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

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

There are 143899 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 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#113318 Apr 3, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for your glimmer of objectivity. I think Adam was created from the elements of Earth, complete with better mental ability than either you or I have. Hey, he was a direct product of God (Deuteronomy 32:4) and need not even have died (Genesis 2:17).
Well, I think the story of Original Sin is an allegory about humans coming to understand their mortal nature and the consequences of their actions. We see glimmers of this in elephants, great apes, and dolphins, but the real understanding belongs to us alone.

I know that even apes display the rudiments of morality. As with most things we thought were unique and separate to humans, we see many of the basics in our primate cousins. The leap is in the ability to think rationally and abstractly at a far more complex level, thanks to a fore-brain that gradually tripled in size over the last 2 million years.

What I am adamant about is that you as a Christian have to reconcile your core beliefs with modern science, not try to ignore science or hope it will be overturned to sustain your beliefs. As far as I can tell, your only core belief is that you must seek forgiveness for your sins and repent of them. The rest is window dressing. It really does not matter whether Adam was formed from a lump of clay on a pottery wheel or whether Adamic consciousness of good and evil emerged in a clever ape-man (whose father was an ape-man too).

Obsession with non-core details that stem from an unreliable book, leading to continual denials of well established science, is why I regard fundamentalists as idolaters (of a book) rather than lovers of God or truth.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#113319 Apr 3, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>
<chimney>
I will save you the trouble.
It was me, and I said, we (and all animals) share a common ancestor with tobacco (and all plants), not that we are descended from tobacco.
Man, are you really still too stupid to understand that "share a common ancestor WITH" and "descended FROM" are VERY different things?

You share a common ancestor with your cousin. But your cousin is NOT your grandfather. Got it? YET??? Will you EVER?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#113320 Apr 3, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>It is only intermediate if you have already preconcluded that evolution must be true.
Nope. That would be a "transitional", the conclusion that a particular fossil is THE species that another came from.

An intermediate is simply an objectively measurable, replicatable fact. Just as 2 inches is intermediate between 1 inch and 3 inches, a cranial volume of 800cc is intermediate between 400cc and 1300cc.

No interpretation. Just measurement.

The interpretation that some of the OBJECTIVELY INTERMEDIATE fossils with measurements between ape and human are evidence for evolution is that they are what we would expect to find if evolution is true. Evolution predicted them, and explains them.

Creationism did not expect them and cannot explain them. Which is why you run around with your panties in a knot with silly attempts like "maybe they were infant skulls" "maybe they were congenital defects" etc. Its funny to watch as you parrot every long-since eliminated alternative in your desperate attempt to run from the explanation that is right in front of your face.
How many times do I have to say it? When your pet theory is unobservable you can twist it to be what ever you need it to be.
No, you cannot. A theory makes predictions.

You hilariously get the scientific method wrong every time. But what can I expect from someone who still cannot grasp the difference between "common ancestor with" and "descended from"?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#113321 Apr 3, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Don't you think an apology for calling me a liar would be nice? Listen, you and I don't have to agree, just because you believe something does not make you a liar. I believe the bible is true, you do not, but because I do doesn't make me a liar.
I can be completely wrong, and you completely right, but that still doesn't make me a liar. We need to understand that and I apologise for making the same mistake.
Perhaps when you stop lying, you will not be called a liar.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#113322 Apr 3, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I. The scientific method has four steps
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/ap...
1. We observe mass extinctions yet the number of types of organisms increases and becomes more elaborate over generations.

2. Hypothesis: things evolve somehow.

3. Looking at the DNA we see lineages of various species and the fossil record shows a clear progression, thus each generation will differ from the previous in some way.

4. So we take things that reproduce rapidly, alter their environment, expect there to be differences ... there are every single time.

Tada, thank you for proving things evolve.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#113323 Apr 3, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Funny, I noticed you completely failed to address a single point I made in the post you are replying too. THat's fine, because we both know you have no answers, so you do the only thing a person with no integrity can do, insult.
And you still fail to address the 1.10 > 1.1 issue.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#113324 Apr 3, 2013
[QUOTE who="marksman11Listen, in all honesty, you can't teach me anything about this debate, I've been debating it, publicly speaking on it, and continuously studying it for almost 20 years now.[/QUOTE]

Yep. And not once have you ever admitted error, even when it's been demonstrated to you. Because you're always right about absolutely everything, it is we who must be wrong.

Tell us again how 1.10 > 1.1 and which mathematician(s) you consulted regarding this. That Nobel Prize in mathematics is pretty sweet, ain't it? I mean, you did go to Oslo and get your prize, right? Seems it would be a shame to give it up. Ah, but you don't do it for the prize...it's just part of being right about everything all the time. Good for you for staying humble.

