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

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

There are 162970 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.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#113407 Apr 3, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
KAB, how long have you been trying to debate on this topic?
You have not learned one whit of geology.
The elevation of one particular stratum does not have very much to do with its age at all.
Do you suppose that KAB is payed to keep this flood argument going for the good folks at Topix....you know keep the numbers up??

He's bound to understand by now his argument is useless and totally wrong. His whole precious Bible IS going down bit by bit.

The whole 'God' thing is just so ridiculous the more I think about it. Compared to what we KNOW for fact, the Bible looks more and more ridiculous.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#113408 Apr 3, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
What blanks? You shot yourself in both feet.
You correctly stated that raising the mountain chains would not be inconsequential. In fact, it would be such a momentous occurrence that it would surely be included in the flood story - and it isn't.
Where is the account of 8 people struggling to repopulate a barren and lifeless world? That isn't worth a mention in your tome? No, what is worth mentioning is God IMMEDIATELY needing to be appeased with animal sacrifices.
Raising mountain chains? Not a peep. For that matter, even REAL cataclysms such as the Santorini event are mysteriously missing from your all knowing oracle.
You correctly stated that phytoplankton, a major source of the Earth's oxygen, is in the ocean. I understand you aren't bright enough to extrapolate what would happen if you covered it with 2-5 MILES of fresh water and a third that much more silty runoff, and I know you aren't bright enough to quit spouting idiocy. You're just another JW zombie and quite honestly, what little novelty you once offered in bantering with and through your absolute lack of intelligence, honesty, integrity and content is getting quite boring - especially when you keep revisiting things like your vapid and inane "global rain guage."
You write:
"For that matter, even REAL cataclysms such as the Santorini event are mysteriously missing from your all knowing oracle."

I have often wondered why the Bible has no mention whatsoever of the rest of the world. 12,000 years ago (10,000 BC)the world-wide population is thought to have been about 10 million plus. In 1 AD the population is said to have been 200 million plus.

No understanding at all that there was infinitely more 'out there.' and that maybe there was a different reality then those Hebrews understood. It seems to me that this is another things that goes to disprove the book being written or inspired by a 'God.'

Level 1

Since: Jan 10

Asheville, NC

#113409 Apr 4, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
A yoyo with a broken string would amaze you
At least that would be observable. THat's more than you've got Mr. LeviGarrett.

Level 1

Since: Jan 10

Asheville, NC

#113410 Apr 4, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
And you can twist your own words any way YOU want to, but you have told a lie and since the error has been pointed out previously, your lie is now deliberate without question.
Consider this a lesson in human-based morality: We don't need to believe in God to know that the word of liars is worthless and they cannot be trusted.
Listen, call me anything you want too as long as you don't swear at me I couldn't care less. I know I'm telling the truth, and I know you said, and agree, that you are kin to tobacco stalks and banana's. I admit I could have worded it more clearly, but the fact that you believe kinship to tobacco and nanners is undeniable......and might I add.....uber unbelievable!!!! How silly.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#113411 Apr 4, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
KAB is only interested in the popular opinion of his overlords.
"Resistance is futile. Prepare to be assimilated..."

Level 1

Since: Jan 10

Asheville, NC

#113412 Apr 4, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
1. We observe mass extinctions yet the number of types of organisms increases and becomes more elaborate over generations.
You have never observed a non-human evolve into a human.
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
A child differs from it's own parents. That doesn't support human from non-human evolution.
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
You're welcome, but your attempt to morph micro evolution into macro-evolution is not, and never will be, proven. No one is debating that things don't evolve. Observation supports that. The debate is do humans evolve from non-humans, and that has NEVER EVER been observed. Don't you just hate that!!!?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#113413 Apr 4, 2013
Marky, we have observed human evolution in several ways. And by a much surer method of observation than the eyewitness report of one, or even several people.

You should know by now that observation by scientific methods is preferable in a court of law than mere eyewitnesses. Eyewitnesses can be wrong. They can have personal prejudices. They can even lie.

That is not the case with proper scientific evidence. Using that we can see that humans and apes had a common ancestor from our DNA, from the ERV's in our DNA. From the way two of our Chromosomes were joined together. If you want to know all of the ways that our relation to other apes can be seen talk to a evolutionary biologist.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#113414 Apr 4, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Listen, call me anything you want too as long as you don't swear at me I couldn't care less. I know I'm telling the truth, and I know you said, and agree, that you are kin to tobacco stalks and banana's. I admit I could have worded it more clearly, but the fact that you believe kinship to tobacco and nanners is undeniable......and might I add.....uber unbelievable!!!! How silly.
You know I said we are kin, that we share common ancestry with tobacco, but continued to claim I said we are descended from tobacco. That is lying. Simple.

