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

Full story: Asheville Citizen-Times

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 ...
Comments
97,381 - 97,400 of 136,267 Comments Last updated 11 min ago

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#99349 Oct 5, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a plot of data. Its information content is the same for everyone. How individuals use the data is where differences arise. My preference is to not take positions which go beyond what the data shows.

This would be a LIE. You accept whatever the bible says. You accept whatever you can find that SEEMS to agree with you (even though closer examination proves you to be wrong in most cases). Science deals with data in a very specific way (the scientific method), while you treat it as something to be spun like some political pundit. It is your abuse of the data where differences arise.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#99350 Oct 5, 2012
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
It's only a flesh wound!
Yer arm's off!
forreal

Corpus Christi, TX

#99351 Oct 5, 2012
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
Slice it and dice it anyway you please. You are an ignorant fool committed to staying that way.
only a fool like you is still trying to fit in an extra large Dinosaurs eggs all in yellow!LOL

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#99352 Oct 5, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a plot of data. Its information content is the same for everyone. How individuals use the data is where differences arise. My preference is to not take positions which go beyond what the data shows.
But, if they are not seeing what you say must be seen because the Bible says it must, either the evidence supporting the Bible doesn't exist or they are incompetent. Which is it? Does the evidence simply not exist, or is the entire scientific community incompetent/dishonest?
forreal

Corpus Christi, TX

#99353 Oct 5, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Modern Scholars are interested in scholarship (adherence to the Scholarly method). As there are scholars of all religious stripes it seems unlikely that are are scared to state what they think is true.
Basically we are talking about people who have more education, more knowledge and probably more intelligence than you and who disagree with you. You don't like them for that.
Just look at all TV Preachers they are all scared of preaching the truth!They dont even compare to Billy Sunday or the Apostle Paul!LOL

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#99354 Oct 5, 2012
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Crap! I forgot to check my calendar. I didn't realize it was Stupid Freakin Question Day.
My bad.
Today's first reading from the thirtieth chapter of Job indicates it is also Cosmological Ignorance Day.

Tell me, if you know all:
Which is the way to the dwelling place of light,
and where is the abode of darkness,
That you may take them to their boundaries
and set them on their homeward paths?

It is not uncommon among fundies to think darkness and light are things you can put in two separate boxes.

It is a little less common, but not by much, for them to think the only thing that existed before creation was air.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#99355 Oct 5, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Do the Twin Towers still exist? Does planet Earth?
Who ever said collapsing meant disappearing? The Twin Towers still exist in a different form, just like the earth that collapses in an earthquake when the soil liquefies beneath it. If the earth can collapse due to the soil liquefying beneath it during an earthquake, then the earth totters, which means the Bible is wrong.

Now, does the earth collapse when soil liquefies during an earthquake? Answer the question. You know what the answer is, but my prediction is you'll continue to dither, trying to find some verbal wiggle room rather than addressing the actual question, because that's the only hope you have. You know that earth DOES collapse, which means that earth DOES totter, which means the Bible is wrong, but to admit that means risking admitting everything in the Bible could be wrong, and you have too much of your ego invested in your Bible beliefs to allow yourself to admit that. You think you're clever, but we all know exactly what you're doing, and it's sad that someone who's apparently intelligent would work so hard to be so dishonest just to defend something he already knows is false.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#99356 Oct 5, 2012
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Who ever said collapsing meant disappearing? The Twin Towers still exist in a different form, just like the earth that collapses in an earthquake when the soil liquefies beneath it. If the earth can collapse due to the soil liquefying beneath it during an earthquake, then the earth totters, which means the Bible is wrong.
Now, does the earth collapse when soil liquefies during an earthquake? Answer the question. You know what the answer is, but my prediction is you'll continue to dither, trying to find some verbal wiggle room rather than addressing the actual question, because that's the only hope you have. You know that earth DOES collapse, which means that earth DOES totter, which means the Bible is wrong, but to admit that means risking admitting everything in the Bible could be wrong, and you have too much of your ego invested in your Bible beliefs to allow yourself to admit that. You think you're clever, but we all know exactly what you're doing, and it's sad that someone who's apparently intelligent would work so hard to be so dishonest just to defend something he already knows is false.
El Sagrado Corazon Church in Barelas, an Albuquerque barrio, rebuilt their bell tower around a beam from the World Trade Center.

I have no idea how they pulled that off.
KAB

United States

#99357 Oct 5, 2012
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
When soil liquefies during an earthquake, does the land above it collapse?
When a sinkhole occurs, does the land collapse?
Not to destruction. It remains land, just relocated.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#99358 Oct 5, 2012
forreal wrote:
<quoted text>Just look at all TV Preachers they are all scared of preaching the truth!They dont even compare to Billy Sunday or the Apostle Paul!LOL

Paul is a bit to gnostic for my tastes.

and I was talking about scholars, not tv preachers.
KAB

United States

#99359 Oct 5, 2012
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny that there is genetic evidence for a human bottleneck for the Toba Catastrophe (1,000 to 10,000 breeding pairs, 69,000 -77,000 years ago), but they somehow overlooked a MUCH MORE DEVASTATING collapse of humanity a mere 4,500 years ago!
Toba: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe...
Incidently, Noah and wife didn't have children post-flood, so the effective genetic bottleneck was only THREE breeding pairs of humans.
Did you note under the heading "Evidence against a population bottleneck" that there may not have been a Toba bottleneck?