20 years of making sure you learned absolutely nothing. You're a real champ.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#113325 Apr 3, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Oh yeah, It was claimed about 3 years ago. And even worse, you guys claimed we are kin to "Nanners"!!! Don't believe me?
#5263
May 21, 2009
marksman11 wrote:
Careful Pakman, they will tell you we are related to the banana. I'm being serious. I've been told that in other forums over the years.
==========
Both humans and bananas are eukaryotes. Our common ancestor was a eukaryote. It's just eukaryotes evolving into eukaryotes. All the same kind. That's microevolution, right?
==========
SEE! I told you!
post #5263
This is your team, not mine!!!!
Dipshit! RELATED not evolved from. Is there anything you cannot misunderstand?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#113326 Apr 3, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Don't you think an apology for calling me a liar would be nice? Listen, you and I don't have to agree, just because you believe something does not make you a liar. I believe the bible is true, you do not, but because I do doesn't make me a liar.
I can be completely wrong, and you completely right, but that still doesn't make me a liar. We need to understand that and I apologise for making the same mistake.
Were you completely wrong about 1.10 > 1.1?

See, no matter how ridiculously wrong you are about something, the one thing you won't do is admit it, because you weave everything into everything else, such that any error anywhere results in error everywhere.

You can't even say "you know, I goofed with that whole 1.10 > 1.1 thing. I was never very good at math, and that was my bad. I was wrong." Why? Because your Bible code prophesy math trick depends upon your silly math error. And, because you made your bad math part of the justification for your belief in the Bible, it would mean you'd have to admit that you were wrong for believing for that reason.

If you were wrong for believing for that reason, that opens the door for other reasons being bad reasons for belief, and that threatens your entire justification for belief in the first place. And, if there's one thing you're afraid of more than anything else, it's not having a reason to believe the Bible, because the social pressures related to Bible belief are so great for you that to shake your faith to any degree could cost you friends, family (what's left of it), your position as a member in your church community, the trust of your fellow congregants, and even business.

So, when it comes to learning, that has to take a back seat to believing everything in the Bible. And, when it comes to acknowledging your own errors, that simply cannot occur.

And that's an incredibly sad life.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#113327 Apr 3, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Funny, I noticed you completely failed to address a single point I made in the post you are replying too. THat's fine, because we both know you have no answers, so you do the only thing a person with no integrity can do, insult.
There is nothing in your post that hasn't been refuted over and over again. You can start lecturing on integrity when you stop lying.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#113328 Apr 3, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Don't you think an apology for calling me a liar would be nice? Listen, you and I don't have to agree, just because you believe something does not make you a liar. I believe the bible is true, you do not, but because I do doesn't make me a liar.
I can be completely wrong, and you completely right, but that still doesn't make me a liar. We need to understand that and I apologise for making the same mistake.
How many times have we told you that we never said we were descended from tobacco, but that we shared a common ancestor with tobacco, in the same way that you are not descended from your cousin (nor your cousin from you), but you and your cousin share a common ancestor? Maybe it's the whole inbreeding thing that messes you up. Ok, pretend you were from a family whose members all have 23 chromosomes and whose family tree isn't a wreath...

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#113329 Apr 3, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Already disproven. I'm not going through 5000 pages of posts to expose your didhonesty, but I've already posted where your team said we were related to "Bananas".....also Mike, are you saying we ARE NOT evolutionary tied to tobacco plants? I bet you can't answer, or won't answer that question. I dare you to answer it with a "Yes" we are evolutionary related to tobacco plants, or "NO" we are not evolutionaryly related to tobacco plants. Wanna take a ride?
You said "EVOLVED FROM", liar. Then you changed it to "related" which is correct.*IF* you were honest (which you are not) you would admit you mistake but NO! Marky is never wrong. Not about gravity, not about electrons, no about penguins, not about math. Putz.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#113330 Apr 3, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>GOD never gave us the ten commandments expecting us to have the ability to keep them. All GOD was saying is here are my requirements, AND YOU CAN'T DO THEM, but I'm going to send someone who can, and he did. So yeah, there is no way I can keep the ten commandments, but hold your arrogance because you can't either. There is only one sin difference between the person in heaven and the person in hell, Jesus died for all the rest. I have taken care of that one sin when I accepted Jesus. According to your own words, you haven't. Sooo....forgive me for laughing at your vain attempt to judge me. You are not my judge.
<quoted text>No you didn't, not even close. You just proved above that you aren't worthy to judge other people.
&#9668; Matthew 7:3 &#9658;
New International Version (©2011)
"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?
Blah, blah, blah.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#113331 Apr 3, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Listen, just because you believe it, doesn't mean it is undeniable science. If it was undeniable, why can't you guys ever address my challenges? No one has ever observed the evolution of the 2 genders, no one has ever observed the origin of life, no one has ever observed a non-human evolving into a human, in fact, not a soul in here has ever been able to even describe what evolved to make a non-human a human. Punctuated equalibria has never been observed to be true, which all it ever was was a fantasy attempt to explain the evidence found in the Cambrian Explosion......so listen.....people that are asking these questions are the ones with the critical thinking skills. Not the ones who will believe any unobservable thing as long as it supports their philosophy. So you can label it "undeniable science" all day, but until you can answer everyone of these challenges with an observation, your science is far from undeniable.<quoted text>Listen, in all honesty, you can't teach me anything about this debate, I've been debating it, publicly speaking on it, and continuously studying it for almost 20 years now. So with all due respect, I will wait on you to address the above challenges with observations, and if you do, then I will say you have taught me something.
So, your argument is, "if you weren't there to directly observe it, there's no scientific means of explaining it, therefore it's perfectly reasonable to invoke magic as the best explanation." Yeah, we stopped using superstition as an explanation for natural phenomena long ago. Your insistence upon using it merely demonstrates how poorly educated you are, and how strong the social pressure involved with religion is. It's an insidious thing, religion, that it would serve as a hindrance to you being an informed and intellectually mature adult. It's never too late to escape the island of the lotus eaters, but you have to choose to do so.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#113332 Apr 3, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Well, for the millionth time.....SHOW ME!!! Why do you continue to make these wild claims that you, and I, and everyone else knows you can't support? It is really unimpressive.
What's with the avatar, Marky? Trying to look all bad ass again? What a joke.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#113333 Apr 3, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
How many times do I have to say it? When your pet theory is unobservable you can twist it to be what ever you need it to be.
You're still demanding that we observe theories.

