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
KAB

Oxford, NC

#112869 Mar 25, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean the one I refuted. Yes I remember it. And I remember refuting it.
Well, actually a Muslim web site refuted it.
And actually they did not refute it so much as rationalize it the same way you do about Pi.
But, nevertheless, it was better than any of your biblical rationalizations.
BTW are you ever going to answer any of my question?
You know the only way to get a gauranteed response is to show me data.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#112870 Mar 25, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Listen Lady, just because you are too ignorant to know that science can explain an eclipse, then to relate that to time travel as not being scientific, but a fantasy, does not make me a liar. It makes you ignorant.
Again, not what you said. You said eclipses were scientific, just because science helped us understand something doesn't make it scientific. We understand art, scientifically we understand why we like art, produce art, and see art in everything ... but art is still just art.
LowellGuy

Lowell, MA

#112871 Mar 25, 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.
Just because he didn't graduate doesn't mean he didn't get a college education.
LowellGuy

Lowell, MA

#112872 Mar 25, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I think the Watchtower has printed corrections.
No disagreement immediately comes to mind. I imagine you can prompt me with some ideas to get the mental juices flowing.
Did you agree with what they said before what they said was "corrected?"
LowellGuy

Lowell, MA

#112873 Mar 25, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You know the only way to get a gauranteed response is to show me data.
But not logic. That's the fast track to Obfuscationville.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#112874 Mar 25, 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.
Bill, yeah, he's one of the shining examples of an atheist, and very educated. He's been educated in business, self taught mostly, but is recognized as a foremost expert on the subject, because he demonstrated that knowledge. That's what school is really about, it's not the learning you go there for, it's to demonstrate you know what you claim to know. If you can do that without school, great, but on here you have done nothing more than make a complete and total fool of yourself.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#112875 Mar 26, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>In your dreams. IT can't even pass the scientific method.
I have already proven to you that it does.

The existence of ape/hominid intermediate fossils was a prediction of evolution, and they were found.

They are repeatably, objectively, intermediate (in between) in measurable characteristics, between ape and human. As predicted, and confirmed. They even form a time continuum from more apelike to more human-like so smooth that even creationists cannot point out "which one was Adam".

Science won, and your pseudoscience is irrelevant.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#112876 Mar 26, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Yes they are and you have the right to make that obvious claim. You don't have the right to intepret them as being anything other than what they are. Evidnce that something once existed, died, and left an image of itself. Anything above tha is interpretation because fossils can not show heritage.
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.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#112877 Mar 26, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
Ok, you find a small skull measuring 700. Is it a young human, or a mature but small ape?
Easy. Look at the teeth. Look at the cranial fissures. etc. Forensics experts today can age a skeleton with some precision.

We even have young ape/hominid intermediate fossils with the baby teeth still sprouting. And we have fully developed dentitions showing strong wear with 700cc skulls on H erectus.

Really, Marksman. Experts go over these with a fine toothed comb - x-ray analysis, micro-measurements, microscopic scans of the tooth enamel etc etc.

Your suggested interpretations are ruled out by precise measurement. Fine, you gave it a shot. Evolution's interpretation, on the other hand, is supported by it.
...how preconceived your biases are? You actually call them intermediate, as being inbetween "A" and "B"
That is because they are, objectively and measurably, intermediate.

In between. Not a bias. A set of measurements, repeatable and testable.

That is, we KNOW they are in-between in form. We INTERPRET that some of them are TRANSITIONAL to modern humans, because that explains their existence, their progressive change in shape over time (i.e. through the strata) from measurably more ape-like to more human-like, and this was predicted by evolution.

You have NO prediction for these creatures, and no explanation for them. Evolution explains them perfectly.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#112878 Mar 26, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I've both seen and provided analysis of the explanation of the Quran's math formula. Given your manifest disposition toward learning, I'm not surprised you don't remember.
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.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#112879 Mar 26, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
YOU CAN"T PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE I DEMAND BECAUSE IT DOESN"T EXIST
No, but we can provide the evidence that the theory of evolution demands. Who cares what you demand?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#112880 Mar 26, 2013
KAB wrote:
Also, you didn't identify the women as a demonstrated reliable source.
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.
Why should you accept any one of multiple unconfirmed possible explanations for something?
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.

Level 1

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#112881 Mar 26, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
CM wrote:

Prove what? That families beget children? That kingdoms and cities have been discovered beneath the sands and that wars were documented in ancient times?
Or are you asking me to prove that donkeys and snakes are anatomically incapable of speech, that the story of Jonah couldn't happen as told, that the Great Flood left no physical evidence, that the Tower of Babel couldn't have been built by the survivors of that "global flood." That's been done - haven't you paid ANY attention? Are y'all really as dumb as you deny?
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.
ChromiuMan wrote:
It isn't my responsibility to prove a supernatural being does or doesn't exist. It's YOUR proposal, so it's up to YOU to prove its existence.
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.

Level 1

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#112882 Mar 26, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, not what you said. You said eclipses were scientific, just because science helped us understand something doesn't make it scientific. We understand art, scientifically we understand why we like art, produce art, and see art in everything ... but art is still just art.
I refuse to run your stupid rabbits.

Level 1

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#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

Location hidden

#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

Location hidden

#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

Location hidden

#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

Location hidden

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

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) 13 min thewordofme 149,922
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 17 min One way or another 16,920
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 23 min Denisova 1,416
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 1 hr thewordofme 176,989
Birds Evolved From Dinosaurs Slowly—Then Took Off 1 hr Denisova 26
Humans DID evolve from apes! 1 hr Denisova 10
Creationism isn't a science and doesn't belong ... 2 hr The Dude 722
More from around the web