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

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

There are 151492 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.

TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#133671 Jun 16, 2014
In Six Days wrote:
<quoted text>
A lot of folk here treat a claim of science, as long as it's under that banner, as truth never mind realising that science with its inductive methods cannot actually gives us truth. The problem of induction is unknown on these threads. Besides, scientific explanations were only ever meant as useful fictions. Thus many theories work very well when they are in fact false.
I'm not convinced some people here even realise all human knowledge involves an assumption somewhere. If the assumptions are sound (dare I say true) then well & good. But if they are unsound or demonstrably false then everything built upon them is also false.
My challenge to a lot of the evolutionary claims is that the assumptions behind are not trustworthy. But it's very hard to debate people who are not only blind to their assumptions but blind to the very idea of assumptions.
Instead of continuing to tattle around here, you better start to regain or restore your own intellectual faculties.

"Fossil stratification explained by some species happen to be able to swim better and run faster to catch the hills".

And, apart from this CRAP, you STILL didn't address the stratification of the observed fossil stratification and geological column. And now after having ducked and dodged a bit, you just come back and act "as if nothing has happened". Up to the next lunacy and caboodle.

Tell me, why are creationists always exhibiting such a deplorable state of creationism?
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#133672 Jun 16, 2014
In Six Days wrote:
<quoted text>
A lot of folk here treat a claim of science, as long as it's under that banner, as truth never mind realising that science with its inductive methods cannot actually gives us truth. The problem of induction is unknown on these threads. Besides, scientific explanations were only ever meant as useful fictions. Thus many theories work very well when they are in fact false.
I'm not convinced some people here even realise all human knowledge involves an assumption somewhere. If the assumptions are sound (dare I say true) then well & good. But if they are unsound or demonstrably false then everything built upon them is also false.
My challenge to a lot of the evolutionary claims is that the assumptions behind are not trustworthy. But it's very hard to debate people who are not only blind to their assumptions but blind to the very idea of assumptions.
Tell us again, Luny, how was it again with the geological column and fossil stratification?
WHAT do we conclude from those?
Entertain us again about the fast swimming plants who are able to catch the high grounds better.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#133673 Jun 16, 2014
In Six Days wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a total idiot & disciple of the disinformation project called talkorigins. Trees growing through rock layers are data detected by the 5 senses. Data is never debunked, conclusion or theories may be but not data. How stupid?
And the tattle goes on and on and on and on and on and on.....

Polystrate trees already were explained in a decent geological fashion 150 (ONE HUNDRED FIFTY) years ago by J.W. Dawson, notably a creationist and even opponent to Darwin.

But, tell us Luny, WHAT about the fossil stratification and geological column?
Entertain us again with your plants being able to swim or walk faster uphill.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#133674 Jun 16, 2014
In Six Days wrote:
<quoted text>
You talk about this Big Bang as if it's a given & it really happened. It's a modern myth that's all, there is no evidence. I bet you are going to say expansion of the universe but let me tell in advance, it's another myth. I'm not joking. These stories are repeated so often they become the backdrop of reality but they are still lies.
Next you'll say cosmic microwave background discovered in 1965. That doesn't cut it either, neither do the "multiple lines of evidence" so-called.
And the tattle goes on and on and on and on and on and on....

No evidence???????
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang#Observa...
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/17/tech/innova...

Google "evidence for big bang".
40,600,000 results in 0.50 seconds.

You not also a lunatic but also a liar and deceiver.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#133675 Jun 16, 2014
In Six Days wrote:
<quoted text>
You talk about this Big Bang as if it's a given & it really happened. It's a modern myth that's all, there is no evidence. I bet you are going to say expansion of the universe but let me tell in advance, it's another myth. I'm not joking. These stories are repeated so often they become the backdrop of reality but they are still lies.
Next you'll say cosmic microwave background discovered in 1965. That doesn't cut it either, neither do the "multiple lines of evidence" so-called.
If you ever wonder why many of us think creationists are ignorant, read you own post. Simply saying an established scientific theory is wrong without evidence is - to be blunt - stupid.

