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

Full story: Asheville Citizen-Times

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 ...
Comments
111,381 - 111,400 of 136,241 Comments Last updated 8 hrs ago

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Tenerife

#113458 Apr 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I see you're understandably upset. If I was only firing dataless blanks at a well armed opponent I would probably come unhinged too as I continued firing blanks in even greater abundance in the futile misdirected dataless attempt to defend myself.
Perhaps you could cultivate an acquaintance with a Geology expert. I'm sure you could find one at your local college or university.

I myself have occasionally called a professor at my local university and asked them questions, and they were always forthcoming and helpful in my matters.

Just a thought....

Level 1

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#113459 Apr 4, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
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.
You were hitting the nail on the head when you said, "That is not the case with proper scientific evidence" and that is the case with you. You don't have proper scientific evidence for human from non-human evolution, and that my friend is why this debate continues to this day.

Level 1

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#113460 Apr 4, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>

So I will stick with the "silly" theory....
I predicted that based on your intelligence level.

Level 1

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#113461 Apr 4, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
OK. Then you say this:
<quoted text>
So you agree with evolution, just not human evolution, correct?
No, I agree that things evolve, or change, I don't agree with you guys that it is even remotely possible that they change into something else. And don't give me the song and dance that all macro is is a bunch of micro. Micro is observable, macro has never been observed to be true.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113462 Apr 4, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>You were hitting the nail on the head when you said, "That is not the case with proper scientific evidence" and that is the case with you. You don't have proper scientific evidence for human from non-human evolution, and that my friend is why this debate continues to this day.

Ah, more nothing.

You must feel very at home in a universe that is 99.99999% vacuum.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113463 Apr 4, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I predicted that based on your intelligence level.

Yes, as has been confirmed, the higher the I.Q. the greater the acceptance of evolution.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113464 Apr 4, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>No, I agree that things evolve, or change, I don't agree with you guys that it is even remotely possible that they change into something else. And don't give me the song and dance that all macro is is a bunch of micro. Micro is observable, macro has never been observed to be true.

This is simply false.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#113466 Apr 4, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry Mr. Liar. I explained that .5mm is the average current uplift per year. I also explained that this rate has been increasing over time.
Obviously you are not technically discerning and are substantially undereducated with regard to science.
But knowing you, however, you will tell another lie to try to worm your way out of another trap of your own digging.
According to this reference the current rate of rise of the Himalayas is more than a centimeter per year,

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/himalaya.htm...

Who should we believe, given your multiple regular confirmed instances of error? See the problems you create for yourself when you don't bother with data, but act as if you do? People will not be inclined to believe your assertions and will gradually come to ignore you.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#113467 Apr 4, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
And, unlike KAB, I am not committed to lying so will admit my errors when I make them.
He will never do so.
I have acknowledged error on multiple occasions.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#113468 Apr 4, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I did not even reiterate the assertions.
Merely pointed out that an error of calculation by a fellow poster is not tantamount to a refutation of the combined work of thousands of scientists. We have data coming out our ears. But you, I expect, will do your best to ignore it. No? Read the following:
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/geologic...
One thing at a time. First the assertions you didn't reiterate, and I quote,

"geological stratum, the ocean floor, canyons, rivers, continents, subduction zones, ice cores, etc. It all reconciles with the current understanding of an old earth, processes of tectonic plate movement and vulcanism etc as understood, and THAT all dovetails with evolution and biogeography. They are all independently converging lines of evidence. And you can add to that the independent convergence of astronomy and physics."
KAB

Oxford, NC

#113469 Apr 4, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps you could cultivate an acquaintance with a Geology expert. I'm sure you could find one at your local college or university.
I myself have occasionally called a professor at my local university and asked them questions, and they were always forthcoming and helpful in my matters.
Just a thought....
Have you not noticed the sources of the geology related data I provide? It's your side which isn't providing data.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Tenerife

#113470 Apr 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you not noticed the sources of the geology related data I provide? It's your side which isn't providing data.
An article you may be interested in:
"Large decreases in the proportion of wetland pollen and increases in microscopic charcoal occurred in the core during four different times between 3,000 and 6,000 years ago. One of those events was the abrupt and global mega-drought of around 4,200 years ago, a drought that had serious societal repercussions, including famines, and which probably played a role in the end of Egypt’s Old Kingdom and affected other Mediterranean cultures as well.

"Our pollen record appears very sensitive to the decrease in precipitation that occurred in the mega-drought of 4,200 years ago,” Bernhardt said.“The vegetation response lasted much longer compared with other geologic proxy records of this drought, possibly indicating a sustained effect on delta and Nile basin vegetation."

Similarly, pollen and charcoal evidence recorded two other large droughts: one that occurred some 5,000 to 5,500 years ago and another that occurred around 3,000 years ago.

These events are also recorded in human history – the first one started some 5,000 years ago when the unification of Upper and Lower Egypt occurred and the Uruk Kingdom in modern Iraq collapsed. The second event, some 3,000 years ago, took place in the eastern Mediterranean and is associated with the fall of the Ugarit Kingdom and famines in the Babylonian and Syrian Kingdoms.

