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 (Page 5,407)

Showing posts 108,121 - 108,140 of132,830
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110167
Feb 13, 2013
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I have not stated that "reading" DNA does not involve chemical processes.
I said that DNA tests are chemical reaction-based, and either the reaction occurs or it doesn't. Airtight. You said that it was NOT chemical reaction-based. Do you REALLY want to go down this road when you know damn well that you said this? Do you really want to deny that you said DNA tests, including the genome project, and all genomic determinations, are not chemical reaction-based? You know what you said. You know what I said. You are caught red-handed in a lie. You know this. I just want you to explicitly deny that you said what you said.
KAB

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110168
Feb 13, 2013
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
So you can "take it out of context" but when an atheist quotes it in context it's still "taken out of context?" How .... hypocritical. You can't have it both ways.
Nothing was stated about anybody taking anything out of context.
KAB

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110169
Feb 13, 2013
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
The concept of "god," and words for it, are tens of thousands of years old, oddly. The first artifacts we find on the matter were animal worshipers, I think it was about 30,000 BC or some such, give or take a few thousand.
Your thinking has repeatedly proven to be detrimental to progress. Please provide some data for your tens of thousands of years assertion. Otherwise, only those gullible enough to believe dataless statements without seeing the data will believe you.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110170
Feb 13, 2013
 
KAB:
So you think that genetic bottleneck data is airtight, but Earth shape data is not?

ME: Genetic bottlenecks can be directly observed and directly confirmed. Chemical reactions are binary. They either occur or they don't, and they can be confirmed by independent agents anywhere at any time. The shape of the Earth, ultimately, is only directly observed by the scant few people who venture into space. The rest is trust in our instruments. Chemistry is direct observation of the facts. For the direct confirmation of the Earth's shape, we must rely on the scant few's say-so and pictures which we cannot ensure are accurate to the same degree we can ensure chemical reactions are accurate. In other words, chemistry trumps say-so and pictures every time.

KAB: There's more to genetic bottlenecks than chemistry.

ME: Actually, no. Every genetic bottleneck that has been identified is nothing more than a series of chemical reactions. You have no idea how DNA tests are done or genomes are cataloged, do you?

KAB: Perhaps I have a better idea than you, and you can only prove otherwise by providing some confirming data which you know I am eager to see anyway. Why do I provide and want to see data, and your side tends not to do so?

So, I say DNA tests are chemical. You say there's more to it than chemistry. Then, you say that you're right until I prove you wrong. And, you say that you provide data despite a constant refrain of us having to prove your claims wrong. You're a liar, an obfuscator, and a bullshit artist who cares more about old stories than reality.

You think there's more to DNA tests than chemistry? Great. Prove it. Support your claim rather than demanding that we disprove your claims. You made the claim, you have the burden of proof. Follow the rules of logic or admit that you have nothing to back your claims and you're just making shit up.
KAB

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110171
Feb 13, 2013
 
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
get a book on hebrew grammar, a dictionary and read the tanakh. plenty data
Following your suggestion would be an ineffective/inefficient use of resource. You are making very specific points. Provide the corresponding specific data confirming those points. In general, that might be no more than a few lines per point from all that material you reference. If you make the assertions, presumably you know what that material is and specifically where it is located. Thus, you are best suited to most efficiently provide it.
KAB

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110172
Feb 13, 2013
 
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
You forgot a part that can be answered:
KAB could you for once in 100,000 posts show us how you think DNA tests are done, and how genetic material is extracted, and how genomes are cataloged.
(Since most of us have posted this kind off information allready thousands of times allover this topic.)
The fact that you knew which part of your previous post to repeat acknowledges your recognition that my response addresses your request. So, until/unless you demonstrate error in my response by providing appropriate data, we are done for now.
KAB

