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

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

There are 154640 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.

KAB

Wilson, NC

#111910 Mar 9, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, that has been exactly my experience with JW's in my neighborhood. We seem to have finally driven them off after years of them coming through with their cartoon tracks.
You did not respond to the post. You just took one observation (of the data) that you did not like. Tough noogies.
Answer the post.
I told you that when I see a specific item provided, I guarantee a response to that specific item.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#111912 Mar 9, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
As we have never found any "demonstrated reliable source" that is satisfactory to all why not give up on this artificial (and meaningless) construct and simply support what you are saying with the best sources available.
Best sources available works for me.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#111913 Mar 9, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
What about the assertion that the bible is confirmed reliable without your providing confirming data. You must object to that.
Second, your standards are as out of wack as I suggested. Something that is nearly infinitely improbable is not acceptable for ideas or speculation. Underground cities of gnomes are not impossible but we (both) discount them. Maybe we should be discussions the possibility of underground gnome cities. Seems to be at least as probable as global floods with water that does not exist.
Finally, 100% certain only applies to 2 things, cogito ergo sum, and 1st person reports. Even gravity and evolution are below that (99.99999999% certain or so).
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
You have such a low standard for your data (remotely possible) and such a high standard for sciences (100% proven).
Do the JW's send new zombies to you for hypocrisy training?
I wouldn't bother with the gnome cities. They're not attested by a demonstrated reliable source.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#111914 Mar 9, 2013
Oscar Wilde_ wrote:
<quoted text>NO, science is 100% not based on proof, since science does not deal in proof. You simpletons just hate that, so you have to lie about proof, which is math, not science.
Wow. This is actually something you've got correct (apart from the lying accusation part). I'm happy to go with 96% demonstrated though.

:-)
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#111915 Mar 9, 2013
Guys, just to let you know about Oscar - he's been claiming evolution is wrong because Big Bang. Just thought I'd let everyone know with what level of education they were dealing with,
KAB

Wilson, NC

#111916 Mar 9, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Under the scientific method that is your job.
Right now that is just your assertion.
I'm not the one building a case regarding what happens to salt in a lake. I posed a scenario for the presenter to address. I don't want to steal his thunder, but if he wants to plead he's reached the limit of his knowledge of the topic, I am willing to finish the analysis for him. I would likely provide data for that. Are you and he sure you want to risk me going on the record with data which could come back to haunt you again the next time you foolishly assert that I provide no data?

Bob says you'll risk the further humiliation. That's just the way you are.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#111917 Mar 9, 2013
Oscar Wilde_ wrote:
<quoted text>I know I was lauging at you too. Imagine that, humans with gills who fly up to mountains. I guess these flying human fish were force to separate, some choice to be fish, some choice to be human, some choice to be birds, while ducks and flying fish just were confused.
I just want to know, what happened to Jurassic rat, how come she di not remain, while ape, monkey, whale, and cockroaches remain unexplained. I mean, if the largest mammal ever to exist, the blue whale is here, then size could not be why dinosaurs became extinct.
NEXT
Even the fundies tell you to STFU.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/t...

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#111918 Mar 9, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not the one building a case regarding what happens to salt in a lake. I posed a scenario for the presenter to address. I don't want to steal his thunder, but if he wants to plead he's reached the limit of his knowledge of the topic, I am willing to finish the analysis for him. I would likely provide data for that. Are you and he sure you want to risk me going on the record with data which could come back to haunt you again the next time you foolishly assert that I provide no data?
Bob says you'll risk the further humiliation. That's just the way you are.
Don't you recall that YOU are the presenter of the Pingualuit Crater Lake and its sediments? You provided the link of the abstract and it addresses the low PPM of dissolved salts. Stop stalling and proceed with your case.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#111919 Mar 9, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
"Submerged outlet factor"? We're still talking about Pingualuit Lake (Crater), I assume?
I have read nothing about a 'submerged outlet' in this body of water. In fact, the original source provided
http://www.wondermondo.com/Countries/NA/Canad...
says: "There are no outlets and no significant inlets in this lake."
NO OUTLETS.
Wiki has this: "The lake also holds some of the purest fresh water in the world, with a salinity level of less than 3 ppm (the salinity level of the Great Lakes is 500 ppm). The lake has no inlets or apparent outlets, so the water accumulates solely from rain and snow and is only lost through evaporation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pingualuit_crate...
Do you have data that claims otherwise?
Here's from the reference I cited which reported the unique 4200 year old sediment,

"The lake has no surface connection to other
surrounding water bodies (Fig. 2) and is only fed with precipitation. Nevertheless, the existence of a cryptorheic drainage system (i.e. underground) between the Pingualuit Crater Lake and the neighboring Lake Laflamme (Fig. 3) is strongly suggested by d18O measurements of lake waters from both systems (Ouellet et al., 1989). The groundwater drainage probably occurs along a major and NeS oriented fault plan linking both lakes (Currie, 1965) and would explain the relatively stable level of the Crater Lake (at least over the last decades) despite a positive hydrologic balance. The residence time of the waters in the Crater Lake is estimated at around 330 years (Ouellet et al., 1989)."

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#111920 Mar 9, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
"All testable claims that have been tested have been confirmed true." is not my criterion.
"it needn't be proven false" is not my standard. I have, in fact, asked constantly for the global flood to be proven false.
Being proven false isn't necessary, because we're not out to prove the Bible UNRELIABLE; we're out to prove the Bible RELIABLE. Therefore, until the Noah's flood claim is proven true, there is a testable claim that has been tested that has not been proven true (all testable claims that have been tested must be proven true according to YOUR standard), thus the Bible cannot be deemed reliable, therefore you cannot cite it as a reliable source.

