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

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

There are 141352 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.

Level 1

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#111238 Feb 27, 2013
Belief in Evolution is Like Belief in Santa Claus
An evolutionist goes into the forest and sees all kinds of plants and animals under the trees. To him, this is undeniable evidence that evolution happened. How else could all those creatures have gotten there?

A child goes into the living room on Christmas morning and sees all kinds of presents under the tree. To him, this is undeniable evidence that Santa Claus has been there. How else could all those presents have gotten there?

Every Christmas, humorous articles are written by engineers about the theory of Santa Claus. They make some reasonable assumptions about the number of houses in North America, the speed of Santa's sleigh, and compute the average length of time Santa can spend at each house. The conclusion, of course is that Santa can't possible make the trip in one evening. If you try to use these facts to convince a child that Santa can't make the trip, he won't believe you. There are presents under the tree. Santa must have been there. You just can't deny the fact of Santa Claus, even though the theory is shaky.

Similarly, mathematicians have conclusively demonstrated the impossibility of chemicals randomly combining to form a living cell. Engineers have shown that the energy required to put together the more complex molecules would have destroyed the partial products. But evolutionists continue to believe that the first living cell formed by chance. There are creatures under the trees. Evolution must have happened. You can't deny the fact of evolution, even though the theory is shaky.

Children believe that Santa's reindeer can fly. They have never seen a reindeer fly. There isn't any scientific explanation as to how they could fly. But reindeer must fly because they pull Santa's sleigh through the air. Furthermore, there is proof that Santa's reindeer live at the North Pole. The proof is that they aren't found anywhere else. Since they must live somewhere, they must live at the North Pole.

Evolutionists believe that animals change from one species to another. Nobody has every seen it happen. After 130 years of searching the fossil record, there is no fossil evidence to indicate that it has happened in the past.

http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v1i3f....

Level 1

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#111239 Feb 27, 2013
Can we prove that evolution is false without using the Bible? Certainly we can! Evolution is a scientific theory that stands or falls on the physical evidence. In fact, one can be an atheist, a person who doesn't believe in God, and still not believe in evolution!

http://www.ucg.org/science/prove-evolution-fa...

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#111240 Feb 27, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Scipture says what scripture says. Sorry you don't like it, and it refutes your world view.
However it almost never says what you say it does anyway.

Level 1

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#111241 Feb 27, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
However it almost never says what you say it does anyway.
Prove it, or apologize!

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#111243 Feb 27, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Prove it, or apologize!
It endorses slavery and incest.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#111244 Feb 27, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Nope, why should I?
No reason. I just thought you would be better at current events.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#111245 Feb 27, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't seem to understand. It has hundreds of feet of LAKE, not RAIN, sediment in it, complete with shells.
There is roughly 200 feet of lake sediment in Barringer Crater. What is your point, KAB?
KAB

United States

#111246 Feb 27, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Nor is Watchtowerism a Christian attribute. But what's your point?
And your ignoring the actual issue of the post does not go by unnoticed.
You presented something which presumably could not be falsified. I falsified it.
KAB

United States

#111247 Feb 27, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Taken aback by your sudden burst of honesty.
To what do we owe this revelation?
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
Because I consider you intellectually dishonest, mentally lazy, functionally illiterate and you never make an effort to start a search.
It matters not to me what MAAT thinks of me, so I'm comfortable with whatever he thinks since it matters not.
KAB

United States

#111248 Feb 27, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Slightly off topic but since John dates later than the other gospels, contains gnostic elements, is not as historically accurate as the other gospels, would the church fathers have been right in excluding it from the bible as they almost did?
I don't think the "church" fathers controlled what we know as the Bible today. Each book, including John, stands or falls on its own merits (2 Timothy 3:16).
KAB

United States

#111249 Feb 27, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
You obviously did not look with an open mind (eyes to see and ears to hear).
Now, if the bible was a completely fabricated story book, what errors might you expect to find? Remember, most of the 72,000 known errors in the bible are fairly minor, translation errors, punctuation, incorrect references to earlier books,....
Good and fair question. Let's start with historical elements which are demonstrably incompatible with confirmed history.
LowellGuy