If the universe is not expanding, explain the Doppler shift of light.

If the BB never occurred, explain the source of CMBR.

Go!

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#133676 Jun 16, 2014
In Six Days wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a total idiot & disciple of the disinformation project called talkorigins. Trees growing through rock layers are data detected by the 5 senses. Data is never debunked, conclusion or theories may be but not data. How stupid?
Once gain, no evidence. Just your say-so. Pfft.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#133677 Jun 16, 2014
In Six Days wrote:
<quoted text>
Sloths are good climbers. This all speculation of course, the evolutionists or creationists were nit there. As for trees one might ask how some grew through layers separated by millions of years, upside down.'Takes some doing that.
Flood waters never boiled away, the earth's surface is 75% water and some receded back into the fountains of the deep.
According to "my twisted logic" repeating the same error over & over again does not convert lies into truths. But bottom-line, this started with how one knows how old sediment is & the answer is .......... Evolutionists think they know when they don't. You don't know.
The observed fossil stratification AGAIN:
Here is the sequence of fossil types we grossly find from botom to top of the geological column:

1. prokaryote bacteria in algae mats and stromatolites
2. eukaryote unicellular organisms
3. Ediacaran biota (very primitive multicellular life)
4. trilobites and the like and marine plants
5. the first non-vascular land plants
6. the first cartilaginous fish
7. the first coral
8. the first bony fish
9. the first vascular land plants
10. the first amphibians
11. the first ferns
12. the first reptiles
13. the first seed-producing plants
14. the first dinosaurs
15. the first flowering plants
16. the first mammals
17. the first birds
18. the first cetaceans
19. the first bats

Explanation by lunatic: "sloths are good climbers".

AGAIN:
- do plants climb?
- do corals climb?
- do dinosaurs climb?

As you seem to be on grammar school level, I shall address you that way:

Say after me:
"the fossil stratification show a gradual development of life from primitive, unicellular life to ever more complex, multicellular organisms".

Say also after me:
"thousands of rock layers of very different composition and origin, ranging from former desert soil along former sea beds, forests, lagoon environments, solidified lava, all in a seemingly arbitrary and disorderly sequence on the very same spot is not in compliance with a 6,000 years old earth".

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#133678 Jun 16, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
What they are actually doing is "piggy-backing" their assumption on the principle of equality.
The equality in reason and logic allows us to form valid concepts which will allow one to find positive results EVEN IF THE THINGS THE CONCEPTS DESCRIBE DO NOT EXIST.
All they will ever have (or be able to say that they have) is a working hypothesis.
"A working hypothesis is a hypothesis that is provisionally accepted as a basis for further research[12] in the hope that a tenable theory will be produced, even if the hypothesis ultimately fails." [wikipedia.com]
You are entitled to your data-less opinion. What you are actually doing is bullshitting your way through these discussions. At best you have a working bullshit that has allowed you to find things that aren't there.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#133679 Jun 17, 2014
In Six Days wrote:
<quoted text>
... But it's very hard to debate people who are not only blind to their assumptions but blind to the very idea of assumptions.
And thats where the limits of their intelligence is revealed.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#133680 Jun 17, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>You are entitled to your data-less opinion. What you are actually doing is bullshitting your way through these discussions. At best you have a working bullshit that has allowed you to find things that aren't there.
Identify and describe these points of "bullshitting".

I wish to ask you some questions.

While the things that can be seen and detected are influenced by things that cannot be seen nor detected (and such is the case):

a. is it not possible to deduce the nature of what you cannot observe from the behaviour of what you can observe?

b. are you really comfortable, just sticking to what you can experience physically: ignoring what you cant detect?

c. can you only focus on what you can measure and claim to have adequate knowledge?

d. and by whose/what standard would you measure the adequacy of the half facts you acquire; as the other fraction of reality escapes your knowledge?

e. could you honestly claim, after willfully neglecting to investigate (or finding ways to investigate); that you are in pursuit of knowledge for its own sake and not for some philosophical goal or personal interest?
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#133682 Jun 17, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
And thats where the limits of their intelligence is revealed.
Yes, FOR INSTANCE (dazzling creationist's science by Seven Tee): "Fossil stratification explained by some species happen to be able to swim better and run faster to catch the hills than other species".

