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

There are 20 comments on the Mar 15, 2009, Asheville Citizen-Times story 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

#126788 Feb 13, 2014
mrksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>If there was fossil evidence that supported human from non-human evolution, they wouldn't be fabricating them for money.
The fossils in question had NOTHING to do with human evolution and you know it. But then, an honest discussion seems to be beyond you.

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#126789 Feb 13, 2014
mrksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Excuse me? Piltdown Man, Java Man, Nebraska Man......all were supposedly ancestors to man, and of course, were not!! Do you really think that Piltdown Man, Java Man, Nebraska Man....were all dinosaurs?? REALLY?
REALLY??
Piltdown man was a fraud. Java man wasn't and as far as I know Nebraska man was a mis-identification.

The fossils that are currently being fabricated for sale are of dinosaurs and not human ancestors as you wrongly stated.

Your whole response is misleading at best.

It is sad to see an alleged Christian reduced to lying like you are.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#126790 Feb 13, 2014
mrksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, and that is evidence that something once existed, died, and left an image of itself. It is observable evidence for the existence of the life of the image. Not from what it "supposedly" evolved from or into.
Of course, I knew you couldn't give a simple yes or no answer.

You are correct about a single fossil. It tells us little beyond itself. However, a progression of related fossils tells us quite a lot. So the first part of your reply is correct; the second part, wrong.
mrksman11

Asheville, NC

#126791 Feb 13, 2014
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Piltdown was a hoax made for selfish purposes - not to advance the ToE. Nebraska was a misidentification. Both were caught by "evolutionists". Java is not fabricated.
All that you are proving by dredging back up accusations which have been already repeatedly addressed for you is that you have is a desperate emotional need to believe in a set of bronze age myths. That and nothing more.
So you too have no problem with someone saying Piltdown man, Nebraska man, and java man were dinosaurs??

Really???

REALLY?

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#126792 Feb 13, 2014
mrksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>My goodness, I slap you in the face with reasons to believe we are designed, like the connections growing towards each other from the eye and brain, and you can't even understand something this simple? I get the feeling after you saying that Piltdown Man, and Nebraska Man were dinosaurs, that I've been giving you way to much credit. I have no time to debate people that don't understand what they are debating.
So you are just going to repeat insignificant bluster and misleading statements as a defense of your position.

You gave no testable reasons for design. You gave examples of people designing something. Beavers design dams that are complex. Ants make intricate nests that include gardens in some species. What about honeybees? Maybe you think the designer is a beaver or an insect.

I don't think Piltdown man and Nebraska man are dinosaurs. I never said that and you can't show I said that. That is a lie you concocted to use instead of a defense of your position.

If what you present over the last couple of weeks is the best you can come up with, you should have remained on your hiatus.
mrksman11

Asheville, NC

#126793 Feb 13, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course, I knew you couldn't give a simple yes or no answer.
What was the first word in my answer? Your question was loaded so it demanded an explanation.
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
You are correct about a single fossil. It tells us little beyond itself. However, a progression of related fossils tells us quite a lot. So the first part of your reply is correct; the second part, wrong.
It was a loaded question. The original answer was a result of observation, the rest was a matter of interpretation from people with biases.....much like you!
mrksman11

Asheville, NC

#126794 Feb 13, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think Piltdown man and Nebraska man are dinosaurs. I never said that and you can't show I said that..
mrksman11 wrote:
If there was fossil evidence that supported human from non-human evolution, they wouldn't be fabricating them for money.

(Dan FROM SMITHVILLE)
These fabricated fossils are of dinosaurs and not of your ancestors and mine...

