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

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

There are 152084 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

#118640 Jun 26, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Learning only stops when one is dead. In this case, English belongs to England, no one can change that, not you. I have my reasons for saying that, the truth!
Why don't you start your own topix thread about this insufferably boring non-issue, instead of polluting the evolution forum with your nonsense?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#118641 Jun 26, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Answer this question, if the English did not originate the language, no one would have had the opportunity of the language, not even you or i. So, since it was first spoken there(England) as a language, it therefore belongs to the English. That is my stand!
Why don't you start your own topix thread about this insufferably boring non-issue, instead of polluting the evolution forum with your nonsense?

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#118642 Jun 26, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't say "only things that exist can be owned by other things." I
said that "only things that exist can own other things." Did you ever
consider the notion that you could have misunderstood the English
language as spoken by someone fluent in it, and that your half-assed
comprehension, as useful as it may be for day-to-day interactions
finding restaurants or the library, might not be so useful for
discussions wherein the subtleties of the language are brought to bear
in the fleshing out of ideas? No...of course not! You know all the
English anybody would ever need to know!
I never claimed perfection in anything. I am not English, but i stand for the truth, like you, i had access to the language, because of the English.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#118643 Jun 26, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Origination does not equal ownership. Argument over. This is not an
English language fan club thread, its an evolution thread.
Its obvious to everyone that having been thoroughly obliterated when you
tried to attack evolution with your childish and inept arguments, you
retreated to your happy place of arguing about one of the most silly and
pointless possible subjects for a whole bloody year!
I have explained my reasons for that, that most of you failed to see. If your mind towards that is hard, mine is not, I always stand for the truth. Evolution to date, is a mess. You and i are able to speak the English language, because of the English people, who originally came from England.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#118644 Jun 26, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> I never claimed perfection in anything. I am not English, but i stand for the truth, like you, i had access to the language, because of the English.
Why don't you start your own topix thread about this insufferably boring non-issue, instead of polluting the evolution forum with your nonsense?

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#118645 Jun 26, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
"Originated in" is synonymous with "belongs to" or "owned by"?
The nations or countries that takes English as first or official language were influenced by? were the speaking English before the influence? these and many other reasons proves my point, English despite its transitions, still belongs to England.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#118646 Jun 26, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
My ancestors were English, yet I don't belong to England - but let's not
be too hasty about Chucky's logic. The Bible originated as the Torah,
so it belongs to the Semitic tribes and NOT the Christians. Jesus was
Jewish and he spoke Aramaic, so he cannot belong to gentiles.
A simple answer, politically you are an American, but culturally, you are English, except you were not born from those parents.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#118647 Jun 26, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Previously Refuted
Trash! nothing more than that.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#118648 Jun 26, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> I have explained my reasons for that, that most of you failed to see. If your mind towards that is hard, mine is not, I always stand for the truth. Evolution to date, is a mess. You and i are able to speak the English language, because of the English people, who originally came from England.
Charles, here is a fact: blue light has a shorter wavelength than rad light.

Here is an opinion: Blue is nicer than red.

See the difference?

You will never convince anyone of your opinion about the English language. Nobody disagrees with the FACT that English originated in England. And since you have failed to define "ownership" in any way different from "originated", you are basically just arguing with yourself. Nobody else even cares.

Evolution, to date, is a theory based on facts and explaining facts. Your opinion, yet again that "its a mess", is meaningless.

What in particular about evolution is a mess, according to you? The fact that it conflicts with Genesis? Perhaps its Genesis that is a mess.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#118649 Jun 26, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Previously Refuted
Poor you! you lack the boldness or audacity to challenge my statement, too bad!

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#118650 Jun 26, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why don't you start your own topix thread about this insufferably boring
non-issue, instead of polluting the evolution forum with your nonsense?
Accept the truth despite its bitterness!

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#118651 Jun 26, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why don't you start your own topix thread about this insufferably boring
non-issue, instead of polluting the evolution forum with your
nonsense?
I don't hide the truth, i speak it, any where and any time. If that is nonsense to, then ignore it, and move on.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#118652 Jun 26, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Charles, here is a fact: blue light has a shorter wavelength than rad
light.
Here is an opinion: Blue is nicer than red.
See the difference?
You will never convince anyone of your opinion about the English
language. Nobody disagrees with the FACT that English originated in
England. And since you have failed to define "ownership" in any way
different from "originated", you are basically just arguing with
yourself. Nobody else even cares.
Evolution, to date, is a theory based on facts and explaining facts.
Your opinion, yet again that "its a mess", is meaningless.
What in particular about evolution is a mess, according to you? The fact
that it conflicts with Genesis? Perhaps its Genesis that is a mess.
Then you are wrong with your findings. Not every one here agreed to that, instead they said it originated from Germany. I am not interested in convincing any one, but the truth is the truth and i stand for that. Evolution is not a fact. Period!