Lowell, MA

#111250 Feb 27, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
Belief in Evolution is Like Belief in Santa Claus
An evolutionist goes into the forest and sees all kinds of plants and animals under the trees. To him, this is undeniable evidence that evolution happened. How else could all those creatures have gotten there?
A child goes into the living room on Christmas morning and sees all kinds of presents under the tree. To him, this is undeniable evidence that Santa Claus has been there. How else could all those presents have gotten there?
Every Christmas, humorous articles are written by engineers about the theory of Santa Claus. They make some reasonable assumptions about the number of houses in North America, the speed of Santa's sleigh, and compute the average length of time Santa can spend at each house. The conclusion, of course is that Santa can't possible make the trip in one evening. If you try to use these facts to convince a child that Santa can't make the trip, he won't believe you. There are presents under the tree. Santa must have been there. You just can't deny the fact of Santa Claus, even though the theory is shaky.
Similarly, mathematicians have conclusively demonstrated the impossibility of chemicals randomly combining to form a living cell. Engineers have shown that the energy required to put together the more complex molecules would have destroyed the partial products. But evolutionists continue to believe that the first living cell formed by chance. There are creatures under the trees. Evolution must have happened. You can't deny the fact of evolution, even though the theory is shaky.
Children believe that Santa's reindeer can fly. They have never seen a reindeer fly. There isn't any scientific explanation as to how they could fly. But reindeer must fly because they pull Santa's sleigh through the air. Furthermore, there is proof that Santa's reindeer live at the North Pole. The proof is that they aren't found anywhere else. Since they must live somewhere, they must live at the North Pole.
Evolutionists believe that animals change from one species to another. Nobody has every seen it happen. After 130 years of searching the fossil record, there is no fossil evidence to indicate that it has happened in the past.
http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v1i3f....
Quoting the scientifically illiterate doesn't help your case.
LowellGuy

Lowell, MA

#111251 Feb 27, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Nope, why should I?
Because he was regularly on television and in newspapers. And, he was on tv recently shilling for some sort of old people's product. He's an iconic face from the Reagan era. It's like saying you never heard of the McDLT.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#111252 Feb 27, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You presented something which presumably could not be falsified. I falsified it.
Yet another falsification for which you evince pride?
Technically, "invisible purple" is an intriguing notion. The prismatic colors are composed of red, orange, yellow, green, blue,(indigo), and violet. No purple, because purple is how we sense the blending of red and blue - frequencies which are not adjacent in the spectrum. This is where the saying "the color purple does not exist in nature" comes from.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#111253 Feb 27, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Because he was regularly on television and in newspapers. And, he was on tv recently shilling for some sort of old people's product. He's an iconic face from the Reagan era. It's like saying you never heard of the McDLT.
Reagan refused to meet with Koop on the looming epidemic of "the Magic Bullet from God." Is there any wonder Marky Boy also exhibits selective Alzheimers?
I kinda liked the McBLT. I must have a memory block of my own about the McDLT.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111254 Feb 27, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Aren't there non-humans that make tools today?
What's in a label? Adam and Eve were the first humans (i.e., what science today calls "modern humans").
To somewhat sensitize you to the realm, here's some puzzling data from your reference.
mtDNA varies among "modern" humans by an average of 8 base substitutions. "Modern" human mtDNA varies from Neanderthals by 27 substitutions. Neanderthals mtDNA varies from one another by 20 bases, but they are stated to be less diverse than "modern humans. Since I don't want to give anything away I'll just ask what can you conclude from this?
Since what's considered "modern" humans is a judgment call, and the dating methods, especially genetic methods, involve estimates based on assumptions which may not be correct, dating their origins is necessarily also a judgment call.
BTW as a bonus, your source states that C14 dating places the origins of writing, state societies, and civilization, including Sumer and Egypt at 4500 years ago.
As a final thought, have you honestly never seen anyone living who could have passed for a Neanderthal?

If you are not at all interested in science then just admit that. Don't keep putting forth contorted rationalizations to that effect.

Adam and Eve lived at least 60,000 years apart. Sort of hard to procreate when you are not alive at the same time. knowwhatimean?

For the rest of your post, please provide data. No data, no science.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111255 Feb 27, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't seem to understand. It has hundreds of feet of LAKE, not RAIN, sediment in it, complete with shells.

Yes, Barringer crater has been a lake a lake at times in it's history, including shortly after the impact, during wetter periods in that region.

What does that have to do with Da Flud?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111256 Feb 27, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think the "church" fathers controlled what we know as the Bible today. Each book, including John, stands or falls on its own merits (2 Timothy 3:16).

I am sorry you don't know anything about Christian history.

I guess we will have to work on other subject.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111257 Feb 27, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Good and fair question. Let's start with historical elements which are demonstrably incompatible with confirmed history.

Besides 99% of the book of Genesis?

Who killed Goliath?

1 Samuel 17:50
2 Sam. 21:19

1 Chronicles 20:5

So, based on the three verses is is unreasonable that 2 Sam 21:19 is .....

is......

[Hint: the answer begins with Wro and ends with ng]

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111258 Feb 27, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It matters not to me what MAAT thinks of me, so I'm comfortable with whatever he thinks since it matters not.

So you are not ADMITTING to being a sexist, egotistical, lying, hypocritical bigot.

But wouldn't we EXPECT sexist, egotistical, lying, hypocritical bigot to deny those charges.

Correct response: "I have a few faults."

http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/n/...

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 Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 13 min Aura Mytha 164,292
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr karl44 19,059
How can we prove God exists, or does not? Tue Gillette 84
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) May 25 UncommonSense2015 178,616
has science finally debunked the 'god' myth? May 24 UncommonSense2015 10
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) May 24 Chimney1 1,871
News British Ban Teaching Creationism As Science, Sh... (Jul '14) May 23 Swedenforever 159
More from around the web