Of course you said that, and of course human from non-human fossils are Piltdown, java, and Nebraska man. And they were not dinosaurs.
mrksman11

Asheville, NC

#126795 Feb 13, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>You gave no testable reasons for design.
TEst the prebirth development of the human eye. That is how they discovered what I posted originally. It is observable, testable, and replicatable, unlike your human from non-human evolution
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think Piltdown man and Nebraska man are dinosaurs. I never said that and you can't show I said that.
I just did!!
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>
If what you present over the last couple of weeks is the best you can come up with, you should have remained on your hiatus.
To bad you have no control what- so- ever of what I do.
mrksman11

Asheville, NC

#126796 Feb 13, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Piltdown man was a fraud. Java man wasn't and as far as I know Nebraska man was a mis-identification.
None of which are dinosaurs.
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>
The fossils that are currently being fabricated for sale are of dinosaurs and not human ancestors as you wrongly stated.
Oh, so now you are going to try and lie your way out of by saying I was referencing fossils "currently" being fabricated? When I clearly said "Human from non-human" like I always do?? Why can't you admit that you misunderstood, rather than trying to lie and blame your blunder on me?
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>
Your whole response is misleading at best.
No in the slightest!!
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>
It is sad to see an alleged Christian reduced to lying like you are.
How pathetic.
mrksman11

Asheville, NC

#126797 Feb 13, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
The fossils in question had NOTHING to do with human evolution and you know it.
Well duh? Isn't that the point? They didn't have anything to do with human from nonhuman evolution, but were presented that they did!!!
mrksman11

Asheville, NC

#126798 Feb 13, 2014
HillStart wrote:
<quoted text>
I think the idea is that you look at at the totality of the evidence, create hypotheses that best fit that evidence, then test your hypotheses against new evidence.
Your idea that these animals lived and died but were not related to each other is one hypothesis, but it doesn't help to explain the examples we have of gradual changes in lineages of animals. Evolution is better at explaining this.
But that is interpretation without allowing for exceptions, not observation. How do you know these were gradual changes? What if someone found a fossilized platypus, and close by a fossilized beaver, and then a fossilized duck, and according to their interpretation, the duck and the beaver are ancestors to the platypus? This would be in-line with gradual changes causing the similar appearance, but it would be completely wrong. There have been humans and apes for a very long time, and billions of every size and shape have lived and died throughout history. To interpret that one sample was kin to another, in my opinion, has nothing to do with science, but artistic interpretation.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#126799 Feb 13, 2014
mrksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>So you too have no problem with someone saying Piltdown man, Nebraska man, and java man were dinosaurs??
Really???
REALLY?
What planet did you say you were from, again?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#126800 Feb 13, 2014
mrksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Excuse me? Piltdown Man, Java Man, Nebraska Man......all were supposedly ancestors to man, and of course, were not!! Do you really think that Piltdown Man, Java Man, Nebraska Man....were all dinosaurs?? REALLY?
REALLY??
It is disingenuous to include Java Man.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#126801 Feb 13, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>So you are just going to repeat insignificant bluster and misleading statements as a defense of your position.
You gave no testable reasons for design. You gave examples of people designing something. Beavers design dams that are complex. Ants make intricate nests that include gardens in some species. What about honeybees? Maybe you think the designer is a beaver or an insect.
I don't think Piltdown man and Nebraska man are dinosaurs. I never said that and you can't show I said that. That is a lie you concocted to use instead of a defense of your position.
If what you present over the last couple of weeks is the best you can come up with, you should have remained on your hiatus.
Beavers, ants, and bees don't design. They each build what they were designed to build, never anything else.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#126802 Feb 13, 2014
mrksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>What was the first word in my answer? Your question was loaded so it demanded an explanation. It was a loaded question.[/QUOTE}

It wasn't loaded. It was a simple straightforward question.

[QUOTE who="mrksman11"]< quoted text>The original answer was a result of observation, the rest was a matter of interpretation from people with biases.....much like you!
Says the most biased guy on the planet.

I am not biased. Nor am I stupid.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#126803 Feb 13, 2014
mrksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Well duh? Isn't that the point? They didn't have anything to do with human from nonhuman evolution, but were presented that they did!!!
Presented by who? Where? When? Sorry but I don't take your word for anything besides banjos.

