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

[Dogen]

KAB wrote:

<quoted text>
"Remotely possible" is acceptable for ideas/speculation.
"100% proven" is required for confirmation.
I object to assertions made without providing confirming data either initially or upon request.

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?

[Dogen]

KAB wrote:

<quoted text>
Here we go again! That's not my standard. That's why you're not quoting me to establish it. You wouldn't be doing this if you could defeat what I actually state.

Confirm what you said then.

[Dogen]

KAB wrote:

<quoted text>
When are you going to expound on the submerged outlet factor? I can hardly wait.

Under the scientific method that is your job.

Right now that is just your assertion.

[macumazahn]

LowellGuy wrote:

<quoted text>
I know it when I see it.
How about Leaves of Grass? Pornography?

I was never a huge Whitman fan, if I'm honest.

[Dogen]

KAB wrote:

<quoted text>
It's a good thing that's not my standard.

But it IS your standard?

[ChromiuMan]

Dogen wrote:

<quoted text>
But it IS your standard?

By "standard" do you mean a little plastic pennant glued onto a straw?

[Kong_]

KAB wrote:

<quoted text>
When are you going to expound on the submerged outlet factor? I can hardly wait.

"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?

[MADRONE]

Kong_ wrote:

"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?

Oh No! KAB offered this lake as evidence for the Flood and now it seems to show that the Flood could not have happened. His bag of Magic will have to be employed on this one.

[MikeF]

KAB wrote:

<quoted text>
"Remotely possible" is acceptable for ideas/speculation.
"100% proven" is required for confirmation.
I object to assertions made without providing confirming data either initially or upon request.

Which is exactly why your flood assertion can be dismissed.

[KAB]

ChromiuMan wrote:

<quoted text>
What is "foreign" detritus? The region is an ancient granite-gneiss flow. The crater is on a peninsula between Hudson Bay and Hudson Strait, so if there was a biblical style "overtopping" there would be marine contamination, which there is not. There is evidence that the crater has been covered by ice and that the ice has retreated/melted, but that is not evidence of a global flood.
If you want to continue to play cat and mouse with facts, please explain why NO glacial record from 4200 BCE onward records any single year catastrophically massive melt, snowfall or acceleration. Oh, and you might bear in mind Mr. Mouse, ICE FLOATS.

How many glacial records are there at the Pingualuit crater lake since 4200 BCE?

[KAB]

LowellGuy wrote:

<quoted text>
All testable claims that have been tested have been confirmed true. That's YOUR criterion for reliability (you refuse to give a quantity of claims that must be made and confirmed true, so we'll take the proportion instead). As the Noah flood claim has been tested and has not been confirmed true (it needn't be proven false, according to your standard; only that it be confirmed true), the Bible cannot be considered a reliable source, thus your entire argument is a contradiction unto itself.

"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.

[KAB]

LowellGuy wrote:

<quoted text>
You said that all the testable claims that have been tested must be demonstrated true for it to be reliable. The Noah flood claim is testable. It has been tested. It has not been demonstrated true. Ergo, Bible not reliable by YOUR standard. Which part of this do you disagree with? Obviously the last part, but which part of how we get there do you think is wrong?

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.

[KAB]

LowellGuy wrote:

<quoted text>
Science doesn't deal in 100% proven. You're holding science to an irrational standard, while holding yourself to an equally and oppositely irrational standard.

Science does deal in 100% proven when it can. For example, it's 100% proven that Earth is not cubic in shape. 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.

[KAB]

macumazahn wrote:

<quoted text>"Behold, thou art fair, my love; behold, thou art fair; thou hast doves' eyes within thy locks: thy hair is as a flock of goats, that appear from mount Gilead.
Thy teeth are like a flock of sheep that are even shorn, which came up from the washing; whereof every one bear twins, and none is barren among them.
Thy lips are like a thread of scarlet, and thy speech is comely: thy temples are like a piece of a pomegranate within thy locks.
Thy neck is like the tower of David builded for an armoury, whereon there hang a thousand bucklers, all shields of mighty men.
Thy two breasts are like two young roes that are twins, which feed among the lilies.
Until the day break, and the shadows flee away, I will get me to the mountain of myrrh, and to the hill of frankincense.
Thou art all fair, my love; there is no spot in thee.
Come with me from Lebanon, my spouse, with me from Lebanon: look from the top of Amana, from the top of Shenir and Hermon, from the lions' dens, from the mountains of the leopards.
Thou hast ravished my heart, my sister, my spouse; thou hast ravished my heart with one of thine eyes, with one chain of thy neck.
How fair is thy love, my sister, my spouse! how much better is thy love than wine! and the smell of thine ointments than all spices!
Thy lips, O my spouse, drop as the honeycomb: honey and milk are under thy tongue; and the smell of thy garments is like the smell of Lebanon.
A garden inclosed is my sister, my spouse; a spring shut up, a fountain sealed.
Thy plants are an orchard of pomegranates, with pleasant fruits; camphire, with spikenard,
Spikenard and saffron; calamus and cinnamon, with all trees of frankincense; myrrh and aloes, with all the chief spices:
A fountain of gardens, a well of living waters, and streams from Lebanon.
Awake, O north wind; and come, thou south; blow upon my garden, that the spices thereof may flow out. Let my beloved come into his garden, and eat his pleasant fruits."
You understand the concept of imagery, right?

Yes

[Dogen]

ChromiuMan wrote:

<quoted text>
By "standard" do you mean a little plastic pennant glued onto a straw?

that would be about his speed.

[KittenKoder]

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. 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.

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.

[Dogen]

KAB wrote:

<quoted text>
How many glacial records are there at the Pingualuit crater lake since 4200 BCE?

I don't think you understand your question.

The crater is 1.5 million years old (or just a tad less).

[Dogen]

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.

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.

[Dogen]

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.

No, it is more like 99.99999999999% proven. Just like evolution.

on the other end the odds that a global flood actually occurred is about .00000000000000000000000000000 1

Clearly you do not really understand much about, nor care for science.

KAB wrote:

<quoted text> 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.

The odds that evolution is wrong is nearly infinitely small.

The odds that a global flood DID occur is similar.

This is no 90% thing.

[macumazahn]

KAB wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes

Still great poetry.