SURELY you meant THIS caboodle when referring to "the limits of their intelligence" being revealed, isn't it?

The lunatic is addressing the idiot, assessing the people here who have at least SOME understanding of science.

Look up "Dunning-Kruger syndrome".
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#133683 Jun 17, 2014
In Six Days wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know why we don't see larger animals in the lower layers, I wasn't there. However, it's not rocket science to figure out that they fled to higher areas & got buried last. May be they were better swimmers too.
And maybe the turtles were better runners than the velociraptors. Even the ones who never go on land and sink like a rock when they're dead. Somehow still ended up on top.

Just because YOU don't know doesn't mean geologists who know what they're talking about don't.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#133684 Jun 17, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Identify and describe these points of "bullshitting".
I wish to ask you some questions.
While the things that can be seen and detected are influenced by things that cannot be seen nor detected (and such is the case):
a. is it not possible to deduce the nature of what you cannot observe from the behaviour of what you can observe?
b. are you really comfortable, just sticking to what you can experience physically: ignoring what you cant detect?
c. can you only focus on what you can measure and claim to have adequate knowledge?
d. and by whose/what standard would you measure the adequacy of the half facts you acquire; as the other fraction of reality escapes your knowledge?
e. could you honestly claim, after willfully neglecting to investigate (or finding ways to investigate); that you are in pursuit of knowledge for its own sake and not for some philosophical goal or personal interest?
Then I ask you AGAIN - How does one investigate "God" in an objective empirical manner that passes the scientific method?

Thanks again in advance for not bothering to answer.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#133685 Jun 17, 2014
A nice riddle for the bronze age mythological caboodle dwellers here.

Now let's imagine:
1. creationists solved all these problems: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark ...,
2. the stratified fossil record isn't there,
3. the geological column isn't there,
4. Noah and his family and all the animals on the arc did survive and they released all the animals from the arc in the aftermath of the flood.

Here's the riddle:
- of each "kind" there were just two specimen, a female and a male
- there were herbivores and carnivores
- there was no plant life because all plant life is killed off and rotten away when inundated in kilometres of salt water for months
- hence all herbivores starved to death
- as far they manage to stay alive, they will be eaten by the carnivores
- every time a random carnivore eats one herbivore (or another carnivore), it eats either the one male or the one female specimen of that species. From that moment that species got extinct.

Get the problem?

Already excited in anticipation of your answer.
Yours sincerely, wasting away......

After the "differential swimming and climbing rate" fossil stratification model, let's see what more fun and entertaining!

For all others on this forum with their mental faculties still in proper order, here's some more creationist's entertainment:
- the peanut butter man ( http://youtu.be/FZFG5PKw504... )
- the Lunar Bukkake Theory ( www.youtube.com/watch... )
- the Spontaneously Dino Nostril Combustion Theory ( http://youtu.be/sK6tkcxAHIw... )
- the One Feet Digging Geological Excavating Method ( www.youtube.com /watch?v=GzVPyWe4xbM&list= PL8¬2yk73N8eoXXmfiWxYFLgNCa8E4 pqov¬Y&index=25), the ONLY geological technique produced by creationism as far as I know of
- man walking along with dino's (the Creationist's Museum)
- a man surviving 3 days in a whale's belly (bible)
- the Banana Man ( www.youtube.com /watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4)
- talking snakes and donkeys (bible)
- giant over 5 meter getting over 500 years of age (bible)
- geocentrism ( www.youtube.com /watch?v=UpeYDmDpma8)

Anything else to add? Let me know!

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#133686 Jun 17, 2014
In Six Days wrote:
<quoted text>
You talk about this Big Bang as if it's a given & it really happened.
Because it did.
It's a modern myth that's all, there is no evidence.
This is false. There is plenty of evidence from a variety of sources. You just choose to ignore it.

