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

marksman11 wrote:

<quoted text>You're on drugs. The analogy concerned complexity, not biological systems. Your just dodging the known results. Nature can not produce the complexity of a pocket watch. Heck, nature can't even produce a two hinged nutcracker, yet you claim it can randomly produce a living cell, that somehow could reproduce itself, that somehow, became a human being, that somehow, has an extremely complex brain, that somehow, is aware of itself, and somehow, can heal itself.....but observation shows that only intelligence can bring about this kind of complexity. Just like it takes intelligence to produce the complexity of a watch, it takes intelligence to produce complex living systems.
How about taking a stoll through the woods for me. I need you to pick me a new pocket watch off the pocket watch tree.
The fact is, nature couldn't even produce a two hinged nutcracker.
It's about complexity, not biology.

Maybe you should try some drugs, expand your mind a little.

marksman11 wrote:

<quoted text>You're on drugs. The analogy concerned complexity, not biological systems. Your just dodging the known results. Nature can not produce the complexity of a pocket watch. Heck, nature can't even produce a two hinged nutcracker, yet you claim it can randomly produce a living cell, that somehow could reproduce itself, that somehow, became a human being, that somehow, has an extremely complex brain, that somehow, is aware of itself, and somehow, can heal itself.....but observation shows that only intelligence can bring about this kind of complexity. Just like it takes intelligence to produce the complexity of a watch, it takes intelligence to produce complex living systems.
How about taking a stoll through the woods for me. I need you to pick me a new pocket watch off the pocket watch tree.
The fact is, nature couldn't even produce a two hinged nutcracker.
It's about complexity, not biology.

I pointed you to rocks which were "more complex". What's more, that complexity was measured. Unlike you, who cannot tell us how to quantify your definition of "complexity". Your analogy still fails. It always fails, because that's all IDers can come up with - analogies followed by incredulity. Never any actual evidence.

marksman11 wrote:

THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD...THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD...THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD...

Which you do not have the slightest clue of what it means. You read the words, you leave your linky, you copy-paste what it says, but you do not understand it one bit.

Or you're being deliberately deceptive. Again.

marksman11 wrote:

<quoted text>You are a walking talking contradiction. You first said..."then for a long time had very simple life which slowly grew more complex and very diverse. Next came the Cambrian and hard body parts."
What? "slowly grew more complex" and the cambrian, are contradiction in terms. There was nothing slow about the Cambrian!! So much so that is was termed the "cambrian Explosion". You can't have your cake and eat it too. There is YOUR miracle!

It is hard to argue calculus with a 1st grader. Again you don't have enough real knowledge to even understand my post. That is probably the way it is for you with many posts here. Why don't you at least try reading some science so you can formulate "answers" that actually make some sense and don't make you look like the mutant crack baby of Forrest Gump and Rain Man.

marksman11 wrote:

<quoted text>You would be much more convincing had you posted where you have observed human from non-human evolution, rather than trying to cover your inability to do so by name dropping movie charactors in which you share commonalities!

You would be more convincing if you were not a science ignorant bumpkin. I am not asking you to become a scientist or even a well educate non-scientist. Just to have read enough that you don't stand out like a drooling fool.

I am just trying to be helpful. You want to come off a intelligent, but you just ain't making the grade. Even if a D is passing you got some homework to do to even pass.

Feklahr wrote:

<quoted text>
Majority of the public? In the United States...and TURKEY.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigph...

I knew I liked Turkey:-)

Feklahr wrote:

<quoted text>
Still, brushing aside the fact that i have refuted your claim that the majority agrees with you, it still wouldn't matter because your argument is a nice little logical fallacy called, "argumentum ad populum":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_the_ma...
You just hit the FAIL double whammy, bro. Are you even interested in knowing why you are wrong about all of this, or are you simply content with plugging your ears and screaming your rhetoric? Does that make you feel brave, patriotic, and devout in the face of adversity? Are you really that much of a narcissist?

Listen, you can use ad hominems all day, I couldn't care less. But calling me names isn't going to make human from non-human evolution observable, which is demanded by the scientific method for a valid theory. Call me anything you want. Doesn't change a thing.

(by the way, you refuted nothing...I said the general public rejects human from non-human evolution, and in our country, I was right. You are in the minority. Deal with it)

MikeF wrote:

<quoted text>
OK, I get it. The word is 'wainscot' not wescott. And I assume you're referring to the groves in the antechamber walls. The conventional wisdom is they were cut to allow space for the ropes used to lower the blocks into place. I have also seen reference to this being some for of a perpetual motion machine. Which I find doubtful.

