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

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

There are 163695 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.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#110318 Feb 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
By your own accounting you represent a potentially valuable resource to this effort. Please start providing data references with each item in your steady stream of assertions. Unconfirmed, the assertions are worthless. Organizing your thoughts rather than spewing them out randomly would also be an immense help. Your trademark style could make one think you were getting wrapped up in your shorts!
Over the course of this line people have given you about a thousand books worth of compressed data.
You are ungratefull and do not understand how to appreciate your luck.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#110319 Feb 16, 2013
Not how to access the data..you of all things start complaining when you get data.

Who said we also have to do your organizing and thinking for you!
Get a secretary.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110320 Feb 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for the reference. It's good exercise for you pursuant to beneficial pattern building. But alas, still no dating data. At least now you're providing references. Now if we can only get you to select worthwhile ones, you'll be positioned to make a valuable contribution.

Perhaps we need to have you look up the word "data".

"about that word you keep using; I do not a think it means what you think it means". Inigo Montoya - The Princess Bride.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110321 Feb 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Ussher is most certainly probably wrong, but not the Bible.

Ussher did a very careful analysis. Others who have replicated his research have come up with very similar figures.

Interesting that you accept the infallibility of the bible (without data) and lock out the possibility that you are wrong. This sets you up for a life filled with confirmation bias.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110322 Feb 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You must not have visited the British Museum site since most of the artifacts there were dated to about 4500 years ago.

The British museum has plenty of human (pre-human) artifacts from 1.5 - 2 million years ago.

http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highligh...

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110323 Feb 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It's sufficient for now that we agree the actual bottleneck time could have been 4500 years ago. As you note, that's the nature of the data.

That ignores correct and appropriate scientific use of the data. The best estimate will take into account all valid data. That gives a figure of 10,000 years, as the researchers correctly state.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110324 Feb 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
She may have liked her choice the best, but as you've told the story, she knew it was not the best course for her immediate health.

She, like you, picked the opinion she liked the best. She did not know which was best. She, like you, failed to account for all the data. She, unlike you, suffered the consequence of poor logic.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110325 Feb 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Ussher gave his understanding of Bible chronology. A lot of discovery has gone under the bridge since then. The best understanding obtainable today is not exactly the same as his. Yes Virginia, 4 is 4, but 4 is definitely not 3. No thanks for continuing to lack ability to discern legitimate possibilities.

LOL. The funniest part of your thought process is that we see right through it but you don't.

As predicted by the Johari window.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#110326 Feb 16, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
They STILL haven't changed those tags?...shame on them.
Go to a modern well kept museum such as the Smithsonian--you'll be amazed.
The British Museum was a reference provided by your side.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#110328 Feb 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The British Museum was a reference provided by your side.
Nevertheless its amazing that when you look all the tags show 4500 y.o.

:P
KAB

Wilson, NC

#110329 Feb 16, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Who is "we"?
You and who else?
Me and Dogen. He's starting to show the beginnings of understanding probability. What about you? Do you recognize that the data allows that the actual bottleneck could have been 4500 years ago even tho, based on that data alone, 10,000 is more probable?
KAB

Wilson, NC

#110330 Feb 16, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
That ignores correct and appropriate scientific use of the data. The best estimate will take into account all valid data. That gives a figure of 10,000 years, as the researchers correctly state.
Does the most probable answer based on a particular set of data always prove to be correct?
KAB

Wilson, NC

#110331 Feb 16, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
She, like you, picked the opinion she liked the best. She did not know which was best. She, like you, failed to account for all the data. She, unlike you, suffered the consequence of poor logic.
Actually, I am the one accounting for more of the data. You are only using the data from that one study, and even that allows the possibility that the answer could be 4500 years.