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110173
Feb 13, 2013
 
MAAT wrote:
I find it remarkable that when the thread is on the verge of dying out we finally get DATA. The second time i believe.
Yes, I found my vacation remarkable also. In addition to that, research takes time, but you apparently wouldn't know about that.
KAB

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110174
Feb 13, 2013
 
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
"God" is a generic term. Elohim is a SPECIFIC god(s) of the middle east and derive from El. The term is generally plural (gods) and feminine, but can be modified by singular masculine verbs. The name literally means "strong ones" or something very similar.
The English word 'God' may have been derived (through German) from the "pagan" deity Gaad (pronounced Gawd).
Elohim is not as specific as YHWH, the God which the Bible credits as its "author" (2 Timothy 3:16).
KAB

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110175
Feb 13, 2013
 
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
I said that DNA tests are chemical reaction-based, and either the reaction occurs or it doesn't. Airtight. You said that it was NOT chemical reaction-based. Do you REALLY want to go down this road when you know damn well that you said this? Do you really want to deny that you said DNA tests, including the genome project, and all genomic determinations, are not chemical reaction-based? You know what you said. You know what I said. You are caught red-handed in a lie. You know this. I just want you to explicitly deny that you said what you said.
I do not deny saying what I said. I deny saying what I didn't say. I didn't say DNA determinations are not chemical reaction based, and you can only prove otherwise by quoting me, and per usual with you, you won't. So that leaves you with the ball on the liars side of the court.
KAB

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110176
Feb 13, 2013
 
LowellGuy wrote:
KAB:
So you think that genetic bottleneck data is airtight, but Earth shape data is not?
ME: Genetic bottlenecks can be directly observed and directly confirmed. Chemical reactions are binary. They either occur or they don't, and they can be confirmed by independent agents anywhere at any time. The shape of the Earth, ultimately, is only directly observed by the scant few people who venture into space. The rest is trust in our instruments. Chemistry is direct observation of the facts. For the direct confirmation of the Earth's shape, we must rely on the scant few's say-so and pictures which we cannot ensure are accurate to the same degree we can ensure chemical reactions are accurate. In other words, chemistry trumps say-so and pictures every time.
KAB: There's more to genetic bottlenecks than chemistry.
ME: Actually, no. Every genetic bottleneck that has been identified is nothing more than a series of chemical reactions. You have no idea how DNA tests are done or genomes are cataloged, do you?
KAB: Perhaps I have a better idea than you, and you can only prove otherwise by providing some confirming data which you know I am eager to see anyway. Why do I provide and want to see data, and your side tends not to do so?
So, I say DNA tests are chemical. You say there's more to it than chemistry. Then, you say that you're right until I prove you wrong. And, you say that you provide data despite a constant refrain of us having to prove your claims wrong. You're a liar, an obfuscator, and a bullshit artist who cares more about old stories than reality.
You think there's more to DNA tests than chemistry? Great. Prove it. Support your claim rather than demanding that we disprove your claims. You made the claim, you have the burden of proof. Follow the rules of logic or admit that you have nothing to back your claims and you're just making shit up.
Thanks for providing the data. Now we have something with which to establish the truth. I see where your mind slipped out of gear and you lost it. I quote you from above,

"So, I say DNA tests are chemical. You say there's more to it than chemistry."

I did not state that there is more to "DNA tests" than chemistry, did I? I also did not state that DNA tests are not chemical.
QED

For the record, I will confidently state that you have a reasoning/comprehension problem, as manifest again in this case. You can quote me on that!
KAB

