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

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

There are 163810 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.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#126299 Feb 4, 2014
mrksman11 wrote:
No one goes to prison for the crimes of their father.
But it's just fine to condemn all of humanity for the sin of Adam and Eve. Pfft.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#126300 Feb 4, 2014
mrksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I never said we've made strides in the last four years. I said it is collapsing under its own weight and we didn't have to do anything because given enough time the truth will come out, The truth of the last 4 years in this group is that the scientific method demands observation, testing, and replication. In the last 4 years, not one single evolutionists has shown where a non-human has been observed evolving into a human, not one person has presented a test that proves humans can evolve from non-humans, so by definition there can be no replication. In 4 years not one person has presented an observation showing or explaining what biologically evolved to make a non-human now human. Not one person has presented a violation to the Law of Biogenesis that says life only comes from a previous life. I have asked you and the others these same things and many more for four years and you've not answered them with these observations yet. So who is it in this group that hasn't made any advancements?
CRACK!!!! IT'S OUTTA HERE!!!!
In 4 years, you have yet to understand the scientific method. Even the original reference you posted showed you were wrong. The only crack is the one in your skull.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#126301 Feb 4, 2014
mrksman11 wrote:
You know everything and everyone else is a dummy.
Hilarious! Sez the know-it all who just posted this:
mrksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I know it varies from individual to individual, but from what I see, most of the hippies here are supported by their parents. Some have jobs but they're working in head shops, bicycle repair, green eateries, play music on the streets for tips, beg, and sponge off the government with welfare and art grants.
mrksman11 wrote:
Please, tell me how a banjo works!!
Spam. What the hell does that have to do with anything?
SupaAFC

Elgin, UK

#126302 Feb 4, 2014
Hmm, didn't see this one, may as well respond.
mrksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I never said we've made strides in the last four years. I said it is collapsing under its own weight and we didn't have to do anything because given enough time the truth will come out, The truth of the last 4 years in this group is that the scientific method demands observation, testing, and replication. In the last 4 years, not one single evolutionists has shown where a non-human has been observed evolving into a human, not one person has presented a test that proves humans can evolve from non-humans, so by definition there can be no replication. In 4 years not one person has presented an observation showing or explaining what biologically evolved to make a non-human now human. Not one person has presented a violation to the Law of Biogenesis that says life only comes from a previous life. I have asked you and the others these same things and many more for four years and you've not answered them with these observations yet. So who is it in this group that hasn't made any advancements?
CRACK!!!! IT'S OUTTA HERE!!!!
There's just one, tiny problem, Marksman:

for a theory that is "collapsing under its own weight", 99.85% of scientists still, in 2013/14, think it is a valid theory.

Why is that if the theory is "collapsing under its own weight"?

Where are the results, Marksman?

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#126303 Feb 4, 2014
mrksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>My niece who is a local high school biology teacher
<quoted text>My niece who is a local high school biology teacher
<quoted text>Been doing that for years......<quoted text>Source?<quoted text>I already have. Most people reject human from non-human evolution.....
"In the U.S., only 14 percent of adults thought that evolution was "definitely true," while about a third firmly rejected the idea."
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/...
These polls also are kind of like you guys. Try to morph micro and macro. That is why I always specify human from non-human evolution. Had they polled evolution in that way, the numbers would be even lower than they are!!!

What school does your niece work at? Do you think I could get her fired from here?

I am not going to. It must be hard having a crazy uncle.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#126304 Feb 4, 2014
mrksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I'm glad you said "around"....The mountains that surround Asheville are filled, each holler, with conservative Christian people who are native to these mountains. Not the hippy transplants.

Such stereotypes.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#126305 Feb 4, 2014
mrksman11 wrote:
You know, if someone said that 5 billion years ago, there was a big bang, and when this occurred it projected a big rock through space. On this rock was a brown sugary substance. We don't know how this big bang occurred, or where the mass came from, BUT WE KNOW IT HAPPENED! Then over millions of years this sugary substance collected itself and aluminum began to form around it. As it formed, it formed a can, lid, and tab. Then in a few more million years there was some paint that came from somewhere and formed on the can, and after thousands of years it said, "PEPSI"....18 fluid ounces....Would you believe that? Why of course you would!!!!!

18 ounces? No way.

How are you doing my Satanic friend? Still a member of some modern day cult religion from the middle to late 1800's?

