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

#111506 Mar 2, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Says who? YOU? Who died and left you are the geolofical authority of all things historically?


She simply states scientific truth. I know reality pisses you off, but so it goes.
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> Sure there is. Great canyons, marine fossils on mountain tops.....


Refuted in last post.
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> All interpretation, and possibly true, but you are taking someones word for it that also wasn't there.


But the evidence WAS there. That is the point.

marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> I'm not denying it. It may or may not have happened. I'm saying you have no idea if there was a global flood or not.


Sorry, but she does know as the evidence is conclusive.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111507 Mar 2, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>No you can't.

Yes, we can.

You, on the other hand, are force to have faith in something which is against the scientific evidence.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#111508 Mar 2, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, so then you are not talking about the bible but are instead talking about the Hebrew myths, that's a totally different subject than your christian bible.
My Bible is essentially what the oldest available writings support.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111509 Mar 2, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Does the K-T iridium layer exist universally around the earth?

Yes.

KAB wrote:
<quoted text> Another rational explanation for the lack of readily identifiable global flood evidence in the geological record is that it was different from the other things you mentioned.

Yes, there were people living before, DURING and after the flood. Civilization did not skip a beat. Rationalize this all you want.

KAB wrote:
<quoted text> There are two critical pieces of info you didn't provide. 1) How much force would it take to top..........tainly they would be wet until they were no longer in the water.

Neither are issues.

The no-brainer here seems to be that you didn't research any info before making your assertions. That is typical for you.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#111510 Mar 2, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
That's called "leading the evidence" and "confirmation bias." You have a conclusion, and as long as there's ANYTHING that could in ANY way be construed as supportive of that conclusion, that makes your conclusion valid, and anything that doesn't support it is either erroneous or can just be ignored. That's not an honest, rational, scientific approach to investigating natural phenomena. Why do you think your approach, which has NEVER yielded useful results, should be favored over the one approach that has been the way all useful technologies, innovations, and discoveries have been made?
I don't think the approach you disdainfully (that's code for non-objective) describe should be favored. That's why it's not my approach.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111512 Mar 2, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
My Bible is essentially what the oldest available writings support.

This is false. Your bible is essentially what the WatchTower wants you to believe. It was translated by amateurs to conform to JW doctrine. It has been rewritten since then to continue to conform to (ever changing) W.T. doctrine.

You believe a fraud.

It is so sad.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#111513 Mar 2, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
My Bible is essentially what the oldest available writings support.
That would be three gospels (not even that but okay)no John.
Your bible is quite a bit bigger than that.
And you protested against the actual oldest available writing. All christians now do. They simply like what they have now. The earliest writing does not include a trinity not jesus nor christ nor a combination of these and it is not coupled to the hebrew bible, so no daniel either a.s.o.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#111514 Mar 2, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
My Bible is essentially what the oldest available writings support.
Yeah, nope. Ancient Egyptians completely oppose most of your bible. Ancient Aztec writings are extremely different. Ancient Incan writings are different as well. Sumerian, nothing like your bible. Those are the oldest writings that are actual texts. Then there are the cave drawings, a primitive form of writing that is technically not writing but do tell stories ... and they're alien compared to your myths.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#111515 Mar 2, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would I generate a smokescreen? I have no issue with stating that you have provided hard data on this subject, and I'm looking forward to the occasion when I can honestly do so.
As far as Dr. Kring's "position?"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pos...
If he has published any "position" regarding the Barringer crater I have not come across it.
Previously, you didn't specify "this subject" when you made your ZERO data accusation. What was "this subject" anyway? Also, did you cite unpublished info from Dr. Kring?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111516 Mar 2, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>That would be three gospels (not even that but okay)no John.
Your bible is quite a bit bigger than that.
And you protested against the actual oldest available writing. All christians now do. They simply like what they have now. The earliest writing does not include a trinity not jesus nor christ nor a combination of these and it is not coupled to the hebrew bible, so no daniel either a.s.o.

Th JWbabble includes all of the last chapter of Mark when it is missing from all of the earliest versions. Another proof of KABs error.


KAB

Oxford, NC

#111518 Mar 2, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
For all species at all times that would be true, but we have enough to prove evolution is true.
You're entitled to your opinion.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#111519 Mar 2, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Previously, you didn't specify "this subject" when you made your ZERO data accusation. What was "this subject" anyway? Also, did you cite unpublished info from Dr. Kring?
My "zero data accusation" is that you don't have any data. Again, when you supply some, I will recognize you for it. Until then, you have nothing but a transparently childish game.
I have not strayed from the subject of illuminating the mythology of Da Flud. Keep up.
I have provided links to crater relevant sites. If you had bothered to access them, you might have discovered Dr. Kring's publication. You have your homework assignment - go fetch data and post the link when you find it.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#111520 Mar 2, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but you did not post it here so it is not data. You rule, not mine.
I accept reference to specific data, such as I provide(ed). I even accept assertions which are acknowledged as correct by both sides.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#111521 Mar 2, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Likewise, is it not hard for evolution to appear to have happened when it has.
Perhaps that's why when ALL the data is considered, evolution doesn't appear to have happened.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#111522 Mar 2, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
You are very confused about science. Science does not work in assertions. That is the purview of science ignorant, dishonest, creotards.
Someone who makes statements which are not even related to the statements to which he is responding is confused, as you managed with the above.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111523 Mar 2, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You're entitled to your opinion.

Yes, and if evolution were an opinion I would be entitle to it. But since it is an observed fact opinion is not necessary.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111524 Mar 2, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
My "zero data accusation" is that you don't have any data. Again, when you supply some, I will recognize you for it. Until then, you have nothing but a transparently childish game.
I have not strayed from the subject of illuminating the mythology of Da Flud. Keep up.
I have provided links to crater relevant sites. If you had bothered to access them, you might have discovered Dr. Kring's publication. You have your homework assignment - go fetch data and post the link when you find it.

Like that is going to happen.

I picture KAB as a 475 lb. guy who would weigh more but he is sometimes to lazy to eat more.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111525 Mar 2, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I accept reference to specific data, such as I provide(ed). I even accept assertions which are acknowledged as correct by both sides.

Another (unsupported) assertion.

Blue moons occur more often than you providing relevant data.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111526 Mar 2, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps that's why when ALL the data is considered, evolution doesn't appear to have happened.

Not even an assertion. More like the output of a psychotic break.

Get well soon.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111527 Mar 2, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Someone who makes statements which are not even related to the statements to which he is responding is confused, as you managed with the above.

I'm sorry, but your (dataless) assertion does not seem related to what I posted.

For your refresher:


Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
You are very confused about science. Science does not work in assertions. That is the purview of science ignorant, dishonest, creotards.

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
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 5 min Chimney1 121,051
The Satanic Character of Social Darwinism 22 min Chimney1 719
Darwin on the rocks 29 min Chimney1 367
Bobby Jindal: "I'm Not an Evolutionary Biologist" 10 hr Dogen 380
Monkey VS Man Oct 19 Bluenose 14
Charles Darwin's credentials and Evolution Oct 19 TurkanaBoy 204
There is no scientific evidence whatsoever for ... Oct 17 Discord 431

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE