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

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

There are 152186 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.

“Help religion science wander”

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#121107 Aug 29, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You're entitled to your opinion. Providing and reasoning on the data is as far as I go. I leave repetitious "Yes I did, no you didn't, yes I did, no you didn't" to you.
When all your arguments collapse, you wave the white "you're entitled to your opinion" flag.

“Help religion science wander”

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#121108 Aug 29, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I only have the record in a demonstrated reliable source coupled with no data confirming such is not possible.
You are a deluded joke. You lie to us and you lie to yourself. We have pages of data to show this.
KAB

United States

#121109 Aug 29, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
You're slipping into solipsism. Uniformitarianism is a primary tenet of science. Without it, science is meaningless. If you're saying that we can't truly know anything because God could have made things occur any which way, therefore C14 testing, and all of science, is faulty, you're just going for the brain in a vat without saying it. Until you can demonstrate that uniformitarianism is an invalid means of understanding the universe with evidence other than your own personal pseudo-philosophical meanderings, your Nobel Prize is a lock and you will have scored a point in the discussion. What have you?
You're entitled to your opinion. I provide data and draw attention to it's consequences. I don't require any particular conclusion from you.

“Help religion science wander”

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#121110 Aug 29, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You're entitled to your opinion. I provide data and draw attention to it's consequences. I don't require any particular conclusion from you.
Lies. You don't provide data. You have no idea how to interpret the data that is provided to you.

You don't like the conclusions provided by others because they force you to accept ideas that are at odds with your delusion.
KAB

United States

#121111 Aug 29, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
And of course, you only respond to what you deem a "specific concern" - and even then with a feint. Your selective reality is pretty convenient - albeit dishonest as a $20 Rolex.
You're entitled to your opinion.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#121112 Aug 29, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Some haps end. I get it. You've also acknowledged that not all haps end. You've also acknowledged the likelihood of a new generation of haps about every 6 generations of humans. You probably also recognize that not all present haps exist in equal abundance. Voila! Hap map generated. That is just where the math takes us.
See? You could not even follow what I did say. I never said there would be a new hap "about every 6th generation".

I said that in a doubling from 3 original couples, we would expect one hap mutation to have occurred by then.

When the population grows, the number of hap mutations PER GENERATION grows because the total number of females grows. But this still is not connected to the likelihood that a new hap will become entrenched in the population permanently. THAT relates back to the very first calcs I showed you.

But you clearly did not get any of it. You keep getting it wrong and then saying I said things I did not (because as above, you misunderstand), or forming wrong conclusions.

Those who have followed the stats through have concluded a common ancestral female line from approx 200,000 years ago. Those creationists who know how it works and have tried to compress it to 4500 years have failed.

If you don't believe me, show me the alternative creationist calculations that make it work. They don't exist.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#121113 Aug 29, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You're entitled to your opinion. Providing and reasoning on the data is as far as I go. I leave repetitious "Yes I did, no you didn't, yes I did, no you didn't" to you.
You have provided exactly no data in this case.

I have provided several links to hap trees etc.

I have explained to you some basics in the hope that you would understand the problem, at least. Even, laboriously, taken you through some calculations.

You have failed to follow any of it. Dismally.

Therefore your opinion is invalid.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#121114 Aug 29, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Whose magic has me invoking "no significant defects"? It's not mine!
You claimed that the severe inbreeding following the floods would not matter because the genome was less defective back then.

We showed you that in the rare cases that DNA has been preserved from back then, there are significant defects, which is evidence against your assertion of a low defect gene.

And how would you justify your claim in the first place? By appealing to the supernatural of course. Evolutionists do not claim there was any time of genetic "low defects" nor do they need to nor does any evidence support the notion (as above). Therefore you are once again invoking magic to support your claim.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#121115 Aug 30, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Some haps end.

Yes.
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>You've also acknowledged that not all haps end.

Yes
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>You've also acknowledged the likelihood of a new generation of haps about every 6 generations of humans.

I don't remember that. Anyway, the generation of a HAP does not mean it will continue.
KAB wrote:
<quoted text> You probably also recognize that not all present haps exist in equal abundance. Voila!