Remember when I told you logic was not your friend, and that answering questions would only lead to the undoing of all your arguments? Remember that? This is that. Right now.

And, rather than argue the merits of the logic, all you're going to do is demand quotes, even though you know that's a dishonest tactic to divert attention (everyone's, including your own) from the fact that I have you dead to rights.

Your standard, REAL logic, TOUGH SHIT.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#111921 Mar 9, 2013
Oscar Wilde_ wrote:
<quoted text>NO, science is 100% not based on proof, since science does not deal in proof. You simpletons just hate that, so you have to lie about proof, which is math, not science.
Aw, it's sad that you're a retard.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#111922 Mar 9, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for asking my position for a change. It is that all claims which are testable to a conclusion of either true or false must be confirmed true. Keep in mind that this is only one part of the complete standard.
Right. And Noah's flood is testable. It is a claim that can be determined true or false. Has it been confirmed true? Remember, it doesn't matter if it has or hasn't been proven false, only whether it's been proven true or not. Has it been proven true?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#111923 Mar 9, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for asking my position for a change. It is that all claims which are testable to a conclusion of either true or false must be confirmed true. Keep in mind that this is only one part of the complete standard.
By the way, I'll accept your apology for you accusing me of getting your stance wrong when YOU JUST CONFIRMED EXACTLY WHAT I SAID IT WAS.

Liar.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#111924 Mar 9, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Science does deal in 100% proven when it can. For example, it's 100% proven that Earth is not cubic in shape.
Wrong. If it's been scientifically confirmed, it is still tentative. ALL science is tentative, even the stuff we think we completely understand. ALWAYS TENTATIVE. NEVER 100%. EVER. Read a science book for a change.
KAB wrote:
For the less than 100%, I accept science for what it is, the best info we have based on physical data. I don't take a 90% probability and declare it certain. That continues to be the unscientific domain of your side.
What part of "ALWAYS TENTATIVE" don't you understand? Is it the "ALWAYS" or the "TENTATIVE?"

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#111925 Mar 9, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
It is now your false conclusion, at least apparently, since you quote it.
There was no global flood per the evidence. Ergo it is proven false. Your denial of such is meaningless.
We don't even need "proven false." All we need is "not proven true." KAB already concedes that there is no empirical evidence-based reason to think such a flood occurred. KAB also concedes that the flood story has not been proven to be true. KAB, therefore, has not determined the Bible to be a reliable source.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#111926 Mar 9, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Being proven false isn't necessary, because we're not out to prove the Bible UNRELIABLE; we're out to prove the Bible RELIABLE. Therefore, until the Noah's flood claim is proven true, there is a testable claim that has been tested that has not been proven true (all testable claims that have been tested must be proven true according to YOUR standard), thus the Bible cannot be deemed reliable, therefore you cannot cite it as a reliable source.
Remember when I told you logic was not your friend, and that answering questions would only lead to the undoing of all your arguments? Remember that? This is that. Right now.
And, rather than argue the merits of the logic, all you're going to do is demand quotes, even though you know that's a dishonest tactic to divert attention (everyone's, including your own) from the fact that I have you dead to rights.
Your standard, REAL logic, TOUGH SHIT.
Pay attention to the wording. Notice I didn't say you have determined it UNRELIABLE, but that you can't cite it as RELIABLE. It's the old "not guilty" versus "innocent" thing. Remember that? Well, we're back on it, because, like so many fundamentalists, that distinction completely baffles the shit out of you. You have failed to prove the flood story, a testable claim, true. If it's a testable claim in the Bible, and it hasn't been proven true, then you can't say all the testable claims in the Bible have been proven true, which means you can't cite the Bible as reliable because it fails to meet your own criteria for reliability. Game, set, match, LOGIC.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#111927 Mar 9, 2013
Oscar Wilde_ wrote:
<quoted text>I know I was lauging at you too. Imagine that, humans with gills who fly up to mountains. I guess these flying human fish were force to separate, some choice to be fish, some choice to be human, some choice to be birds, while ducks and flying fish just were confused.
I just want to know, what happened to Jurassic rat, how come she di not remain, while ape, monkey, whale, and cockroaches remain unexplained. I mean, if the largest mammal ever to exist, the blue whale is here, then size could not be why dinosaurs became extinct.
NEXT
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ZBkjyAWbMNI/Tov958k...
KAB

Wilson, NC

#111928 Mar 9, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Which is exactly why your flood assertion can be dismissed.
How many times do I have to state that I know of no physical data confirming the global flood before your side stops acting as if I have asserted otherwise?
KAB

Wilson, NC

#111929 Mar 9, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
I know it when I see it.
How about Leaves of Grass? Pornography?
How about Grassyass? Pornography or Spanish for Thank You?
KAB

Wilson, NC

#111930 Mar 9, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
No, notions are discarded when new, more well supported, notions are demonstrated more accurate. Science didn't prove the world wasn't flat, it demonstrated that the world's surface was curved. You have to stop thinking backwards if you ever want to progress beyond your Dark Age cavern.
Thank you for contibuting to the understanding of how science has demonstrated that Earth is not cubic in shape!

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) 10 min Brian_G 48,440
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 33 min scientia potentia... 216,630
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 18 hr ChristineM 23,486
Might life have spontaneously have started mill... 20 hr It aint necessari... 638
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 20 hr Aura Mytha 179,708
Richard Dawkins tells the truth 21 hr Timmee 7
Science News (Sep '13) Fri _Susan_ 3,980
More from around the web