Theories are ideas.

You can't SEE an idea.

They only exist in the brain as electrochemical patterns.

When you can observe "delicious," then we'll talk about observing theories.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#113334 Apr 3, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
And example.....GOD created dogs.....and later on wolves evolved.
One more thing to add to the "Incredibly Stupid Things Marky Has Said" list.

Wolves evolved from dogs! Too freaking funny. What an ass.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#113335 Apr 3, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep. And not once have you ever admitted error, even when it's been demonstrated to you. Because you're always right about absolutely everything, it is we who must be wrong.
Exactly.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#113336 Apr 3, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>That you would even expect scientific evidence for the supernatural is the very height of ignorance. Everyone knows by now that science is unqualified to deal with the supernatural. The fact is, you know I am right, and that is why you are so bitter.
Romans 1
18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness,
19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.
20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
You can't go outside and look around you, look at the night sky, see the love of a child, and the complexity of the human brain, and not understand that it takes GOD to create that. You know that, and Romans 1 makes it clear. So even though you have this something within you, your brain and pride won't let you acknowledge it and it sets up an inner struggle within you which causes you to be so bitter. You are walking talking confirmation that the bible is true!!
<quoted text>There you go again. Trying to morph micro and macro in an attempt to dishonestly infer that both are equally valid, when that of course, is a not at all true.<quoted text>Because parables are told and explained as parables. For some reason science or atheism or liberalism, or SOMETHING...has this hold over you where you will believe absolutely anything over the bible. I look at the world around me, and I have read every word of the bible, and I have studied science, and I have debated you guys. I have found the truth in my observation of life lines up perfectly with the bible, and it has continuosly proven itself to me to be the words of GOD to mankind. It has changed my life, my world view, and my eternity.
If Christianity has supposedly made you a better person then you must have been really awful before that even.

Now you are merely an unrepentant liar, arrogant, ignorant, fool.

I showed that you lied at least once when you denied claiming that evolution says you are descended from a tobacco leaf. And yet you don't apologize for breaking the Ninth Commandment.

Second some claims of supernatural events will leave evidence, if they are real.

For example the traditional Adam and Eve story will leave evidence in the form of genetic bottlenecks. Even more so will the Noah's Ark myth. In fact the Noah's Ark myth will leave all sorts of evidence, not just genetic bottlenecks all pointing to the same time in Earth's history. It would also leave physical evidence and there is none. Not one bit.

So to try to laugh at someone for wanting evidence of a supernatural event only shows that you have no understanding of science yourself.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#113337 Apr 3, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Don't you think an apology for calling me a liar would be nice? Listen, you and I don't have to agree, just because you believe something does not make you a liar. I believe the bible is true, you do not, but because I do doesn't make me a liar.
I can be completely wrong, and you completely right, but that still doesn't make me a liar. We need to understand that and I apologise for making the same mistake.
Why should I apologize for calling you a liar when I was able to quote the posts that proved you lied?

Your faulty belief in the Bible is was not why I called you a liar. Perhaps if you go back and look at the post where I first called you out you will find your bald faced lie.

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
The Definition of a Creationist Scientist 6 min Critical Eye 105
What Motives Created Social Darwinism? 20 min Zog Has-fallen 92
Beware of Kamikaze Snakes. They Are Evolving in... 55 min Zog Has-fallen 76
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 10 hr DanFromSmithville 173,361
Darwinism: Science or Philosophy? 10 hr Zog Has-fallen 55
Is the Evolutionary theory mathematically prove... 18 hr Chimney1 134
News Pope Francis Affirms Evolution and Big Bang Theory Thu Chimney1 420
More from around the web