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 5,494)

Showing posts 109,861 - 109,880 of132,830
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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!
KAB

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#111931
Mar 9, 2013
 
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think you understand your question.
The crater is 1.5 million years old (or just a tad less).
Indeed it is.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#111932
Mar 9, 2013
 
Oscar Wilde_ wrote:
<quoted text>Obviously, it is you who does not care about science. Are you claiming to be 99% alive or 100%? Is your mom 99% human and 1% dog or 100%? Is your dad 90% a pedophile and 10% not? Are you 90% a rapist and 10% not? No, your claim to science is junk science. You claim that the universe evolved some 11 to 14.5 billion years ago, so is 1+1 some 1 to 10,000 number or 2? You ue biology, so is a fish a donkey and a donkey a rat, or are humans of the bird species or mammal or something of scientific delusion.
Actually, the "human genome" mapped out is about 98% human, the other 2% will vary within the species. Once it hits about 2% difference it is another species.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#111933
Mar 9, 2013
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for contibuting to the understanding of how science has demonstrated that Earth is not cubic in shape!
You did not read a single word of my post.
KAB

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#111934
Mar 9, 2013
 
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
And it is constantly proven false.
<quoted text>
The abstract indicates that the last of the Laurentide Sheet uncovered the crater 6,850 +/- BP. Do you have a point or does the GB ban you from such things for yourself?
The previous period of glaciation is of no consequence to this discussion.
Then why did you mention glacial over-topping when it was all prior to 4500 years ago?
KAB

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#111935
Mar 9, 2013
 
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I already made my case. There's a hole in the bottom.
KAB

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#111936
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.
Your words, not mine. Quoting me is the only way to prove otherwise, and you've made it quite clear that can't be done.
KAB

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#111937
Mar 9, 2013
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You did not read a single word of my post.
You are correct. I did not read a single word of your post. I read every word.
KAB

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#111938
Mar 9, 2013
 
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
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 part of testable to one of two conclusions do you not understand? Imagine yourself testing something. You are unable to confirm that it is true, and you are unable to confirm that it is false. You (well not you but anyone else) comes to the realization that you are unable to test to either one of the two conclusions. Therefore, the item does not meet the above criterion. Now that's an elaboration on MY standard.
KAB

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#111939
Mar 9, 2013
 
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
What part of "ALWAYS TENTATIVE" don't you understand? Is it the "ALWAYS" or the "TENTATIVE?"
I understand that the assertion came from you, not from science.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

L.A.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#111940
Mar 9, 2013
 
Researchers have just recently found chemical precursors to RNA and DNA in space. We already know that oxygen and water are found all over space.

Now NASA funded researchers have found DNA in space. There….components of life floating around in space….maybe just waiting for a planet to ‘colonize’

Our telescopes and other instruments in space have found over 2700 planets circling other stars nearby. Our galaxy is said to have 250 billion stars in it. Our universe is said to have 250 billion galaxies in it.

“wonder how many planets there are that can support life as we kinda’ know it??

You know….I think life is everywhere in our universe.

From the NASA website:

“NASA-funded researchers have evidence that some building blocks of DNA, the molecule that carries the genetic instructions for life, found in meteorites were likely created in space. The research gives support to the theory that a "kit" of ready-made parts created in space and delivered to Earth by meteorite and comet impacts assisted the origin of life.

"People have been discovering components of DNA in meteorites since the 1960's, but researchers were unsure whether they were really created in space or if instead they came from contamination by terrestrial life," said Dr. Michael Callahan of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. "For the first time, we have three lines of evidence that together give us confidence these DNA building blocks actually were created in space." Callahan is lead author of a paper on the discovery appearing in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.”

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/featur...

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#111941
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.

Why are you agreeing with me and dissing my colloquial use of the word proof?

BTW, proof also exists in logic. At least in theory.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#111942
Mar 9, 2013
 
Oscar Wilde_ wrote:
<quoted text>Obviously, it is you who does not care about science. Are you claiming to be 99% alive or 100%? Is your mom 99% human and 1% dog or 100%? Is your dad 90% a pedophile and 10% not? Are you 90% a rapist and 10% not? No, your claim to science is junk science. You claim that the universe evolved some 11 to 14.5 billion years ago, so is 1+1 some 1 to 10,000 number or 2? You ue biology, so is a fish a donkey and a donkey a rat, or are humans of the bird species or mammal or something of scientific delusion.

Your post did not make much sense. Maybe try again when you are sober.

Real science is peer review, largely academic, science. Cosmology, geology, biology, physics, and all the other things you seem to be disagreeing with ARE science.

Read this again when you are sober.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#111943
Mar 9, 2013
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Best sources available works for me.

Great. So we can put that whole nasty flood business behind us.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 109,861 - 109,880 of132,830
|
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.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••