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
108,681 - 108,700 of 134,506 Comments Last updated 10 hrs ago
marksman11

Asheville, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110733
Feb 21, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
"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.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110734
Feb 21, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
One precedes the other, yes. They are still two distinct fields of study.
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.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110735
Feb 21, 2013
 
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.

Still trying to wish away the fact of evolution, I see.

Marksman, the answer to the question "what do you get when you combine fixed religious delusions with OCD"?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110736
Feb 21, 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.

Chemical evolution does occur. It is an observed scientific fact.

Biological evolution does occur. It is an observed scientific fact.

If you cannot dispute these facts (Oh, and you really can't) then you still have your same old nothing.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Gobekli Tepe

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110739
Feb 21, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

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

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110744
Feb 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110746
Feb 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

“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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110747
Feb 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110750
Feb 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110751
Feb 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

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.

5 Users are viewing the Evolution Debate Forum right now

Search the Evolution Debate Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 6 min Subduction Zone 113,064
Big Bang? 15 min wondering 296
British Ban Teaching Creationism As Science, Sh... 20 min wondering 150
GOP House candidate Bob Frey believes dinosaurs... 23 min wondering 15
One reason some Atheists arecomplete idiots. 27 min wondering 57
The Universe is fine-tuned for life 36 min wondering 411
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 10 hr Ooogah Boogah 171,518
•••
•••