No, the boss is on one of the wainscots. Sorry, I'm a terrible speller.

Christopher Pearsoll wrote:

<quoted text>
Not interested in ytour cretenist propoganda.

Imagine that, you with a closed mind!!!

15th Dalai Lama wrote:

<quoted text>
One of marksman's tragic flaws is to sink deeper and deeper into the depths of ignorance as he desperately defends his delusions.

I'm not even stating my beliefs, I'm just refuting yours!

Erasmus05 wrote:

<quoted text>
So a make believe entity may have done something? Really? You and your sources are just making shit up.

It's funny how "Mr. Science" has to "claim" that GOD is make believe, but just like human from non-human evolution, he can't prove it.!

Erasmus05 wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, it does. Hundreds of cichlid species have evolved in the Lake Victoria system in a very short period, a blink of an eye in geologic time periods.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news...

That's micro, not macro.

Erasmus05 wrote:

<quoted text>
What about the Cambrian Explosion? Can you explain to us why there are no mammals, reptiles, birds, dinosaurs, amphibians, ray finned fish, etc. in Cambrian deposits?

You are not even close to understanding. The point of the Cambrian Explosion is not about was ISN'T THERE. It's about what is there has no evolutionary ancestors. They appear suddenly, fully formed, with absolutely no history of evolutionary ancestors. This supports creationism, no evolution. Your question is a red herring.

Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:

<quoted text>
In other words, you are suggesting the the second law of Thermodynamics doesn't apply to life on earth?

just the opposite.

Dogen wrote:

<quoted text>
100 years ago this would have been a sharp lie. Today it is a very very dull lie.

you can't refute it. if you could, you would.

marksman11 wrote:

Then you must be an eyewitness of human from non-human evolution, and since that has never been observed, then you are wrong. It requires faith and belief...

No eyewitness to:
1. Orbit of earth around sun
2. Florida Keys as a coral reef
3. The liquid outer core of the earth
4. Electrons
5. Gravitational force
6. Magnetic force
7. Dinosaurs

So are these phenomena of astronomy, geology, chemistry, physics and biology all invalidated by the scientific method b/c there was no "eyewitness" to directly observe them?

Does believing all these phenomena require faith?

marksman11 wrote:

...By definition, there is no such thing as historical certainty. The best you can do, once all eyewitnesses are gone, is have a psysological reaction to all logical and available evidence...

Wrong again. By definition - there can be degrees of certainty, e.g., absolute, virtual, resolute.

Therefore, one can be "certain" to a degree, even without eyewitnesses, that the U.S. civil war took place. That George Washington was our first president That Christopher Columbus sailed the ocean blue. That dinosaurs existed. That humans evolved.

marksman11 wrote:

...You are wrong. HUman from non-human evolution requires faith.

It doesn't take faith to see that the 21 species of fossil hominids discovered in ancient rocks, show an unbroken temporal sequence of more modern features - increasing cranial capacity, reduced face and teeth, and larger body size.

Dogen wrote:

<quoted text>
Second, Behe is considered a fraud in academics. His degree is legit enough, but instead of doing scientific research and publishing in professional peer review journals he writes pop pseudoscience books for bucks on the side. He can't get any of his ID stuff published in academic science journals because,(duh) it isn't science.

From his blog....

In addition to publishing over 35 articles in refereed biochemical journals, I have also written editorial features in Boston Review, American Spectator, and The New York Times. My book, Darwin's Black Box, discusses the implications for neo-Darwinism of what I call "irreducibly complex" biochemical systems and has sold over 250,000 copies. The book was internationally reviewed in over one hundred publications and recently named by National Review and World magazine as one of the 100 most important books of the 20th century.

So as you can read....."In addition to publishing over 35 articles in refereed biochemical journals,'....clearly displays that you have no idea what you are talking about!!!

Dogen wrote:

<quoted text>
Of course you have been told this and know it is true. You are just an ignorant troll trying to use the magic of repetition to blind others.

Each post, you appear more and more pitiful. Not only do you have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about, but you don't even realise it!

Dogen wrote:

<quoted text>
It is not your job to interpret scientific data.

Yes it is!

