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 5,412)

Showing posts 108,221 - 108,240 of133,950
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
KAB

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110272
Feb 14, 2013
 
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
For the same reason you do. Cognitive bias.
<quoted text>
You are incredulous about your incredulity! Now THAT if funny!
In other words, she didn't understand the info (i.e., blinded herself to its meaning). Objectivity is critical in such an exercise.
KAB

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110273
Feb 14, 2013
 
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
This is a lie. The corroborating data all gave higher values and you have implicitly chosen the only one that conforms to your cult indoctrination.
The best answer of 10,000 years is a close approximation to the average with some weighting toward the more reliable measures.
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
It does not matter. If there were 200 data points and 199 were 50,000 years or more and one stated 4,000 years you would pick the 4,000 years every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
So, is 10,000 years the correct answer? Is that what the scientific process confirms?
KAB

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110274
Feb 14, 2013
 
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Certainly. You went with number that was easiest to rationalize into your world view.
I haven't "gone" with any number. I have merely noted that, according to the data, the correct answer could be 4500. It could also be 20,000 or 10,000.
KAB

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110275
Feb 14, 2013
 
Thomas Robertson wrote:
KAB, that was an excellent quote mine.
I don't know which one I like better,
this one or the one which marksman11 made from Eugenie Scott's book.
How do you suggest calling attention to a specific quote, by just citing an entire article? That's not very considerate of those who then must find it for themselves.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110276
Feb 14, 2013
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you suggest calling attention to a specific quote, by just citing an entire article? That's not very considerate of those who then must find it for themselves.
You don't know what quote mining is, or you're denying it so you can keep using this type of lie. It is a lie, because you are misrepresenting the quote to make your fallacious points.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110277
Feb 14, 2013
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I haven't "gone" with any number. I have merely noted that, according to the data, the correct answer could be 4500. It could also be 20,000 or 10,000.
No, you chose a creationist number, and then you prove that creationism has nothing scientific, in science you don't make up numbers like that.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110278
Feb 14, 2013
 
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Now he is being deliberately obtuse?
NOW he is being deliberately obtuse?!!
When has KAB EVER NOT been deliberately obtuse?
EVER!?
I bet you that his next post will be deliberately obtuse!
What kind of odds do you need?
*sigh*

I know, I know - but the Qur'an enjoins us to be kind to the Afflicted of Allah.

I'm not Muslim, of course, but I'm sorta soft-hearted.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110279
Feb 15, 2013
 
I wonder if TR allready has argumentum ad ignoram in his list.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110280
Feb 15, 2013
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
In other words, she didn't understand the info (i.e., blinded herself to its meaning). Objectivity is critical in such an exercise.

Nope, she understood it just fine. Dr's are inherently more objective than the patient who has been given bad news.

When did you embrace objectivity or do you believe that you are seriously objective???

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110281
Feb 15, 2013
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
So, is 10,000 years the correct answer? Is that what the scientific process confirms?

Science is a series of successive approximations. Based on all the data 10,000 is a better answer.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110282
Feb 15, 2013
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I haven't "gone" with any number. I have merely noted that, according to the data, the correct answer could be 4500. It could also be 20,000 or 10,000.

True, it could. But when you have 4 different measures of a phenomena generally the average is the best estimate. The more measures you have and the better the cross correlation Scientists are loath to throw away data, especially when all the data appears to be of high quality and represent unique (unrelated) methodologies.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110283
Feb 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you suggest calling attention to a specific quote, by just citing an entire article? That's not very considerate of those who then must find it for themselves.

Quote-mining is specifically quoting something out of larger context so it appears to be saying something that is not.

Is is not hard to find a specific quote in even a large article using search function.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110284
Feb 15, 2013
 
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
What is the definition of "consciousness" that you're using? Self-awareness?
I guess to be aware of your surroundings and relating with it.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110285
Feb 15, 2013
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
If it is not observable, then how is it that people see it?
I don't know anyone that has. Give me an example.
LowellGuy

Lawrence, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110286
Feb 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I don't know anyone that has. Give me an example.
For someone who can see things like electrons and explanations, the supernatural should be a breeze!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110287
Feb 15, 2013
 
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I guess to be aware of your surroundings and relating with it.

All animals do that.
KAB

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110288
Feb 15, 2013
 
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Good grief. Now you're being deliberately obtuse.
We have their buildings, their artwork, their sculpture, their writing.
Here, I'll let the British Museum introduce you:
http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/cultures...
Thanks for the reference, but there's no data there for Sumerian culture at its height 6000 years ago (4500 maybe).
KAB

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110289
Feb 15, 2013
 
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
And the other thing is that you always have to see the whole picture.
So radiometry, archeology, geology, anthropology, DNA and later written accounts corroborated with accounts from surrounding regions.
Radiometric dating would thus strongly suggest a connection, but the precise connections, or corroborating data, come from combining all diciplines.
So provide some connected data (i.e., connect the dots).
KAB

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110290
Feb 15, 2013
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't know what quote mining is, or you're denying it so you can keep using this type of lie. It is a lie, because you are misrepresenting the quote to make your fallacious points.
If it's a misrepresentation then you can explain how/what I misrepresented. In doing so, please quote me to make your point. Otherwise, whatever you attribute to me will actually be you misrepresenting the author(s) and me.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110291
Feb 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

MAAT wrote:
I wonder if TR allready has argumentum ad ignoram in his list.
I sure do.
Paleontologists have not been able to find an ancestor for the pteranodon.
On page 429 of Science and Earth History,
Strahler admits this.
On pages 66-67 of the 1976 publication of Evolution: The fossils Say NO, Duane Gish wrote, "They did not evolve--they were created."

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 108,221 - 108,240 of133,950
|
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.

•••
•••