.

Roses are red.
“Red” is the Spanish word for net.
Therefore, roses are nets.

If you mix orange juice with vodka, you get a screwdriver.
A screwdriver is a tool with a flattened or cross-shaped tip that fits into the head of a screw to turn it.
Therefore, if you mix orange juice with vodka, you get a tool with a flattened or cross-shaped tip that fits into the head of a screw to turn it.

The second gospel was written by Mark.
A mark equals 100 pfennings.
Therefore, the second gospel was written by 100 pfennings.

Oh, here's a real good one I almost forgot:

If you're trapped in a room with a mirror and a stick of lumber, what should you do?
Look in the mirror.
You see what you saw.
Use the saw to cut the lumber in half.
Two halves make a whole.
Crawl out through the hole.
That you can't answer my question without injuring your own world view?
Injured my own world view?
Goodness gracious!
How did I do that?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#110745 Feb 22, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I have made and continue to make a good living thru the use of data and the scientific method. I can assure you it's not done by throwing vast amounts of nearly all irrelevant data onto the table expecting the recipients to find the few morsels applicable to the point under consideration. Nobody would pay for that type of data input because it's of virtually no value. A specific question/matter deserves corresponding specific data to answer/resolve it. That's why my data is nowhere near as voluminous as your "data(?)". I provide just what's needed by first doing the appropriate research to find and select it to directly address/resolve the issue.
So then to you Bill Gates is the supreme scientific expert.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#110746 Feb 22, 2013
“Burro" means donkey in Spanish and it means butter in Italian.
So I guess donkeys are made out of butter.

"Gallo" meeans rooster in Spanish and it is also a brand of wine.
So I guess roosters are made out of wine.

Hae-ri is a girl's name in Korean,
but it's pronounced like the boy's name Harry in English.
Yu-jin is a girl's name in Korean,
but it's pronounced like the boy's name Eugene in English.
What do you make out of that?
If a Korean girl name Hae-ri goes to an English-speaking country,
will she turn into a boy?
If a boy named Eugene goes to Korea,
will he turn into a girl?
Or does that mean that boys are girls and girls are boys?

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#110747 Feb 22, 2013
I just thought of another one:
There was a Nineteenth Century playwright named Thomas Robertson.
Since we both have the same name,
we must be the same person!

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#110748 Feb 22, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
I just thought of another one:
There was a Nineteenth Century playwright named Thomas Robertson.
Since we both have the same name,
we must be the same person!
Wait, you aren't that Thomas, I am disappointed now.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#110749 Feb 22, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Even flowery prose has meaning, but you didn't share your understanding.
What is there to understand? It is a attempt to describe the source of everything. Nice little story but I attach no great importance to it other than some historical value.

I only argue against those who think it literally correct. Or those that attempt to squeeze it into reality.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#110750 Feb 22, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>You are defining abiogenesis as chemical evolution. THey are not the same thing. Chemical evolution is what has to occur for the fantasy of abiogenesis to supposedly occur. Then if biological evolution is to occur, the chemical make up of the body must evolve for these "Changes" to occur. If human from non-human evolution be true, chemical evolution within the biological structure must occur.But the truth is, naturalist processes are not shown to have the ability to cause chemical evolution to occur to the point of producing life, so if it can't produce life to start with, there is no need to think that chemical evolution also can occur to the point of changing a system to a completely different system over long periods of time. Neither have observable evidence.
{yawn}

I'm sorry, Marky. Were you saying something?
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#110751 Feb 22, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sure you wish it was irrelevant gibberish, however it isn't. The Neanderthal genome was sequenced a few years ago and it was sufficiently different from humans that they were called non-human.
“Over the past 15 years, Svante Pääbo, a geneticist at the Max Planck Institute of Evolutionary Anthropology, and his colleagues have uncovered an entirely new source of evidence about the nature of Neanderthals: their DNA. Starting with those fossils from the Neander Valley, they extracted bits of genetic material that had survived tens of thousands of years. Eventually, they were able to assemble the fragments into the entire Neanderthal genome.
It's clearly different from the genome of any human alive today, sprinkled with many distinctive mutations. These mutations accumulated in a clock-like way, and by tallying them up, Pääbo and his colleagues estimate that Neanderthals and humans share a common ancestor that lived 800,000 years ago. It's possible that the ancestors of Neanderthals expanded out of Africa then, while our own ancestors stayed behind.”
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/are-ne...
First, you are being dishonest...you said..