I bet you are going to say expansion of the universe but let me tell in advance, it's another myth. I'm not joking. These stories are repeated so often they become the backdrop of reality but they are still lies.
In that case, how do you explain the correlation between the red shifts of distant galaxies and their distances? How do you explain that gravitational lensing provides independent support for the distances to these galaxies? How do you explain the fact that our best description of gravity predicts just such an expansion?

This isn't only evidence from long ago. There continues to be more evidence collected all the time in support of the overall theory. If anything, we have gone from asking very general questions and having quite broad answers to being able to answer very specific questions.

That isn't a lie. It is a simple fact about the universe.
Next you'll say cosmic microwave background discovered in 1965. That doesn't cut it either,
Really? Exactly why not? Given that it was a prediction of the hot Big Bang theory and that there is no other explanation for the precision of this radiation to the predicted Planck black body spectrum? Given that the deviations from that black body spectrum (which are less than 1 part in 100,000) are also in agreement with the predictions of the hot Big Bang theory?
neither do the "multiple lines of evidence" so-called.
You have shown no actual awareness of the type and specificity of the evidence that exists for the Big Bang scenario. Instead you dismiss it without understanding it.

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#133687 Jun 17, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Identify and describe these points of "bullshitting".
I wish to ask you some questions.
While the things that can be seen and detected are influenced by things that cannot be seen nor detected (and such is the case):
a. is it not possible to deduce the nature of what you cannot observe from the behaviour of what you can observe?
b. are you really comfortable, just sticking to what you can experience physically: ignoring what you cant detect?
c. can you only focus on what you can measure and claim to have adequate knowledge?
d. and by whose/what standard would you measure the adequacy of the half facts you acquire; as the other fraction of reality escapes your knowledge?
e. could you honestly claim, after willfully neglecting to investigate (or finding ways to investigate); that you are in pursuit of knowledge for its own sake and not for some philosophical goal or personal interest?
Most of what you post is philosophical bullshit, unsupported by evidence. That is what I observe. You come on here about every six to nine months, get your ass handed to you and then you run away. Isn't it time for you to run away some more.

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#133688 Jun 17, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
And thats where the limits of their intelligence is revealed.
Do you think burying facts under a pile of conjecture will keep those pesky things out of your hair?

When you observe something you don't like or read about such observations, do you always run and hide behind meaningless, philosophical bullshit?

Can you say you are really seeking the truth, when you ignore (run from, deny vigorously) reality?
(pulls cigarette from your trembling lips and flicks it back at you)

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#133689 Jun 17, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
And maybe the turtles were better runners than the velociraptors. Even the ones who never go on land and sink like a rock when they're dead. Somehow still ended up on top.
Just because YOU don't know doesn't mean geologists who know what they're talking about don't.
Before the flood turtles were the fastest land animals. And they had a much lighter, but much stronger skeletal structure. This combined with the air pockets that existed within turtle bodies for no explicable reason resulted in there being on top. Garsh it is just so simple.

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#133690 Jun 17, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
And maybe the turtles were better runners than the velociraptors. Even the ones who never go on land and sink like a rock when they're dead. Somehow still ended up on top.
Just because YOU don't know doesn't mean geologists who know what they're talking about don't.
Did you know that before the flood, giraffes were the size of horses. As the animals exited the ark, those damned horns on the giraffe snagged the on the door and the push of the other animals caused the necks of the two giraffes to stretch. Yes, oddly and against all probability, both giraffes got similarly snagged, dragged, stretched and survived. It could happen. Now the legs being longer is still a mystery, but I am going with neck envy.
KAB

United States

#133691 Jun 17, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet there's never been a case of talking lizards or donkeys as far as we all know.
By "we" do you mean you and your contemporaries or all humanity historically?

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) 8 min Eagle 12 18,615
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 10 min IB DaMann 43,340
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr It aint necessari... 205,226
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 18 hr ChristineM 917
Questions about first life 21 hr Upright Scientist 18
Carbon and isotopic dating are a lie Sat One way or another 16
evolution is correct. prove me wrong (Jul '15) Sat FallenGeologist 35
More from around the web