Dogen wrote:

<quoted text>Nor is it your job to land planes at the airport, design nuclear weapons nor, hopefully, educate science students at Harvard. There is good reason for this; you lack the necessary background, training, and supervision to do such work.

You have no idea what my background is. Interesting you said.."educate science students at Harvard"....while no, I don't teach at Harvard, I have taught Christian children in our church that have gone to very elite universities. They took their christian beliefs with them.
As far as career and hobbies, I wouldn't swap with anyone on the planet.

Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:

<quoted text>
Below is what occurred with your “Hero” Michael Behe when he was cross
examined in the famous Dover case:
In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, the first direct challenge brought in United States federal courts to an attempt to mandate the teaching of intelligent design on First Amendment grounds, Behe was called as a primary witness for the defense and asked to support the idea that intelligent design was legitimate science. Behe's critics have pointed to a number of key exchanges that they say further undermine his statements about irreducible complexity and intelligent design. Under cross examination, Behe conceded that "there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred."[46] During cross-examination Behe even stated that the definition of 'theory' as he applied it to intelligent design was so loose that astrology would qualify as a theory by definition as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe#cit...

I've read it before, and have been saying the same thing for 831 pages now. Creationism is supernatural in nature and requires faith. It isn't science. You have not seen me arguing trying to get creationism in the classroom. My argument is that Darwinism should be expelled. It isn't science either.

Dogen wrote:

<quoted text>
Markie, you could be the greatest Egyptologist since sliced bread and no one here would listen to a raving word you say. You have 0 credibility left on any subject. If you were not saying crazy things 24/7 we might listen when you cry wolf.

I'm not crying wolf. I'm clearly making my points, and you guys are listening because I'm pages and pages behind replying to you all.

marksman11 wrote:

You are not even close to understanding. The point of the Cambrian Explosion is not about was ISN'T THERE. It's about what is there has no evolutionary ancestors. They appear suddenly, fully formed, with absolutely no history of evolutionary ancestors. This supports creationism, no evolution. Your question is a red herring.

Why do you continue with this DECEPTION? Fossil Bob and others have shown you the evidence, yet here you are again, repeating the same old tired creationist dogma.

The major groups of invertebrate fossils DO NOT APPEAR SUDDENLY at the base of the Cambrian but are spaced out over strata spanning millions of years - hardly an "instantaneous explosion"

And preceeding the "Cambrian explosion" (Pre-Cambrian) the oldest fossils found are "micro-fossils" - i.e., single celled organisms.

This was followed by the Ediacara fauna - soft bodied multi-cellular organisms without skeletons. Over 2000 specimens, representing 40 genera and 70 species, are known from this Pre-Cambrian era.

At the beginning of the Cambrian - the first 25 million years - "Little Shellies" are found (small shelly fossils), along with soft bodied worms.

By the middle Cambrian (5 million years later)- trilobites are found, along with most of the other animal phyla - mollusks, sponges, corals, echinoderms.

In summary - the fossil record shows a gradual buildup, over 80 million years, from single celled prokaryotes - to eukaryotes - to multicellular soft-bodied animals - to animals with tiny shells - and finally by the mid Cambrian - the full range of large shelled invertebrates.

This gradual transformation which took place over 80 million years bears no resemblance to an instantaneous Cambrian explosion, and clearly shows a series of evolutionary transformations.

All this information has been known for at least the last 20 years, and the first Pre-Cambrian fossils were discovered over 50 years ago. They are published in all the standard geology and palenotology textbooks/journals, and have been for decades.

When are you going to start fact checking your claims??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosi...

marksman11 wrote:

<quoted text>Are you really this ignorant. Did you not just type, and I quote....
"Fifth, fact and reality is not up for polling or popular opinion. If one person is right, and ten million are wrong...the ten million are still wrong. It's ridiculous to try to take comfort from numbers of ignorance."
Yet you just took comfort in your own numbers of ignorance. Repeat these words....
THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD...THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD...THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD...

Wow, are you a confused and illogical dolt! My numbers were to point out that even Christians accept the reality of evolution, so you don't get to claim Christianity as part of your support. As for the numbers of scientists, there's a big...VERY BIG..difference between almost every person who ranks amongst the most knowledgeable of a subject in the world accepting something, and then the average Joe on the street (that would be you..."average" is giving you the benefit of the doubt based on your posts so far).

Yes, SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Maybe you should learn what it really is, not what you want it to be.