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

tangled bank wrote:

Click on the links below and tell us which one is the human and which one is the chimp.
You should ace this quiz. After all - you know the differences......
1. Which of the following is the human hand and foot and the chimp hand and foot?
http://www.boneclones.com/images/f-01-m_h-04 -...
2. Is this human or chimp?
http://www.boneclones.com/images/bc-205-lg.jp ...
3. Is this human or chimp? http://www.boneclones.com/images/bc-180_web-l ...
3. Which of the following is the human femur and the chimp femur??
http://www.boneclones.com/images/kf-001-lg_we ...

marksman11 wrote:

I have no idea...

Finally!! Some honesty!!

marksman11 wrote:

... They are not humans or chimps. They are bones.

...ooops! I guess that honesty was just a fleeting illusion. Oh well.

That you couldn't tell the difference between these skeletal elements of humans and chimps proves quite convincingly that they are 98% identical.

Answers to quiz:

Question 1 - all hands and feet were human
Question 2 - fetal skull of chimp
Question 3 - fetal skull of human
Question 4 -
A. Femur from 5 year old human
B. " " adult human
C. " " H. ergaster
D. " " Lucy
E. " " Gorilla
F. " " Chimp
G. " " Bonobo
H. " " Siamang
I. " " Orangutan
J. " " Baboon

marksman11 wrote:

I'll ask you the same question...

http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2006/0609/m ...

It's your imagination.....

Christopher Pearsoll wrote:

Anybody care to hypothesize why Markie likes to come in here and embarrass himself?
Is it that he is actually as stupid as he comes across?
Or is his martyr complex overriding what little common sense his pedopriest has left him with?

Google "Messianic Complex." That explains Markie.

marksman11 wrote:

<quoted text>Typical liberal, thinks others can't think for themselves. If my views are as crazy and wacky as you claim, why in the world would anyone accept them? Why would you worry that someone else might accept these crazy views, and only you can set them straight? The truth is, you are not making any sence, and you are scared because I am.

Because actually looking at the relevant evidence is hard work and requires training and understanding of related areas of science. The overall level of scientific understanding in the populace is, regrettably, quite low. Especially in high school and below, we do not give the detailed evidence for *any* area of science, nor do we discuss the advantages or disadvantages of different research possibilities (generally speaking). It simply isn't the level at which to do that. Instead, we give the general conclusions of the higher level inquiries and give a few basic demonstrations (not even experiments) for those conclusions.

I would like to see the curricula of math, science, history, etc be determined by professional, research organizations in those areas rather than by local school boards. That way, the children could be educated according to the best knowledge in each area as opposed to the politcal soup we get today.

I wrote: "A majority of the American public accept that humans and other living things have evolved from other species over time.(They disagree only as to whether a supernatural being had any hand in the process of evolution.)"

marksman11 wrote:

Bet you can't prove that!!!!Just more made up wishful guessing.

You lose the bet. According to the 2009 survey conducted by the Pew Research Center, 61% of the U.S. general public surveyed agreed that humans and other living things have evolved over time, while only 31% believed that humans and other living things have existed in their present forms since the beginning of time.

marksman11 wrote:

<quoted text>You seem to think that every condition for the results you have are constants. It just might not be as clear cut as you think. For example, carbon dating. Carbon dating my be reliable as long as the conditions are steady, but what if there were a time in history where the oxygen levels were doubled, or the barometric pressure was tripled.....etc. Then the results would be skewed and flawed. There is no such thing, by definition, as historical certainty. You can look at reasons of why you think that mountain might exist, but the truth is, you can not be certain without observation, and as you said, some things can not be observed. If they can't, you can propose hypothesis of why they may exist, but you have to believe them in faith.

There are physical constants that we know. As for carbon dating, I'm sure you've been presented with detailed, fact-based rebuttals to the silly carbon dating criticisms many times so I won't bother. However, carbon dating is only of minor importance in evolutionary science anyway since it covers a short time period. As for your view on observation, again, NOTHING would meet your desired degree of certainty on observation, because even what you do directly observe, I can just claim that you are taking it on faith, and the reality is different from what you observe. Your approach shackles science into an impotent, useless tool so you can conveniently dispose of it to push your beliefs.

marksman11 wrote:

<quoted text>Typical liberal, thinks others can't think for themselves. If my views are as crazy and wacky as you claim, why in the world would anyone accept them? Why would you worry that someone else might accept these crazy views, and only you can set them straight? The truth is, you are not making any sence, and you are scared because I am.

Why would I worry that others might accept them? Because there are a lot of people with little-to-no science knowledge. Sadly, that condition is rampant in this country, where the public ranks way behind the rest of the modern world, with theocracies and poor third-world nations. People accept them because they are easy. They are comforting, they match what they WANT to believe and are told to believe. If a little real knowledge and fact can lead a few to actually see reality, then the effort is worth it.

marksman11 wrote:

<quoted text>My point is that Darwinism is part of the religion of humanism, which by the way, is taught in public schools. Another good reason Darwinism needs to be ejected from science courses in public schools.

Even if it were true that humanism as a religion is taught in schools, which it is not, that still doesn't validate ejecting evolutionary science from schools. The science is real, the science is vetted, the science is science. The use of it by any group, philosophy, etc. is irrelevant. We're not going to remove particle physics from schools if some whacked-out cult decides to incorporate it as a central part of their beliefs either.

marksman11 wrote:

<quoted text>If you are looking for one word to descibe GOD, it isn't love, although he is loving. That one word would be power. You see GOD, is self containing. He doesn't need us. We serve him no purpose. He wants you to love him, but if you don't, it doesn't effect him at all. It's just you being ignorant, and wasting your own existence. He will do his will, he is the boss, and you are not. You are irrelevant to what GOD wills to accomplish. According to scripture, he is also a loving and just GOD. GOD said, "Without the sheding of blood their is no remission of sins." So he didn't ask you to shed your blood. He became a man and shed his own blood for you. That isn't love? GOD is many things. He is wrath, and love, and he makes the rules. You say that isn't fair? How is that when he also plays by his own rules?