Try learning about historical Christianity and why your beliefs are blasphemy and just like the Pharisees.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#126306 Feb 4, 2014
mrksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Liberals are what liberals are, no matter if they are bearded and nasty, or teaching a science class!! Very few conservative votes casted there.<quoted text>They don't piss me off. I just think they are ignorant. I enjoy arguing with them though when I get the chance because like you guys, they have no answers. All they can do is stand there with a "Duh" look on their face. Really it's better than this forum because they can't run and twist.
We have a lot of pagans too....they're the best. I started a big fight one time. There was an article in the local paper that talked about pagan pride day. And over the weekend all over the state 45,000 pagans attended.(don't remember the exact number) The article mentioned that they were raising money for their first church, and the paper gave the number. I don't remember what it was, but I remember replying to the paper that that averaged out to 22 cents per pagan. Then I asked, "What kind of Pagan pride is that?".....It started the ball rolling in latter letters. In the same way that this thread got started 4 years ago. Asheville is a joke to intelligent people, and a cess pool to others. It's a good "bad" example. So again, what do you expect to find in the schools in the city?
You are making Asheville sound like a nice place to live. I have seen it on lists of best cities to live in. I am still leaning toward retiring in AZ but I like to keep my options open.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#126307 Feb 4, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting. Public high school?
Does she teach the NC standards?
http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/acre/stan...

I figure she teaches it but does not want to inflame her crazy uncle and have him drag a bunch of undy hicks down to the school protesting.

If she is employed she is teaching it or is risking her job.

All assuming that Marksman isn't just making it up. He is a flaming liar.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#126308 Feb 4, 2014
mrksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Here's the results.......You completely failed to deal with anything I said and keep harping on irrelevant opinions of scientists and the general public rather than adhere to the scientific method. Why didn't you deal with this?
[MARKSMAN11]
"It doesn't matter what scientists say, it doesn't matter what the general public says. What matters is what the scientific method says, and it demands observation, testing, and replication. Now little buddy, you provide and observation where a human evolved from a non-human and we can talk. Until then you are delusional!! Or tell me what biologically evolved that made non-humans, now human!!! Or maybe you could show us the violation of the Law of biogenesis which states that life only comes from a previous life. Or maybe you could provide us with the observation of how evolution provided the biological split between the two genders that had to evolve at the same time.......I could go on, but why? You'll never touch these!! "
So I ask YOU....."Where's the results?" "Where's your progress"? Your argument has not improved in 4 years, and you still can't answer my questions. You just proved it again by dodging and failing to do so again. So, I'll give you another shot. You show me where your evolutionists beliefs are not crumbling under the weight of truth and continue to strengthen, and refute my claim that I don't need to gain ground on you......simply by providing the observations I request!! YOU KNOW YOU CAN"T but I'll still be waiting!!!

You are a moron who does not know the first thing about the scientific method (see above).

We have dealt with ALL of the above. We have put up with your insanity for years and you have not made one contribution.

You HAVE been successful in convincing most people that you have to be an idiot to be a Christian, which is a belief that I do not support. Claim that as your great success.

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

#126309 Feb 4, 2014
mrksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>BS.....Global warming.....excuse me as I put another log on the fire. We are experiencing record cold!! What about the atom bomb? What about chemical warfare? Now,,,, go and rethink that!!
OK, thought about it. Science is the process by which we observe the world around us. It has no political affiliation. Politicians and people with specific agendas might use scientific discoveries, but that does not make the discoveries themselves have a political affiliation. Opinions on the atom bomb range from a securer of freedom to a war crime. Those opinions are on the use of atomic energy, not on the actual science itself. Same with chemical agents used in warfare.

A scientific theory can be right or it can be wrong. A scientific theory can be used (or more likely misused) to advance a political or philosophical ideology. But a scientific theory in itself does not have a political leaning.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#126310 Feb 4, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
So this God who is the Alpha and the Omega and knows from the beginning how it will all end, does not know beforehand that He is about to do something He is going to one day regret?
Silly. Clearly the musings of a primitive people who have not thought through the actual logical consequences of the God they have posited.
As for Genesis concurring with both the timescale and the order of creation that science has revealed, that is simply absurd. Only a Yoga Master of self deception could convince himself of that absurdity. FYI, here is a condensed version of creation as revealed by the universe itself, not some primitive scripture:
1. time, space, and matter (t+0)
2. earliest stars (t + 500,000 years)
3. second generation stars and solar systems (after some 1st generation went supernova)
4. Sun as per (3)(t + 8.5 billion years)
5. Earth as per (3)(t + 8.5 billion years)
6. simple bacteria (t + 10 billion years)
7. eukaryotes (t + 12.5 billion years)
8. simple animals and plants (t + 13 billion years)
9. complex animals and plants (t + 13.1 billion years)
10. humans (along with some other recent species of animals and plants)(t + 13.55 billion years)
Both the timing and the order of creation are out of kilter in the Bible (which even contradicts itself in the two Genesis accounts).
It's quite clear in context that God regretted the choice(s) humans had made. He gave them free will as evidenced by his giving them choices. If he knew beforehand absolutely everything they were going to do, then by definition they weren't free to choose. BTW, he does know from the beginning how it will all end.
I realize you are not committed to finding possibloe harmony among Bible statements, but maybe someday, iin the interest of objectivity, you can get beyond that.