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110177
Feb 13, 2013
 
Thomas Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
As I recall, Chimney1 once wrote a post which went over this.
He explained that our ancestors lived in a place in eastern Africa where the jungle was turning into savannah land.
This made it necessary for our ancestors to adapt to savannah land.
Meanwhile, other species of monkeys and apes were doing just fine where there they were.
Chimney1's post should explain the why-are-there-still-monkeys question quite adequately.
Did you miss that post? Or did you merely decide to ignore it?
<quoted text>
That's quite a double bind you got us in, Marky Boy!
If there isn't a smooth fossil succession, you can complain about the missing links.
If there is a smooth fossil succession, you can say "you can't define the difference between the two."
<quoted text>
What you say is not true of the cheetahs.
They all look alike because they went through a bottleneck.
If there were a world flood in 2500 BC, as you say there was, we would all look alike too.
Why would we all look alike if the handfull of individuals who survived the flood didn't all look alike?
marksman11

Asheville, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110178
Feb 13, 2013
 
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi marksman, how have you been? I hope everything is going well.
Doing great, I hope you are too!
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you may have a problem with logic here and not a small problem with science. Since you have been asking for three years, give or take, what divides human from non-human it should be your responsibility to define human.
You say I have a problem with logic, and then want me to give the answer to the question I've been asking you guys?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110179
Feb 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I do not deny saying what I said. I deny saying what I didn't say. I didn't say DNA determinations are not chemical reaction based, and you can only prove otherwise by quoting me, and per usual with you, you won't. So that leaves you with the ball on the liars side of the court.
There's more to genetic bottlenecks than chemistry.

Did you say this or not?

As soon as you show us that there's something more to DNA testing, which is how genetic bottlenecks are detected, than chemistry, you will have provided data. Your claim will have been supported with evidence. Wouldn't that be interesting, to support your claims with evidence, rather than simply insisting that everyone else disprove your claims?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110180
Feb 13, 2013
 
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Creationism fits perfectly with the observed facts, and the origin of life, which will always alude the materialists!

How does creationism explain the observed fact of evolution?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110181
Feb 13, 2013
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for providing the data. Now we have something with which to establish the truth. I see where your mind slipped out of gear and you lost it. I quote you from above,
"So, I say DNA tests are chemical. You say there's more to it than chemistry."
I did not state that there is more to "DNA tests" than chemistry, did I? I also did not state that DNA tests are not chemical.
QED
For the record, I will confidently state that you have a reasoning/comprehension problem, as manifest again in this case. You can quote me on that!
If you're going to detect genetic bottlenecks, it will require DNA testing to detect them. And, as DNA is nothing more than chemistry, there is absolutely nothing more to genetic bottlenecks nor detecting them than chemistry, you are wrong. I am right. QED. Suck balls.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110182
Feb 13, 2013
 
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>If you choose to believe that, cool. THat is up to you. You are allowed your faith based beliefs just like everyone else. Human from non-human evolutionists beliefs are faith based too, but the difference is, they won't admit it.

Science is not based on faith. It is based on the scientific method.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110183
Feb 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
Anyway, I reported in the other forum that I don't spend much time in this forum any more becaues I find it disappointing that after two years educated people are still trying to communicate with KAB.


I admit that is a bit embarrassing.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110184
Feb 13, 2013
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Your thinking has repeatedly proven to be detrimental to progress. Please provide some data for your tens of thousands of years assertion. Otherwise, only those gullible enough to believe dataless statements without seeing the data will believe you.

Your thinking has repeatedly proven to be detrimental to progress. Please provide some data for your tens of thousands of years assertion. Otherwise, only those gullible enough to believe dataless statements without seeing the data will believe you.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110185
Feb 13, 2013
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Following your suggestion would be an ineffective/inefficient use of resource. You are making very specific points. Provide the corresponding specific data confirming those points. In general, that might be no more than a few lines per point from all that material you reference. If you make the assertions, presumably you know what that material is and specifically where it is located. Thus, you are best suited to most efficiently provide it.

Ah. More assertions.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110186
Feb 13, 2013
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact that you knew which part of your previous post to repeat acknowledges your recognition that my response addresses your request. So, until/unless you demonstrate error in my response by providing appropriate data, we are done for now.

Circular reasoning. Using the term 'reasoning' very loosely.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 108,121 - 108,140 of132,830
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••