It does not matter much what you think about common descent being "silly". It is a hypothesis supported by the evidence and provides an explanation for the observed fossil record, something your alternative hypothesis of "separate and distinct species all created at the beginning" does not do.

So I will stick with the "silly" theory that matches the evidence and you can stick with the silly on that doesn't.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#113415 Apr 4, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
No one is debating that things don't evolve. Observation supports that.
OK. Then you say this:
marksman11 wrote:
The debate is do humans evolve from non-humans, and that has NEVER EVER been observed.
So you agree with evolution, just not human evolution, correct?
KAB

Wilson, NC

#113416 Apr 4, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I have seen the figure 50 million years. And of course you forgot a couple of very important factors. They are also being eroded as they grow, and they did not necessarily grow at the rate they are growing now.
The mountain range started to grow 50 million years ago, the rocks in them would be a range of ages, though the youngest rock would be on the order of 60 million years old.
In the future remember, as you state, things can change. Things could have changed a lot with the flood, like mountains. They could have grown considerably.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#113417 Apr 4, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
We share genetic code with bananas and tobacco, don't we Marky? All life we know of is based on DNA, and is therefore related? Alright, moving on.
You must be familiar with this:
If A=B and B=C then A=C.
Do you agree, or do you deny basic mathematics and logic?
Okay, then let's go ahead and diffuse this in your own framework. God created bananas. God created man (in his image.) Hence, God is kin to bananas.
You really want to talk mathematics with Mr. 1.10 > 1.1?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#113418 Apr 4, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
You really want to talk mathematics with Mr. 1.10 > 1.1?
Seriously! It's like talking to a tree made of oak wood.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#113419 Apr 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
In the future remember, as you state, things can change. Things could have changed a lot with the flood, like mountains. They could have grown considerably.
Can you think of a mechanism by which a flood would cause mountains to grow considerably?

I suppose it makes sense to you to use pretend geological events to support a pretend Flood, but how many layers of make-believe are you willing to accept?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113420 Apr 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you suppose that rock's age determines how high it is above sea level, or could 60 million year old rock change elevation over time?

Strata are changing levels all the time. But The Himalayas have been going consistently up over the last 60 million years.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113421 Apr 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Especially since the ice was gone about 6850 cal BP.

"Knowing the truth that you are being lied to is the worst part of being lied to." - Anon.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113422 Apr 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I know. Please explain that to Dr. D. He won't accept anything from me.

SZ is quite right and is consistent with what I have been telling you.

“The lies we tell other people are nothing to the lies we tell ourselves.”
&#8213; Derek Landy, Death Bringer

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113423 Apr 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's see. 60 million years rising at one inch per year is roughly 6 million feet. Aren't the Himalayas about 30,000 feet high? Are you sure he wasn't just talking about how old the rock is, you technical wizard, you?

The Himalayas are raising about 5 mm per year (rough average) at the present time..5mm =.019685 in or 98,000 ft. IF the rate were consistent. HOWEVER, the ROC of growth has accelerated over time due to the force and impingement of the two continental shelves.

In simpler terms, they are raising faster now than at any time in the past.

“What is to absurd to be believed is believed because it is too absurd to be a lie.”
&#8213; Robert Jordan, Lord of Chaos

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113424 Apr 4, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>At least that would be observable. THat's more than you've got Mr. LeviGarrett.

While broken yo-yo's are observable they are not particularly interesting.

Evolution, otoh, is both observable AND interesting.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113425 Apr 4, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> Listen, call me anything you want too as long as you don't swear at me I couldn't care less.
I have called you what your are, Delusional. That hits so close to home that you don't respond anymore.


marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> I know I'm telling the truth...
I know you believe that.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113426 Apr 4, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> You have never observed a non-human evolve into a human.<quoted text> A child differs from it's own parents. That doesn't support human from non-human evolution.<quoted text>You're welcome, but your attempt to morph micro evolution into macro-evolution is not, and never will be, proven. No one is debating that things don't evolve. Observation supports that. The debate is do humans evolve from non-humans, and that has NEVER EVER been observed. Don't you just hate that!!!?

Boy, if that were only true I would hate it.

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
Mathematicians PROVED evolution IMPOSSIBLE! 1 hr Science 778
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 5 hr Regolith Based Li... 78,489
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 5 hr Science 1,322
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 9 hr Science 32,431
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) Aug 13 Science 222,113
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... (Jan '17) Aug 5 yehoshooah adam 4,381
News Intelligent Design Education Day - Dallas Aug 2 John B 4
More from around the web