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

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

There are 164268 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

Asheville, NC

#112883 Mar 26, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, but we can provide the evidence that the theory of evolution demands. Who cares what you demand?
You should because all I'm demanding is that you adhere to the scientific method, and you aren't even close!!! That is why you can morph your stupid psuedo scientific fantasy to fit what ever scenario you need it to fit into today. It isn't observable, testable, or replicatable, so just let your fantasies run wild. Observation be damned!!

Level 1

Since: Jan 10

Asheville, NC

#112884 Mar 26, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I have already proven to you that it does.
You most certainly have not!!
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The existence of ape/hominid intermediate fossils was a prediction of evolution, and they were found.
Yeah, eons of time were predicted too until the Cambrian Explosion was discovered.....and then with most flawed theories that can not be observed, it just fabricates punctuated equalibria.....as if that is science, rather than another unobserved wild guess fabricated to explain another unobserved wild guess. You can predict anything you want to in a fantasy world where observation has no part in science. Just look at your next wild claim!!!
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
They are repeatably, objectively, intermediate (in between) in measurable characteristics, between ape and human. As predicted, and confirmed.
and interpretated.You claim it is "in between" but you don't even know in between what?? Heck, you don't even know what evolved that made a non-human a human? You can't even define the difference between the two!!! I don't have enough faith to believe in human from non-human evolution!!!

Level 1

Since: Jan 10

Asheville, NC

#112885 Mar 26, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, and is the interpretation consistent with the data? YES!
Did that interpretation in fact PREDICT the data in this case? YES!
Therefore does the data support the interpratation? YES!
Is there any data that goes against the interpretation? NO!
Therefore, the "interpretation", which translates to "the hypothesis", has passed enough empirical testing to be regarded as a valid scientific theory, especially when added to the mountains of other data that also supports the theory and lack of any data that goes against it.
Thats how it works, bucko, like it or not.
You evolved.
You can predict anything with anything if you don't demand observation as part of the scientific method. Heck, you are trying to prove a fantasy by presenting other fantasies to support it!! Sory sport, but science doesn't work that way. There is not one drop of science in human from nonhuman evolution. All it s is a GODless philosophy for those who wrongly think they can avoid GOD,and for those that are weak in their faith and too lazy to study to support their own beliefs.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#112886 Mar 26, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>You most certainly have not!!<quoted text>Yeah, eons of time were predicted too until the Cambrian Explosion was discovered.....and then with most flawed theories that can not be observed, it just fabricates punctuated equalibria.....as if that is science, rather than another unobserved wild guess fabricated to explain another unobserved wild guess. You can predict anything you want to in a fantasy world where observation has no part in science. Just look at your next wild claim!!!<quoted text> and interpretated.You claim it is "in between" but you don't even know in between what?? Heck, you don't even know what evolved that made a non-human a human? You can't even define the difference between the two!!! I don't have enough faith to believe in human from non-human evolution!!!
Or the brains.

This repeated crap is really getting tiresome, Marky.

Level 1

Since: Jan 10

Asheville, NC

#112887 Mar 26, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Easy. Look at the teeth. Look at the cranial fissures. etc. Forensics experts today can age a skeleton with some precision.
That is your problem. You execute overkill. Then let them present what they think the age of the skeleton is, but you want to go to the extreme an assign it's heritage. You can't do that with a skeleton.
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>

That is because they are, objectively and measurably, intermediate.
In between. Not a bias. A set of measurements, repeatable and testable.
When you use the words "intermediate" and "in between" you are infuring that they are on a path from one place to another, but that is your interpretation. THere is no evidence that they have to be on a path to anywhere. Especialy when in todays world we observe no biologial systems in a path to somthing else. Life is so individualised, within one specis that you can see a myrad of differences within them. Upon their deaths, they are what they are and you have no authority to interpret their heritage.. Look at this pic....

http://www.thomasefranklin.com/data/photos/25...

now this one...

http://im.rediff.com/movies/2010/oct/15khali....

and one more....

http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj292/Coun...

all of these men are alive today. Your interpretation of their fossils would be priceless, but you know, I know you will have come back, do you know how I know? Because I gave you something you can't give me. Something to observe.

Level 1

Since: Jan 10

Asheville, NC

#112888 Mar 26, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Or the brains.
This repeated crap is really getting tiresome, Marky.
The truth never changes Mike!

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#112889 Mar 26, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>The truth never changes Mike!
Surprising that after all this time you still don't get it.
KAB

United States

#112890 Mar 26, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Just because he didn't graduate doesn't mean he didn't get a college education.
I agree he got an education, and that doing so is vital. I'll let him speak to where and how he got his. I know it isn't vital that everyone go to college, and it's now expensive enough to raise serious ROI questions for many.
KAB

United States

#112891 Mar 26, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you agree with what they said before what they said was "corrected?"
I don't presume to remember all specific instances, but generally not if I was knowledgeable enough about the topic or became so.
KAB

United States

#112892 Mar 26, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
But not logic. That's the fast track to Obfuscationville.
Logic is data. It's the data of proper reasoning. Proclaiming logic as if invoking the word is some sort of talisman, as you constantly do, is not data. Try actually describing the application of the specific elements of logic to situations. That will be data. Dr. D has recently provided a good example with his failed foray into the realm of double negatives. I'm confident you can be just as successful. Perhaps you are too, and that's why you only use the word.
KAB

United States

#112893 Mar 26, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yawn. And any Imam will be able to provide an apologetic that he and his fellows is perfectly happy with. Just like you do with your own error filled book.
See if you can get an Imam to participate in the forum.
KAB