Level 2

Since: Jun 08

Oak Ridge, NC

#126804 Feb 13, 2014
mrksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I think what I and science have jointly labeled as micro evolution is actually not evolution at all, but the ability to adapt as part of the designers plan. I guess my using the scientific language is confusing on my part. We have observed finch beaks, fruit fly experiments,...and other examples of adaptation. To answer your question, we observe finch beaks, ring species, fruit fly experiments......the debate is are the limits set by evolution? or the plan of a designer?
What you are observing here... "finch beaks, ring species, fruit flies"...are the "effects" of natural selection, or as you prefer - designer adaptations. You are NOT observing the actual "force" (natural selection/designer adaptation) which caused the selection/adaptation. This is just like human evolution, where the fossils, DNA, anatomy, embryology, biochemistry, show the "effects" of human evolution. In both natural selection (your designer adaptations) and human evolution, the actual "force" is invisible, but is observed through the various "effects" caused by the force.

Even Paul knew this when he wrote in Romans:
"...For ever since the creation of the world His "invisible" nature and attributes, that is, His eternal power and divinity have been made intelligible and clearly discernable in and through the things that have been made..."

So when you say human evolution has not been observed, but that micro-evolution has, you are being conrtadictory.

“The love of Paleontology:”

Since: Jan 14

Discover, explore, imagine.

#126805 Feb 13, 2014
mrksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>But that is interpretation without allowing for exceptions, not observation. How do you know these were gradual changes? What if someone found a fossilized platypus, and close by a fossilized beaver, and then a fossilized duck, and according to their interpretation, the duck and the beaver are ancestors to the platypus? This would be in-line with gradual changes causing the similar appearance, but it would be completely wrong. There have been humans and apes for a very long time, and billions of every size and shape have lived and died throughout history. To interpret that one sample was kin to another, in my opinion, has nothing to do with science, but artistic interpretation.
There's only one problem with your explanation, there was no find of a duck and beaver and platypus near the same time frame in the same place so already this is an invalid argument. Also scientist don't only look at just the time and place. They use the scientific method to determine if the animals are related. They might see if the animals have similar DNA for example.

Here since you got to ask a question so do I. OK so my question is: so how do you explain all the millions of fossils that show an organism changing and adapting to its environment. Why did God created all those fossils that proved evolution? Answer that mate. Why did God create proof of evolution?
MMLandJ

Oak Ridge, NC

#126806 Feb 13, 2014
mrksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Why? Piltdown, Nebraska man, java man, Heidelberg Man....etc.....while maybe were not forgeries, are good examples of misinterpretations that were needed at the time.
I'll take your answer to mean you have no evidence that any hominid fossils known today are forgeries.

The real stories..........

Nebraska Man
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_nebras...

"Most other scientists were skeptical even of the more modest claim that the Hesperopithecus tooth belonged to a primate. It is simply not true that Nebraska Man was widely accepted as an ape-man, or even as an ape, by scientists, and its effect upon the scientific thinking of the time was negligible. For example, in his two-volume book Human Origins published during what was supposedly the heyday of Nebraska Man (1924), George MacCurdy dismissed Nebraska Man in a single footnote:
"In 1920 [sic], Osborn described two molars from the Pliocene of Nebraska; he attributed these to an anthropoid primate to which he has given the name Hesperopithecus. The teeth are not well preserved, so that the validity of Osborn's determination has not yet been generally accepted."

"The whole episode was actually an excellent example of the scientific process working at its best. Given a problematic identification, scientists investigated further, found data which falsified their earlier ideas, and promptly abandoned them."

Java Man
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_java.h...

Heidelberg Man
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_heidelberge...

etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution
KAB

Oxford, NC

#126807 Feb 13, 2014
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't read factual information anyway.
Have you noticed that everyone is on to your game?
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
So Buddhism is the only correct religion? I dispute that.
<quoted text>
This is another lie. In context it could mean ball or sphere. I provided the references.
If you want to see the word chuwg used as "sphere" in the Bible then I cannot do so as the only time the term is used in the Bible it means ball or perhaps circle. One has to go to extrabiblical Hebrew literature to find that chuwg means sphere or ball.
Is that what you are laying your hopes on?
Of course I read factual information. I even read your posts, so why wouldn't I also read factual info?

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) 4 min Beyond The Wall 161,113
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) 36 min Chimney1 1,420
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 15 hr Denisova 13,673
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 16 hr Denisova 18,697
No Place For ID? Sat GTID62 1
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) Apr 24 hpcaban 178,585
Guadeloupe Woman Found (1812 (Mar '10) Apr 23 MikeF 73
More from around the web