BTW, previously you stated that she perfectly understood the info provided. Bob says this reminds him of some goal post principle. Do you know what he means?
KAB

Wilson, NC

#110332 Feb 16, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
Nevertheless its amazing that when you look all the tags show 4500 y.o.
:P
They don't all show 4500. I didn't do an exhaustive search (it would have been exhausting), but although I tried to select items which seemed most likely to be among the oldest and made selections from each of the types, nothing I tried was dated even close to 6,000 years old.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#110333 Feb 16, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps we need to have you look up the word "data".
"about that word you keep using; I do not a think it means what you think it means". Inigo Montoya - The Princess Bride.
From Webster's Online,

Data: factual information (as measurements or statistics) used as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or calculation

Sure enough that's what I mean. So a statement about data is not the data itself, and I'll keep using that word since it means exactly what I think it means.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#110334 Feb 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
They don't all show 4500. I didn't do an exhaustive search (it would have been exhausting), but although I tried to select items which seemed most likely to be among the oldest and made selections from each of the types, nothing I tried was dated even close to 6,000 years old.
Heavy sigh.

You could also have looked at the preceeding Ubaid culture.
It's a sliding scale.

A.)How to get to a reasonable mean. You discount the numbers that are too far out. You will left with a group that comes close together.
So we do not say, this is it, but the data suggest that the most probable date for this event lies around 10,000 years.

Dogen can explain it again, if he wants to.

Moving the goalpost is changing the question by adding to it.
Ape to human becomes non-human to human, becomes abiogenesis to human.
In ordinary everyday life it would be the experience that you can not break of the conversation because the person keeps adding to the question. It appears to be the same question but it is not.
We state and explain A.) as we did.
You state A.)+ but which one of the dates around it is the real one
We state: anything around A.)
You state but if A.)+ does not give a correct precise date then B.) is also an option since it was in the numbers too.
Reasoning: You people have more options for A.)so more uncertainty therefore B.)that is only singularly attested, is thus right, based on it's uniqueness.
Well you forget the one on the other side of the spectrum that is also singularly attested. And that we also dismissed precisely because it is anomalous. An artefact, false data that also needs explaining in terms of what was done wrong.
That's the method to deal with data, especially if you have various sources.
The only exception to not consider abberations from the norm false or artefacts would be very convincing proof that states otherwise.
So it would not be because you did not stay long enough in the museum.

And bob will explain your question on the shifting goalpost more concise, if he wants to.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#110335 Feb 16, 2013
Apropos of nothing:
Baal had a son called Jesub. His mother was Mari hAnat.
Baal died and was resurrected.
Talk about prototypes.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110336 Feb 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, I am the one accounting for more of the data. You are only using the data from that one study, and even that allows the possibility that the answer could be 4500 years.

What other scientific data do you have? All the data from anthopology, paleontology, paleobiology, geology, genetics,...... say life was thriving 4,500 years ago and for hundreds of millions of years before that.

KAB wrote:
<quoted text> BTW, previously you stated that she perfectly understood the info provided. Bob says this reminds him of some goal post principle. Do you know what he means?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110337 Feb 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
They don't all show 4500. I didn't do an exhaustive search (it would have been exhausting), but although I tried to select items which seemed most likely to be among the oldest and made selections from each of the types, nothing I tried was dated even close to 6,000 years old.

Each of what types?

I have a trilobite fossil that is about 450 million years old.

I have seen a pre-human skulls that dated from 10,000 to 4.7 million years old at the Museum of Natural history in DC.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110338 Feb 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
From Webster's Online,
Data: factual information (as measurements or statistics) used as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or calculation
Sure enough that's what I mean. So a statement about data is not the data itself, and I'll keep using that word since it means exactly what I think it means.

You posted part of a definition but even that segment shows you are wrong.

From Webster's Online,

Data: factual information (as measurements or statistics) used as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or calculation

What was posted was factual information which COULD have been used for reasoning or discussion.

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
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 hr u196533dm 79,743
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 15 hr Agents of Corruption 222,728
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) Sun Dogen 32,575
Life started in Tennessee proof. Sep 15 Science4life 1
What's your religion? Sep 8 Ateesiks 1
Science News (Sep '13) Sep 8 Ricky F 4,001
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... Sep 7 Science 1,932
More from around the web