"The Neanderthal genome was sequenced a few years ago and it was sufficiently different from humans that they were called non-human."

I read your whole link, more than once, and it askes the question, "Where Neanderthals Human?" and it never answers it's own question. It says they can interbreed....etc. So for you to claim that this site says the are not human is dishonest, and I will apologize if you can show me where it says they were non-human.
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>

Sorry guy, but the evidence is really mounting up from lots of different science sources.
You're kidding, right?
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Genesis and Exodus and most of Joshua are toast, and now we know that humans DID evolve from the great ape line.
How can you honestly say that when you can't even define what evolved that made non-humans...human!!! Genesis is far from being toast. It is more accurate than any biology text book I've seen.As far as Exodus and Joshua, you're going to have to provide some examples. I suspect you are equally wrong about them.
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
But, of course you creationists will just ignore this and go on being the way they are....backwards.
We may be backwards, but the best explanations for what we observe are on our side!!!
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#110752 Feb 22, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
That you were changing definitions of a word in the middle of a syllogism.
I even gave you an example.
Didn't that make it clear enough?
All right, then, I’ll give some more examples:
A baseball player swings a bat.
A bat is a nocturnal mammal capable of sustained flight.
Therefore, a baseball player swings is a nocturnal mammal capable of sustained flight.
Roses are red.
“Red” is the Spanish word for net.
Therefore, roses are nets.
If you mix orange juice with vodka, you get a screwdriver.
A screwdriver is a tool with a flattened or cross-shaped tip that fits into the head of a screw to turn it.
Therefore, if you mix orange juice with vodka, you get a tool with a flattened or cross-shaped tip that fits into the head of a screw to turn it.
The second gospel was written by Mark.
A mark equals 100 pfennings.
Therefore, the second gospel was written by 100 pfennings.
Oh, here's a real good one I almost forgot:
If you're trapped in a room with a mirror and a stick of lumber, what should you do?
Look in the mirror.
You see what you saw.
Use the saw to cut the lumber in half.
Two halves make a whole.
Crawl out through the hole.
<quoted text>
Injured my own world view?
Goodness gracious!
How did I do that?
By long winded posts that you think disguises your inability to answer a question that surely injures your world view. Exactly like you attempted with this post.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#110753 Feb 22, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
I just thought of another one:
There was a Nineteenth Century playwright named Thomas Robertson.
Since we both have the same name,
we must be the same person!
Word games are irrelevant. Irrelevant sounds like elephant. Elephants are stupid, thus your word games are stupid.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#110754 Feb 22, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
{yawn}
I'm sorry, Marky. Were you saying something?
Mot that you'd understand.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#110755 Feb 22, 2013
not,,,,,

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#110756 Feb 22, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
Genesis is far from being toast. It is more accurate than any biology text book I've seen.
Of course. I'm sure the next time you or your family needs major surgery you'll ask you'll request a 'doctor' that studied the bible rather than a biology text book.

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
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 1 hr Richardfs 1,141
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Richardfs 52,022
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 2 hr It aint necessari... 24,828
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 12 hr Regolith Based Li... 218,797
Can the universe be God's brain? (Jun '07) Thu scientia potentia... 98
News Darwin's Doubt: Giving a Case for Intelligent D... Thu scientia potentia... 1
The Fossil Record Does Not Support The Theory O... Wed scientia potentia... 48
More from around the web