As to the propagation of Noah's family, three pairs is fine with me.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#99360 Oct 5, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you note under the heading "Evidence against a population bottleneck" that there may not have been a Toba bottleneck?
As to the propagation of Noah's family, three pairs is fine with me.
Speaking of kazoos:

Level 2

Since: Jun 08

Matthews, NC

#99361 Oct 5, 2012
marksman11 wrote:
Why? Wikipedia is correct. It is you that is lying about human from non-human evolution. Not wikipedia.
Dogen used the wikipedia entry on human evolution. So if wikipedia is correct, then Dogen would be correct.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

Thanks for confirming human evolution is correct!!

Level 2

Since: Jun 08

Matthews, NC

#99362 Oct 5, 2012
KAB wrote:
Did you note under the heading "Evidence against a population bottleneck" that there may not have been a Toba bottleneck?
As to the propagation of Noah's family, three pairs is fine with me.
To bad for you that none of the data in Kong's reference confirmed a bottleneck population size of 3 females @ 4500 ybp, or any other time frame for that matter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe...
KAB

United States

#99363 Oct 5, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Then your definition of "Kind" as "yielding/bearing" is sort of refuted....
Okay, that isn't true... It is completely and totally refuted.
Now we have kinds that that can't breed. Isn't that a problem... a bit,.... a tad???
----------
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
So a ring species is a kind till it gets to a species it cannot breed with, correct?
So, here is the problem:
A can breed with B, C and sometimes D, but not E or F
B can breed with with C, D, and E but not F.
C can breed with D, E and not F.
D can breed with E, but not F
E can breed with F but not A
How many Kinds are represented here?
Which combinations are kinds and not kinds?
The key is in understanding how all the types, A thru F, originated.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#99364 Oct 5, 2012
tangled bank wrote:
<quoted text>
To bad for you that none of the data in Kong's reference confirmed a bottleneck population size of 3 females @ 4500 ybp, or any other time frame for that matter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bottl...

"Research on many genes finds different coalescence points from 2 million years ago to 60,000 years ago when different genes are considered, thus disproving the existence of more recent extreme bottlenecks (i.e., a single breeding pair)"

Or three.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#99365 Oct 5, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you note under the heading "Evidence against a population bottleneck" that there may not have been a Toba bottleneck?
As to the propagation of Noah's family, three pairs is fine with me.

Toba is a problem for you no matter what.

"occurred some time between 69,000 and 77,000 years ago"

Other bottlenecks did occur:

Genetic bottlenecks of other mammals

"The eruption may have also caused bottlenecks or extinctions in some animals (especially those in Southeast Asia, India, far north as China and as far west as Europe and Africa). The populations of the Eastern African chimpanzee,[57] Bornean orangutan,[58] central Indian macaque,[59] the cheetah, the tiger,[60] and the separation of the nuclear gene pools of eastern and western lowland gorillas,[61] all recovered from very low numbers around 70,000–55,000 years ago."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe...

Further, you sort of NEED a human bottleneck at some point and genetics say that one did NOT occur 4,500 ybp.

Not sure where to place this nail in your coffin. Thing seems to be made of nails.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#99366 Oct 5, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The key is in understanding how all the types, A thru F, originated.

We call it "evolution". Perhaps you have heard of it?

But, good sir, the bible states there are KINDs which are distinct by their ability to breed only with each other.

It seems no one told god about ring species.
KAB

United States

#99367 Oct 5, 2012
Thomas Robertson wrote:
MikeF wrote:
“’Part of a kind’! Too funny!”
KAB wrote:
“It's only funny to those who are ignorant regarding the definition.”
WHAT definition?
I’ve read everything Duane Gish wrote on the subject, and he never gives a clear definition.
The only definition I can think of is that any common household word is a kind.
If I recall correctly, Gish regards beetles, spiders, and earthworms as kinds, despite the fact that those terms cover oodlums of species.
My definition

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#99368 Oct 5, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
My definition

"Baraminology is a creationist taxonomic system that classifies animals into groups called "created kinds" or "baramins" (pronounced with accent on second syllable) according to the account of creation in the book of Genesis and other parts of the Bible. Its proponents claim that kinds cannot interbreed and have no evolutionary relationship to one another.[1] Baraminology developed as a subfield of creation science in the 1990s among creationists that included Walter ReMine and Kurt Wise. Creation science is considered to be pseudoscience by the scientific community,[2][3][4][5] and the evidence for common ancestry of all life has scientific acceptance."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Created_kind

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 10 min Ooogah Boogah 115,243
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 37 min MikeF 172,521
Genetic 'Adam' and 'Eve' Uncovered - live science (Sep '13) 51 min TurkanaBoy 317
Evolution Theory Facing Crisis 55 min TurkanaBoy 208
Science News (Sep '13) Thu positronium 2,848
The Satanic Character of Social Darwinism Aug 27 Zog Has-fallen 343
Natural Selection Not The Only Process That Dri... (Jan '14) Aug 25 reMAAT 20
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••