Finally, you gave no line item Bible data conparisons, so I can't provide the targetted response you deserve, and I do so want to give you what you deserve.
mrksman11

Asheville, NC

#126311 Feb 4, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting. Public high school?
Yes
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Does she teach the NC standards?
http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/acre/stan...
Yes, and if you noticed it never covered human origins. All it basically covered was micro evolution which is scientific. I told you that they are steering away from human from non-human evolution and focusing on "green" science. Thus Biology 2.2
"Infer how human activities (including population growth, pollution, global warming, burning of fossil fuels, habitat destruction and introduction of nonnative species) may impact the environ"
That backed up my position!!! Also, reread the first sentence.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#126312 Feb 4, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
More likely, you recognise the logical inconsistency of your own story and will try anything to avoid its natural conclusions. After all, you have done that with the ice cores and the mtDNA variation, so we can expect you to do more of the same whenever you need to.
Pure self deception.
I've never tried to wrestle your opinion from you have I? I'm mainly here to provide confirmed info.
mrksman11

Asheville, NC

#126313 Feb 4, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Hilarious! Sez the know-it all who just posted this:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Spam. What the hell does that have to do with anything?
Think Mike. He knows everything. I've played the banjo for 40 years, but I'm sure he knows more about it than I possibly ever could. Now do you understand?
mrksman11

Asheville, NC

#126314 Feb 4, 2014
Discord wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, thought about it. Science is the process by which we observe the world around us. It has no political affiliation. Politicians and people with specific agendas might use scientific discoveries, but that does not make the discoveries themselves have a political affiliation. Opinions on the atom bomb range from a securer of freedom to a war crime. Those opinions are on the use of atomic energy, not on the actual science itself. Same with chemical agents used in warfare.
A scientific theory can be right or it can be wrong. A scientific theory can be used (or more likely misused) to advance a political or philosophical ideology. But a scientific theory in itself does not have a political leaning.
Give me a break, your just exercising in butt covering with word games now.
mrksman11

Asheville, NC

#126315 Feb 4, 2014
SupaAFC wrote:
Hmm, didn't see this one, may as well respond.
<quoted text>
There's just one, tiny problem, Marksman:
for a theory that is "collapsing under its own weight", 99.85% of scientists still, in 2013/14, think it is a valid theory.
Why is that if the theory is "collapsing under its own weight"?
Where are the results, Marksman?
The results are in your inability to answer the challenges I've repeatedly placed before you. Which you just had another chance to refute, and didn't. THe results are in your, and their, inability to adhere to the scientific method which demands you present an observation, test, and replication of human from non-human evolution. See, your problem is you think that scientists are infallible, and the general population is ignorant. The general population is where the intelligence lies. It wasn't scientists that invented the first airplane, it was 2 bicycle mechanics.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#126316 Feb 4, 2014
mrksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Yes<quoted text>Yes, and if you noticed it never covered human origins. All it basically covered was micro evolution which is scientific. I told you that they are steering away from human from non-human evolution and focusing on "green" science. Thus Biology 2.2
"Infer how human activities (including population growth, pollution, global warming, burning of fossil fuels, habitat destruction and introduction of nonnative species) may impact the environ"
That backed up my position!!! Also, reread the first sentence.

So anything less than human evolution is microevolution.

[dryly] brilliant.

Evolution (all of it) is and will continue to be taught in N.C. If your niece is not doing her job then she can be expected to be fired sooner or later.

But I suspect she is just placating weird old uncle marksman.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#126317 Feb 4, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I've never tried to wrestle your opinion from you have I? I'm mainly here to provide confirmed info.

It would be nice of you to someday do what you are here for.

I think you are here to continue to convince yourself that the JW cult really is not just one of thousands of wrong denominations.

Good luck with that. The confirmed info says no.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#126318 Feb 4, 2014
mrksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Give me a break, your just exercising in butt covering with word games now.

Discords post was very well written.

Discord wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, thought about it. Science is the process by which we observe the world around us. It has no political affiliation. Politicians and people with specific agendas might use scientific discoveries, but that does not make the discoveries themselves have a political affiliation. Opinions on the atom bomb range from a securer of freedom to a war crime. Those opinions are on the use of atomic energy, not on the actual science itself. Same with chemical agents used in warfare.
A scientific theory can be right or it can be wrong. A scientific theory can be used (or more likely misused) to advance a political or philosophical ideology. But a scientific theory in itself does not have a political leaning.

I realize that, in your desperation, you NEED science to have an angle.

You hate science and just cannot stand for it to be neutral.

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 Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 5 min Amused 32,608
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr Regolith Based Li... 80,087
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 4 hr ChromiuMan 222,784
News Intelligent design (Jul '15) Sat Dogen 571
What's your religion? Sep 22 Zog Has-fallen 4
Life started in Tennessee proof. Sep 15 Science4life 1
Science News (Sep '13) Sep 8 Ricky F 4,001
More from around the web