United States

#112894 Mar 26, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Then you missed the point. NO person making extraordinary claims with no other backing evidence than their eye-witness account is a demonstrated reliable source. Certainly not one relating the remembered levitation of a Swami 30 years later.
<quoted text>
I don't. I look for confirmed explanations. As the fossil record confirms evolution - it supports the theory, and in many cases what was found was already predicted by evolution.
The fossil record is a reliable source because it has been found and dug up by thousands across countries and for centuries, with great care in technique, and with rational critics checking the claims made. You can even check it now, specimen by specimen.
You can even go and dig some up yourself, but I haven't heard of any creationist doing any real work! They prefer to parasitically nitpick by quote mining the REAL debates occurring among real scientists about real evidence, and pretending there is a "controversy" about evolution.
As for the WW Flood, its done. You have nothing, you should have a pile of confirming evidence. We on the other hand have evidence that life and civilisation passed right through your supposed Flood period without so much as a scratch. Finished. Falsified. Next.
I notice you don't do any real work either, just make assertions about what you think is there. Let's have some specimen by specimen confirmation of something that design doesn't predict.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#112895 Mar 26, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Logic is data.
You betcha. Just like bible quotes are.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#112896 Mar 26, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>You've disproved nothing. You have just sarcastically spewed the same thing as impossible, when the truth is, if there is a GOD, and you can't explain the origin of life without him, then none of those examples are even difficult. It was people like you who ridiculed the Wright Brothers. Just because you "don't get it" doesn't mean you are some kind of ignorant authority.<quoted text>No it isn't because I've always from jump street said that acceptance of GOD is a faith based belief. No less than your human from non-human evolution faith based belief that you can't prove. THe difference is, I admit that my belief in GOD is a faith based belief. You can't be that honest about your belief.
Nice little fallacious logic game you've got rattling between your ears there, Marky Boy. Scientific evidence is fantasy because you have faith that God exists, therefore IF there is a God and IF science doesn't explain the origin of life TO YOUR SATISFACTION, then scientific evidence is fantasy. Not only does that fail objective investigation, it isn't even self consistent.
Why do you keep babbling about the Wright brothers as if you have some brilliant insight? It is a complete non sequitur to the proposition that dark age superstition does not DESERVE ridicule. Your arguments are in the same league as someone who throws salt over their shoulder and asks questions of Magic 8 Balls.
The facts remain. No evidence of a Garden of Eden. No evidence of a Global Flood. No evidence of ID. You revere conclusions prior to and despite of knowledge and ADMITTEDLY no evidence supportive of those conclusions except faith based belief.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#112897 Mar 26, 2013
CM wrote:
Obviously, I'm referring to those parts of the Old Testament which are not historical accounts. One might accept that one generation begat another, that there existed a city, that there was a war, that so-and so was a king - AFTER non-biblical corroborating evidence is uncovered. On the other hand, there is also stuff like Noah, Jonah, the Garden of Eden, talking animals, etc., etc.... AKA MYTHOLOGIES.

marksman11 wrote:
That is easy enough to ignorantly claim, now I challenge you to prove it, especially with the existence of a supernatural deity that you also can't disprove.

"ignorantly claim?"
Point blank, Marky Boy. PROVE WHAT?

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112898 Mar 26, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text> I think the Watchtower has printed corrections.
The Watchtower made an error?!?!??! Odds my bodkins.

Citation please?

KAB wrote:
<quoted text> No disagreement immediately comes to mind. I imagine you can prompt me with some ideas to get the mental juices flowing.
I was just trying to determine the level of your brainwashing. Sounds like they used a 100% solution of hexa-Fluoro-Antimonic Acid.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112899 Mar 26, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You know the only way to get a gauranteed response is to show me data.

It is your lack of response to data that is at issue. Since I provide this and you did not refute it,.... that IS the data.

Sounds like your "guarantee" isn't worth the paper it isn't printed on.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112900 Mar 26, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You remember incorrectly. BTW, do you think college is vital to success? If you're not buried by student loans, you may want to consult with some unemployed graduates who are before you answer. Oh, also Bill Gates.

Ah, no college. That explains a lot.

College is not essential to success, but it would be helpful in understanding scientific issues.

BTW, the unemployment rate for college graduates is less than half of that for H.S. graduates. And the earnings are proportionally higher.

Bill Gates is not the norm.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t04.ht...

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#112901 Mar 26, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
But not logic. That's the fast track to Obfuscationville.

Wastin away again in Obfusciationville
Searching for my lost shaker of ambiguity
Some people claim that there's a cult to blame
But I know it's nobodys fault.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#112902 Mar 26, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Logic is data. It's the data of proper reasoning. Proclaiming logic as if invoking the word is some sort of talisman, as you constantly do, is not data. Try actually describing the application of the specific elements of logic to situations. That will be data. Dr. D has recently provided a good example with his failed foray into the realm of double negatives. I'm confident you can be just as successful. Perhaps you are too, and that's why you only use the word.
Logic is not evidence (while everything that exists in any way is technically "data"). Logic is a methodological framework. Citing logic as "data" is ultimately a meaningless exercise, as it is self-evident.

If you didn't believe what the Watchtower said before it was corrected by them, you are saying you knew better than they regarding the Bible. Why, then, do you bother with them at all? You're clearly a greater Biblical authority than they are, so you needn't pay attention to them. If anything, they should be seeking YOUR guidance. Why aren't YOU the leader of your own sect of Christianity, rather than being a member of a group whose interpretations of the Bible are, by your own admission, incorrect while your own are not?

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 Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 4 hr Science 32,988
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 5 hr replaytime 81,558
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... Tue Science 2,188
Did humans come from Sturgeons? Mon Science 1
Proof humans come from Tennessee Mon Science 1
Science News (Sep '13) Oct 14 Science 4,005
Mathematicians PROVED evolution IMPOSSIBLE! (Apr '17) Oct 14 Science 876
More from around the web