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

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 ... Full Story

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110208 Feb 13, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Please explain. That's an opportunity to demonstrate ability to use data effectively. Go for it!

Her ability to use data is not in question. Your ability to comprehend it without your bias is.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#110209 Feb 13, 2013
All right, then, maybe not exactly alike, but darn close.
There is very little difference between one cheetah and another cheetah, and their bottleneck was a lot longer ago than 2500 BC.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#110210 Feb 13, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I meant the/a word for "god" in whatever language you choose to consider.
But you insist on "global flood" in English.

Sorry, Sunshine, that horse don't jump.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#110211 Feb 13, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
No, only up to about 6,000 years ago.
Hmm.

6,000 years ago the Sumerian civilization was already at its height.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#110212 Feb 13, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Not all bottlenecks are discernible, and their timing is determined based on gene variation related assumptions. In short, it's educated guesswork. At least that's my present understanding. I am prepared to change that based on the specific data and/or references you provide.
And is your understanding greater or less than that of the experts in the field? Why should you trust YOUR understanding and not that of people who have devoted, collectively, tens of thousands of years studying and learning about this very subject? I'm not saying to blindly accept, but you do recognize that the odds of the ignorant being right about something about which they are ignorant versus the odds of the expert being right about something about which they are expert are inversely proportionate, yes? You don't go to a doctor, ask him what he thinks, and then compare that with your personal understanding of disease/injury/etc. and decide if you're going to overrule his judgement, do you? You might seek out another expert, but would you simply allow yourself to use your own ill-informed understanding to trump the expert opinion of someone educated in that field, much less a few, much less hundreds, much less tens of thousands? The odds of you being right and them being wrong are so preposterous that you must be wildly delusional to give it a modicum of consideration. That you think you should accept your own ignorance over the knowledge of the world says a lot about your standards of evidence. Once again, it's "whatever I say must be true until someone proves me wrong." That's invalid reasoning. You should always begin with the premise that your personal understanding is wrong. As soon as you begin doing that, you'll stop being such a horse's ass.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#110213 Feb 13, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
All right, then, maybe not exactly alike, but darn close.
There is very little difference between one cheetah and another cheetah, and their bottleneck was a lot longer ago than 2500 BC.
Here's a reference and a quote from it indicating the accuracy of the cheetah bottleneck estimate,

"If the mutation rate of the feline FCZ8
family is comparable to the above four rates, the time
required to produce the cheetah's level of variation would be
estimated respectively at 3,529, 6,000, 11,765, and 12,766
years."

In short, it could have been 4500 years ago. What's next?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4...
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#110214 Feb 14, 2013
Elohim wrote:
<quoted text>Creationism is ALL about religion, no science involved what so ever.
Complexity is not measurable?
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#110215 Feb 14, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, now show us something that's actually supernatural, so far nothing has been presented, ever, that cannot be analyzed using the scientific method.
The supernatural is not obserbable. If it was it could be examined by science, but science is unqualified to deal with the supernatural by definition. You act as if everything can be explained by science. Far from it sister. Please explain how evolution accounts for consciousness.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#110216 Feb 14, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
Adam rib eve.
The church wrote your bible. So even if you still go with their bible it's still there opinions.
Jeremiah is ancient-old history and has nothing to do with the NT who's very name is declaration of voiding the Tanakh.
And the perception of the the law and the old god being declared nil and void.
Precicely qouting john 1 makes that obvious. John is nothing but a reflection of the debate and theology of the church fathers.
You can believe that if you want too. I have another take on it!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110217 Feb 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's a reference and a quote from it indicating the accuracy of the cheetah bottleneck estimate,
"If the mutation rate of the feline FCZ8
family is comparable to the above four rates, the time
required to produce the cheetah's level of variation would be
estimated respectively at 3,529, 6,000, 11,765, and 12,766
years."
In short, it could have been 4500 years ago. What's next?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4...

So the Data says it would have taken longer. But you assert that it would not have taken as long.

And a cheetah is one of your best case examples.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110218 Feb 14, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Complexity is not measurable?

That is correct. It is a relative term. It is an adj., a word used to modify another word. It has no meaning on its own.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110219 Feb 14, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>The supernatural is not obserbable. If it was it could be examined by science, but science is unqualified to deal with the supernatural by definition. You act as if everything can be explained by science. Far from it sister. Please explain how evolution accounts for consciousness.

If the supernatural is not observable then why should we believe it exists?

The fact that we do not have a good grasp on consciousness does not mean that there is no biological or evolutionary reason for it. That assumption is Appeal to Ignorance.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110220 Feb 14, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>You can believe that if you want too. I have another take on it!

Your 'take' is a product of modern theology and is not the understanding that people at that time and place would have had.
15th Dalai Lama

Rio Rancho, NM

#110221 Feb 14, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Complexity is not measurable?
Good morning, marksman. I hope you and your loved ones are well.

It appears elohim doesn't have the firm grasp of statistical mechanics that you and I share.

God bless you.
15th Dalai Lama

Rio Rancho, NM

#110222 Feb 14, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>The supernatural is not obserbable. If it was it could be examined by science, but science is unqualified to deal with the supernatural by definition. You act as if everything can be explained by science. Far from it sister. Please explain how evolution accounts for consciousness.
Evolution accounts for consciousness just as Matthew does, just without that blessed confusing layer.

Matthew 13:16
But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.
15th Dalai Lama

Rio Rancho, NM

#110223 Feb 14, 2013
Blessed are the confused, for they shall inherit right wing politics.
-- I said that.
KAB

United States

#110225 Feb 14, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>But you insist on "global flood" in English.
Sorry, Sunshine, that horse don't jump.
No, I don't.
KAB

United States

#110226 Feb 14, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Hmm.
6,000 years ago the Sumerian civilization was already at its height.
Not without confirming data. You can state anything you want, but can you confirm it as true?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110227 Feb 14, 2013
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
Good morning, marksman. I hope you and your loved ones are well.
It appears elohim doesn't have the firm grasp of statistical mechanics that you and I share.
God bless you.

LOL. Been missing your humor DL!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110228 Feb 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I don't.

I love this. Disingenuous to the core, but not an outright lie.

Kudos!

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.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 20 min One way or another 176,845
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr JM_Brazil 149,410
Creationism isn't a science and doesn't belong ... 1 hr Iconoclast 1 625
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr One way or another 16,711
Birds Evolved From Dinosaurs Slowly—Then Took Off 6 hr Denisova 12
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 16 hr Denisova 1,345
Brainwashed: Christian school taught Intelligen... 16 hr Denisova 6
More from around the web