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#118653 Jun 26, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Charles, here is a fact: blue light has a shorter wavelength than rad
light.
Here is an opinion: Blue is nicer than red.
See the difference?
You will never convince anyone of your opinion about the English
language. Nobody disagrees with the FACT that English originated in
England. And since you have failed to define "ownership" in any way
different from "originated", you are basically just arguing with
yourself. Nobody else even cares.
Evolution, to date, is a theory based on facts and explaining facts.
Your opinion, yet again that "its a mess", is meaningless.
What in particular about evolution is a mess, according to you? The fact
that it conflicts with Genesis? Perhaps its Genesis that is a mess.
Genesis is not a mess unlike your evolution trash. Nothing can actually evolve on their own, they must pass through creation process first. One evidence of Genesis.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#118654 Jun 26, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Accept the truth despite its bitterness!
I have no bitterness in the subject of the English language.

This is a forum about evolution. It seems you cannot offer anything more articulate than claiming "its a mess", which probably more reflects your own lack of understanding.

So what is a mess about evolution? The fact that scientists have discovered something about us that is upsetting to people who want to believe in the myths of Genesis?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#118655 Jun 26, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Genesis is not a mess unlike your evolution trash. Nothing can actually evolve on their own, they must pass through creation process first. One evidence of Genesis.
Once again, you have offered mere opinion, asserted without a shred of reason or evidence to back it up. Why can't things evolve on their own, according to you?

We can show you the exact process by which things can actually evolve on their own. We can show you the record of change in life over earth's history that this process explains. This is the difference between the mere opinion you assert and the science of evolution.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#118656 Jun 26, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no bitterness in the subject of the English language.
This is a forum about evolution. It seems you cannot offer anything more
articulate than claiming "its a mess", which probably more reflects
your own lack of understanding.
So what is a mess about evolution? The fact that scientists have
discovered something about us that is upsetting to people who want to
believe in the myths of Genesis?
Genesis is not a myth. Like i said, nothing can sprang up on their own without a maker or creator, one sure reason why evolution remains a mess. and again, English belongs to the English, does that sounds negative to you?

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#118657 Jun 26, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again, you have offered mere opinion, asserted without a shred of
reason or evidence to back it up. Why can't things evolve on their own,
according to you?
We can show you the exact process by which things can actually evolve on
their own. We can show you the record of change in life over earth's
history that this process explains. This is the difference between the
mere opinion you assert and the science of evolution.
Lets be discreet about this, when we say "life", we are talking about plants and animals, these living things never evolved on thier own but through their parents( creators). One evidence confirming Genesis.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#118658 Jun 26, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Genesis is not a myth.
You merely restate your opinion. On the other hand, given that Genesis is similar in character and style to the creation beliefs of virtually every other primitive human group, why should you convinced that THEY are myths but Genesis is not?
Like i said, nothing can sprang up on their own without a maker or creator, one sure reason why evolution remains a mess.
And again, you merely restate your opinion, and offer no evidence to support it. We on the other hand can explain HOW evolution generates complexity and diversity, without a "maker" doing anything at all. Evolution does NOT explain how the universe came to be, nor how the first life started. Nor was it ever intended to. But it DOES explain how life developed once in existence, and that is in conflict with your favourite creation myth. So is the evidence from:

Geology.
Astronomy.
Physics.

So its not evolution that is a mess. Its your own confusion and stress that if Genesis is not literally true, maybe those promises of everlasting life are not true either.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#118659 Jun 26, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Lets be discreet about this, when we say "life", we are talking about plants and animals, these living things never evolved on thier own but through their parents( creators). One evidence confirming Genesis.
Correct. They came from their parents. But they are not exactly the same as their parents. When we look at the parent of the parent of the parents...through the fossil record, we see they are significantly different. Life changes over time, plants and animals evolve.

Go back far enough, and only simple life forms exist. Go forward through the fossil record and you can see creatures changing over millions of years, from simple to complex in many cases.

You cannot just ignore this evidence. Life evolved. Darwin's contribution was not that life evolved - scientists and geologists had already understood that. Darwin's contribution was to explain HOW they evolved, exactly the thing you think is not possible. Yet with logic and evidence, we see that it is.

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 Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 7 min Blitzking 209,431
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 38 min Aura Mytha 20,219
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 49 min SoE 45,417
America evolving into lockdown on purpose 5 hr Dogen 68
New law to further hatred towards police Sat One way or another 4
Hillary, a taco stand on every corner Sat One way or another 4
News A better theory of intelligent design Fri Chazofsaints 21
More from around the web