Yes
KAB wrote:
<quoted text> Hap map generated. That is just where the math takes us.

No. You are somehow adding purple to apples and getting 37.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#121116 Aug 30, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You're entitled to your opinion. Providing and reasoning on the data is as far as I go. I leave repetitious "Yes I did, no you didn't, yes I did, no you didn't" to you.

You're entitled to your lie.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#121117 Aug 30, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I only have the record in a demonstrated reliable source coupled with no data confirming such is not possible.

Obviously you made a few typos.

I corrected it for you:

I only have the record in a demonstrated UNreliable source coupled with no data confirming such is possible.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#121118 Aug 30, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>You are a deluded joke. You lie to us and you lie to yourself. We have pages of data to show this.

Well, he IS a Jehovah's Witness, so....

They are taught to lie to themselves and others before they can crawl.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#121119 Aug 30, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You're entitled to your opinion.

Facts =/= opinion.

Maybe a dictionary would help you.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#121120 Aug 30, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text> When the population grows, the number of hap mutations PER GENERATION grows because the total number of females grows. But this still is not connected to the likelihood that a new hap will become entrenched in the population permanently. THAT relates back to the very first calcs I showed you..

This is the key point. He thinks if a new hap occur then it is there for good.

It is like claiming 100 trillion for the global population of humans, ignoring the fact that most of them are dead.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#121121 Aug 30, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
This is the key point. He thinks if a new hap occur then it is there for good.
It is like claiming 100 trillion for the global population of humans, ignoring the fact that most of them are dead.
KAB did not even begin to follow the analysis. Why would he? If he did he would have to accept the conclusions.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#121122 Aug 30, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You're entitled to your opinion. I provide data and draw attention to it's consequences. I don't require any particular conclusion from you.
Nothing I said was opinion. Everything I said was fact. Not a single opinion. Whenever you realize your words have led you into a corner and someone points it out to you, you resort to "You're entitled to your opinion." Documented fact.
KAB

United States

#121123 Aug 30, 2013
Jenji wrote:
There are no facts for or against evolution, or God. It's a matter of personal choice, and one group does absolutely no good toward 'convincing' the other group of anything, when they engage in name-calling and nastiness and putdowns. I never slander someone for not believing the way I do, and I don't appreciate it when others tell me I'm stupid or ignorant something for the beliefs I have. I guess it's all part of my Live and Let Live philosophy, you go do your thing and let me do mine.
It's unfortunate you think there are no facts for or against evolution or God (Romans 1:20,21; John 17:3). I agree with you about name-calling and nastiness, and I avoid it. Why be guided, however, by beliefs which are demonstrably incorrect? To the extent something is confirmed and can be known, should that not replace one's "belief"? BTW, I recognize that not everything is confirmed (Hebrews 12:6).

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#121124 Aug 30, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I only have the record in a demonstrated reliable source coupled with no data confirming such is not possible.
In other words, bullshit.

Thanks for the confirmation, Word Weasel.
KAB

United States

#121125 Aug 30, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you mean that your only belief is in data that is based on conclusions.
The confirming data is that you believe what you are told, like a good little dub. Regardless of the data provided you maintain your conclusions because they are required to maintain your belief.
You're entitled to your demonstrably incorrect opinion.
KAB

United States

#121126 Aug 30, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you'd get along much better with Paul the Promoter than Jesus the Reformer.
Do you not accept the Bible's direction on this matter of not keeping company with those described by 1 Corinthians 5?

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.

ACLU Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Appeals court: Ohio elections chief wrongly pur... Sep 24 BabyDoll 7
News Latest: Protesters want arrest of officer in Tu... Sep 21 Mite Be 5
News Federal lawsuit challenges Idaho liquor law tha... Sep 17 Stephany McDowell 1
News New Jersey Police Seize $171 From Man, Charge H... Sep 17 Laura 1
News Snowden: Long prison term for me would erode de... Sep 16 WelbyMD 4
News Area gay leaders take on racism in their community Sep 11 Ex Senator Stillb... 5
News Chelsea Manning starts hunger strike to protest... Sep 10 Sneaky Pete 2
More from around the web