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#113471 Apr 4, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>You were hitting the nail on the head when you said, "That is not the case with proper scientific evidence" and that is the case with you. You don't have proper scientific evidence for human from non-human evolution, and that my friend is why this debate continues to this day.
Too bad that you don't know what proper scientific evidence is.

And there is no debate. In the scientific world there is not debate. There is only a handful of kooks who disbelieve it, and they have no academic credibility at all. As a percentage there are 5 times as many historians who deny the holocaust as scientists who deny evolution.

Now when it comes to uneducated people there are plenty of disbelievers. There is a reason that we do not go to uneducated people for opinions.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#113472 Apr 4, 2013
Dogen wrote:
Yes, as has been confirmed, the higher the I.Q. the greater the acceptance of evolution.
Doggone it. The silly Marksman was finally right about something and it was unintentional.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Tenerife

#113473 Apr 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you not noticed the sources of the geology related data I provide? It's your side which isn't providing data.
Another place you may find interesting:

“In a striking blow against the simplified story of religion vs. geology, Montgomery describes the views of the early leaders of the Christian church. Major figures in Christian history—including Origen, Clement, Augustine, Jerome, and Thomas Aquinas—considered literal readings of Genesis to be a sign that one was uneducated.

Faced with evidence in nature that contradicted a certain reading of the Bible, all of them decided that the only sensible response was to adjust how they read the Bible. In their view, nature clearly showed the way things were, so any discrepancy had to lie with one’s understanding of scripture. It actually wasn't until the Protestant Reformation in the 1500's that literalism became prominent.”

http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/08/geolog...

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Tenerife

#113474 Apr 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you not noticed the sources of the geology related data I provide? It's your side which isn't providing data.
From a primarily religious website run by our US NIH director.

As prefaced in Part 1 , our primary interest in this blog series is the widely promulgated notion that the Flood can account for the earth’s complex geology. Flood Geology derives from a belief that Genesis teaches that the world is very young – less than 10,000 years.

To explain the vast thicknesses and incredible complexity of the earth’s sedimentary deposits within a short history, it is argued that the Flood must have been both global and violent. Flood Geology is thus synonymous with belief in a young earth. It is our conviction that this position is unreasonable from both a biblical and scientific perspective.

http://biologos.org/blog/biblical-and-scienti...

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Tenerife

#113475 Apr 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you not noticed the sources of the geology related data I provide? It's your side which isn't providing data.
You may also find this website interesting:

"Young-earth creation scientists will no doubt spend from now till doomsday inventing ad hoc hypotheses to try and reconcile all such evidence above with a "Flood" that kept the earth under water for a year, and that would have had to have pulverized the most solid rock into fine sediment (yet plenty of shells and bones survived that miraculous pulverization of countless mountains of rock, to leave behind fossils, including some extraordinarily delicately laid out fossils and all of the trace fossils already mentioned above).

http://etb-flood-geology.blogspot.com/2012/03...

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Tenerife

#113476 Apr 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you not noticed the sources of the geology related data I provide? It's your side which isn't providing data.
Hi KAB, here's another site you might find interesting:

"Noah's Flood" Not Rooted in Reality, After All?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/...

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Tenerife

#113477 Apr 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you not noticed the sources of the geology related data I provide? It's your side which isn't providing data.
Hello again KAB, you might find the following site interesting:

"First of all, all geologists before 1800 were creationists and devout Christians who believed that the rocks they were studying were deposits of Noah’s flood. But by 1840, they had completely rejected the idea of a global flood because the rock record clearly didn’t support the idea.

The Noah’s flood story was rejected by creationists based on the actual hard evidence over 170 years ago, and no geologist with legitimate training and any real experience in the real rock record has taken it seriously since then.

The reason is simple: there are no flood deposits in most parts of the world that could reasonably be connected to Noah’s flood, and 99% of the rock record (including the Grand Canyon) are not flood deposits whatsoever.

http://debunkingcreationism.blogspot.com/2012...

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Tenerife

#113478 Apr 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you not noticed the sources of the geology related data I provide? It's your side which isn't providing data.
Hi, once more KAB, another site you may find interesting:

“Suppose you picked up the newspaper tomorrow morning and were startled to see headlines announcing the discovery of a large ship high on the snowy slopes of Mt. Ararat in eastern Turkey.

As you hurriedly scanned the article, you learned that a team from the Institute for Creation Research had unearthed the vessel and their measurements and studies had determined that it perfectly matched the description of Noah's Ark given in the book of Genesis.

Would this be proof at last—the "smoking gun" as it were—that the earliest chapters of the Bible were true and that the story they told of a six-day creation and a universal flood was a sober, scientific account?”

http://ncse.com/cej/4/1/impossible-voyage-noa... the Flood

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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) 5 min TurkanaBoy 115,127
Genetic 'Adam' and 'Eve' Uncovered - live science (Sep '13) 22 min TurkanaBoy 299
Evolution Theory Facing Crisis 35 min TurkanaBoy 173
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 8 hr One way or another 172,497
Science News (Sep '13) 19 hr positronium 2,848
The Satanic Character of Social Darwinism Wed Zog Has-fallen 343
Natural Selection Not The Only Process That Dri... (Jan '14) Aug 25 reMAAT 20
When Will Evolutionists Confess Their Atheistic... (Feb '14) Aug 14 The Dude 1,831
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••