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 5,415)

Showing posts 108,281 - 108,300 of134,026
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
KAB

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110339
Feb 16, 2013
 
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
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.

KAB's game

Presuppositions: The bible is always right and I am always right about the bible.

Rules:

1. If I cannot be completely and definitively refuted on a point then I win.

2. I can quibble about anything therefore 1 never happens.

3. I only argue with other people and avoid saying things that can be disputed (though I often fail at that).

4. When I do offer something it has been hand picked to make my point. I just put it out there without risking putting any of my own opinions on the table.

5. ALL of this is just a fancy scheme to maintain my conformation bias and to decrease my own cognitive dissonance about my theological misconceptions.

6. I fancy myself a thinker and my only real aim is rhetoric. I am not schooled in science nor do I wish to become so.

7. I always deal.

8. Dealer takes pushers.
KAB

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110340
Feb 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I looked thru the reference your side provided as proof for its point. I didn't find the proof or anything close. Can you explain how data was provided which didn't contain what was purported? How could the provider not have known that? You don't suppose he would stoop to blindly providing references without first verifying their efficacy do you?

How about this one? He stated that she understood everything perfectly, but when that "fact" didn't fit his predetermined position that she made a bad choice, he moved the goal post to she didn't know what was best.

Good science does not discount good data no matter how far out. Discounting such is a step toward bad answers.

As to your representation of me in your recounting of the exchange thus far, definitely your words/thoughts not mine. It's absolutely not the reasoning I have put forth.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110341
Feb 16, 2013
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The British Museum was a reference provided by your side.
What "side"?

I only ask because I'm the one introduced it, and I didn't know I was on a "side".
LowellGuy

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110342
Feb 16, 2013
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Does the most probable answer based on a particular set of data always prove to be correct?
No, but it is correct (or closest to correct) far more often than others. That's what "most probable" means. It's the smartest option, as it's more likely to be right. But, if you prefer betting on the broke-legged old mare to win, that's your right. She COULD win, but that ain't where the smart money is.
KAB

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110343
Feb 16, 2013
 
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts
You seem to have forgotten that this exchange is (was?) about the cheetah bottleneck, or is this a matter of "if moving the goalposts doesn't win the day then change the game"?
KAB

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110344
Feb 16, 2013
 
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I see you've become disconnected from the thread. It's about the age and continuity of the Sumer civilization, and my reference is to Sumerian artifacts in the British Museum which is a reference I was given by one of your comrades.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110345
Feb 16, 2013
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to have forgotten that this exchange is (was?) about the cheetah bottleneck, or is this a matter of "if moving the goalposts doesn't win the day then change the game"?

KAB's game

Presuppositions: The bible is always right and I am always right about the bible.

Rules:

1. If I cannot be completely and definitively refuted on a point then I win.

2. I can quibble about anything therefore 1 never happens.

3. I only argue with other people and avoid saying things that can be disputed (though I often fail at that).

4. When I do offer something it has been hand picked to make my point. I just put it out there without risking putting any of my own opinions on the table.

5. ALL of this is just a fancy scheme to maintain my conformation bias and to decrease my own cognitive dissonance about my theological misconceptions.

6. I fancy myself a thinker and my only real aim is rhetoric. I am not schooled in science nor do I wish to become so.

7. I always deal.

8. Dealer takes pushers.
KAB

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110346
Feb 16, 2013
 
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Summary statements about data are not the data. A statement such as "The cheetah experienced a bottleneck 10,000 years ago" is not the data. The data is what prompted such a statement to be made but may not warrant the statement as valid.
KAB

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110347
Feb 16, 2013
 
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>What "side"?
I only ask because I'm the one introduced it, and I didn't know I was on a "side".
Are you not on the "no global flood about 4500 years ago" side?
KAB

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110348
Feb 16, 2013
 
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
No, but it is correct (or closest to correct) far more often than others. That's what "most probable" means. It's the smartest option, as it's more likely to be right. But, if you prefer betting on the broke-legged old mare to win, that's your right. She COULD win, but that ain't where the smart money is.
Ah, but I know something you don't know ... the mare is not left-handed!

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110349
Feb 16, 2013
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you not on the "no global flood about 4500 years ago" side?
That's not a "side".

That's a fact.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110350
Feb 16, 2013
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I see you've become disconnected from the thread. It's about the age and continuity of the Sumer civilization, and my reference is to Sumerian artifacts in the British Museum which is a reference I was given by one of your comrades.

Reference to larger reality just demonstrates again how foolish your whole argument is. You need to believe crazy things in order to rationalize your religious beliefs (the larger context of this discussion). Summer is only one of the civilizations that were existing before, after and (oddly) DURING the alleged global flood.

Your choice to believe nonsense is your choice. I'm just saying what the facts are.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110351
Feb 16, 2013
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Summary statements about data are not the data. A statement such as "The cheetah experienced a bottleneck 10,000 years ago" is not the data. The data is what prompted such a statement to be made but may not warrant the statement as valid.

Your statement about summary statements about data are not the data. A statements such as "A statement such as "The cheetah experienced a bottleneck 10,000 years ago" is not the data" is not the data. Your statement that "The data is what prompted such a statement to be made but may not warrant the statement as valid" may not be warranted as a valid statement.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110352
Feb 16, 2013
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you not on the "no global flood about 4500 years ago" side?

That is not a side. That is orientation to factual reality and an absence of delusional ideation on the subject.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 108,281 - 108,300 of134,026
|
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.

•••
•••