Platitudes and apologies for his cruelty doesn't change his cruelty. Even your description of him is that of an abusive father who "loves" his children, works hard to support them, protects them from others...but can't seem to stop that urge to beat them to a pulp when they don't grovel for him.

marksman11 wrote:

<quoted text>I think I'm doing well.

You don't think and you aren't doing well.

Please show us which step in the scientific method requires one to observe the hypothesis.

I've debated atheists for years now, and you can always tell when they are frustrated and losing. They can only resort to name calling and adhominem attacks.

You can tell when the creationist is losing when all they can talk about are the names other people call them.

marksman11 wrote:

<quoted text>If you are looking for one word to descibe GOD, it isn't love, although he is loving. That one word would be power. You see GOD, is self containing. He doesn't need us. We serve him no purpose. He wants you to love him, but if you don't, it doesn't effect him at all. It's just you being ignorant, and wasting your own existence. He will do his will, he is the boss, and you are not. You are irrelevant to what GOD wills to accomplish. According to scripture, he is also a loving and just GOD. GOD said, "Without the sheding of blood their is no remission of sins." So he didn't ask you to shed your blood. He became a man and shed his own blood for you. That isn't love? GOD is many things. He is wrath, and love, and he makes the rules. You say that isn't fair? How is that when he also plays by his own rules?

So you're saying that since god is The Master Race, he has the right to impose The Final Solution on Humanity?
Wait, I think I've heard this one before...

marksman11 wrote:

<quoted text>Are you kidding me? You say a 2 hinged nutcracker is complex? Heck, it's just 3 little pieces joined together by 2 simple hinges. THAt's it!! That isn't complex. That is very simple, unlike the most simple (which isn't simple at all) life form that can replicate itself.

This very simple arrangement is seen in the jaw of the reptile to mammal transitional fossils:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/secti...

There is no such thing as a simple cell.

Then show us the very first cell and show us how it's complexity could not have arisen through abiotic means. If you want to claim that life is too complex to have arisen through natural means then you need to supply evidence to support it.

You do understand that you want us to believe that just random chemicals somehow got together, and somehow produced a complex living cell that could reproduce it's self after it's initial natural creation?

You want us to believe that an unevidenced supernatural being magically poofed life into being without any evidence to back it up. Magical poofing, that is your explanation. How are we supposed to take this serious?

marksman11 wrote:

<quoted text>Rookies! I explained this about 400 pages ago, but here it is again. It is defined by basic kinds which is determined by it's flesh. Humans have skin, fish have scales, retiles have their type of outer body covering, just like beasts. To transfer from micro to macro, you must show where they have evolved to the point of changing flesh.

Humans and chimps have the same flesh, as did their common ancestor. Therefore, humans evolving from non-humans is microevolution by your very definition.

marksman11 wrote:

<quoted text>So are you saying you are sure that none of these 100 publications are science journals? Are you saying that?

Which of Behe's peer reviewed scientific articles is in a peer reviewed journal and contains original ID research that Behe produced? Either you can answer this question or you can't. Which is it?

marksman11 wrote:

<quoted text> As long as human from non-human evolution has not been observed evolutionists have an invalid theory.

Which step in the scientific method requires the theory to be observed?

(hint to lurkers, it doesn't)

marksman11 wrote:

Darwinism is the philosophy of the Humanist, and Humanism was established as a religion in the 1960's. It is one of the major factors of the humanist manifesto. Not only is humanism a religion, but it is taught in some public schools.
www.contenderministries.org/humanism/humanism...

Since the above site gives no specifics, exactly where is Humanism being taught in a public school?

marksman11 wrote:

<quoted text>Call me when you observe human from non-human evolution.

Which step in the scientific method requires one to observe the hypothesis/theory?

marksman11 wrote:

My point is that Darwinism is part of the religion of humanism, which by the way, is taught in public schools.

WHERE?

marksman11 wrote:

<quoted text>Our problem is we disagree on the source of truth.

Wrong. Our problem is that we can supply evidence for our claims and you can not. To try and even the playing field you purposefully ignore the evidence and pretend as if it doesn't exist. That's the problem.

yet, I'M THE LIAR.

That's correct. You claim that a theory must be observed in order to satisfy the scientific method. This is a lie.

marksman11 wrote:

I clearly said there were no writings in the GP. I was right. The only ones there are forgeries...

Since you did not OBSERVE the creation of these so-called forgeries, you cannot make this claim.

marksman11 wrote:

<quoted text>Lotta claims there. Lotta guess work. Little scientific evidence.

So says the guy who believes in magical poofing.

Where are the ancestors of these cambrian fossils?

In Precambrian strata.

How could they appear fully formed?

How else could a fossil appear? Are fossils supposed to morph between two different forms as we look at them?

How could males and females evolve to procreate seperately with sexual organs that work in unison just for procreation?

We can observe all of the transitional stages in existing life forms. The first step are gametes with equal size and equal function. The next step is gamete specialization resulting in a stationary egg and motile sperm in a single hermaphroditic individual such as seen in basal vertebrates and various other species. The next step is a single set of sex organs in each sex. It's actually a well understood transition.

and what was the advanage of that over asexuality?

Genetic recombination. This is also well understood. Mixing alleles has a strong advantage over asexual reproduction for species with extended generation times.