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 5,500)

Showing posts 109,981 - 110,000 of134,017
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#112047
Mar 12, 2013
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Before we get too far off the beaten path here, is it true that per the scientific method, one does not need to provide data which withstands scrutiny?(see link)
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TFA...
Incorrect, as Dogen stated, evidence that withstands scrutiny is required of scientific inquiry.
KAB

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#112048
Mar 12, 2013
 
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
2,000 ablutions might not be, 2,000 baths would be ripe at best. Does the Bible say hand or face washing? Most translations I'm aware of say "baths." Yes, I'd call than an error, but one I'm amenable to overlooking, as it has nothing whatever to do with the creation myth.
I said to throw a divinely guided dart at the Pentateuch. Wherever it lands, you will find a falsity nearby.
Just to be clear - please don't misconstrue or fantasize that you are in any way educational or instructing. The interest in how you defend the indefensible is a little like watching a sloth stalking a petal in a blustery breeze. You really hope that he'll eventually get it despite his limitations and the obstacles of nature.
So what purported error do you want considered?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#112049
Mar 12, 2013
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Before we get too far off the beaten path here, is it true that per the scientific method, one does not need to provide data which withstands scrutiny?(see link)
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TFA...

Nice quote-mine.

Are you aware that quote-mining is considered dishonest?
KAB

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#112050
Mar 12, 2013
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Incorrect, as Dogen stated, evidence that withstands scrutiny is required of scientific inquiry.
So we all agree that data which withstands scrutiny is required. Now, this all began when I stated that I have shown with data that your side has not provided data which withstands scrutiny. I will do it again if you identify data you want reconsidered. I have a feeling you, in particular, will get lost in the "data" in these statements and wander off yet again.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#112051
Mar 12, 2013
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
How can we be sure the Goliath thing really is a scribal error? There were at least a handful of these big guys. Goliath was their champion. His untimely and humiliating demise was a major blow. I can see his people "bestowing" the mantle of "Goliath" on his not so little brother Lahmi. Please don't take this wrong. It's not an assertion, just a thought. One should explore all reasonable possibilities so as not to jump to a wrong conclusion.

Yes, you are free to make up whatever rationalization suits you. Just remember, what is in the bible is in the bible and what is not in the bible is not in the bible.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#112052
Mar 12, 2013
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
So we all agree that data which withstands scrutiny is required. Now, this all began when I stated that I have shown with data that your side has not provided data which withstands scrutiny. I will do it again if you identify data you want reconsidered. I have a feeling you, in particular, will get lost in the "data" in these statements and wander off yet again.
nope, we provided the data, you just ignored it because it wasn't in your bible. Here's a website with a lot of it, including the references for where to find the details of the information presented and where they got their information from.

talkorigins.org

You see, anyone can make an assertion, but this particular website makes the assertion then provides the sources for those assertions for you to verify. So, instead of going through this whole song and dance with you again, if you dismiss anything because it's not in your bible, you are ignoring evidence simply because it makes you uncomfortable.
KAB

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#112053
Mar 12, 2013
 
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, you are free to make up whatever rationalization suits you. Just remember, what is in the bible is in the bible and what is not in the bible is not in the bible.
Did you get the point that what is in the Bible may not be wrong?
KAB

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#112054
Mar 12, 2013
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
nope, we provided the data, you just ignored it because it wasn't in your bible. Here's a website with a lot of it, including the references for where to find the details of the information presented and where they got their information from.
talkorigins.org
You see, anyone can make an assertion, but this particular website makes the assertion then provides the sources for those assertions for you to verify. So, instead of going through this whole song and dance with you again, if you dismiss anything because it's not in your bible, you are ignoring evidence simply because it makes you uncomfortable.
Do you accept every point on talkorigins.org valid?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#112055
Mar 12, 2013
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you accept every point on talkorigins.org valid?
Their sources check out, so yes. You need to learn to verify sources and evidence.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#112056
Mar 12, 2013
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
So what purported error do you want considered?
You don't read very well, do you? Open the book to Gen 1 and throw a dart.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#112057
Mar 12, 2013
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you get the point that what is in the Bible may not be wrong?

I got the point that people can rationalize anything if they want to bad enough.

Again, you have radically different standards for different things.

You set the bar so low for the Bible that an obese, quadriplegic, infant could clear it easily. Your standard for science is 100% proven (which is not sciences standard) or the Bible trumps it.

You MIGHT be using a double standard.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#112058
Mar 12, 2013
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you accept every point on talkorigins.org valid?

Talkorigins is a verified reliable source. At lease compared to some.
KAB

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#112059
Mar 12, 2013
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Their sources check out, so yes. You need to learn to verify sources and evidence.
The following is a snippet from talkorigins.org FAQs,

Q: The odds against a simple cell coming into being without divine intervention are staggering.
A: And irrelevant.

Is it your scientific/mathematical understanding that the probability of something happening is irrelevant with regard to whether it happened or not?
KAB

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#112060
Mar 12, 2013
 
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't read very well, do you? Open the book to Gen 1 and throw a dart.
I'm not going to demonstrate that something is correct, only to have you state that it wasn't something that concerned you anyway. When I see you give a specific which concerns you, that's what I will address.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#112061
Mar 12, 2013
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's take it one of your points at a time.

So if there is no evidence confirming it (It is recorded in a demonstrated reliable history source), and lots of evidence that makes it exceedingly unlikely (continuity of cultures [Confirming data not yet provided], no population bottlenecks in human or animal genomes [Confirming data not yet provided], a continual ice core record going back far longer [It has not been asserted that time began with the flood], etc)- who but a hopelessly biased person would give it any credibility [Someone carefully considering ALL the available data]?
We have compelling evidence for other big events far further back in time. Asteroid hits, massive vulcanism, ice ages, continental drift, even localised floods such as the Badlands in the US and the Black Sea...many of these reckoned at millions of years ago...(All have recognized unique markers. None have been confirmed for the global flood)
...so if there was a world wide total inundation within the last 10,000 years, anyone reasonable would expect some pretty strong evidence for it (No unique markers have been identified to observe), or dismiss it for what it is, a cultural creation myth claim no more credible than any other (except that it's documented in a demonstrated reliable history source).
You are wrong. The unique markers HAVE been identified. They would be -

worldwide sediments consistent with you story - there are not.

genetic bottlenecks at 4000-6,000 years ago - there are none.

evidence of simultaneous disruption of all cultures 4-6,000 years ago - didn't happen.

no chance of a continuous ice core record right through the possible time period - but there is one.

etc

Now what have you got? Merely the dogmatic conviction that there MUST have been a Flood cos the Bible says so, even though its simply not consistent with anything we can observe.

You go on endlessly about data, but cannot understand the consequences of piles of data staring you in the face!
KAB

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#112062
Mar 12, 2013
 
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You are wrong. The unique markers HAVE been identified. They would be -
worldwide sediments consistent with you story - there are not.
genetic bottlenecks at 4000-6,000 years ago - there are none.
evidence of simultaneous disruption of all cultures 4-6,000 years ago - didn't happen.
no chance of a continuous ice core record right through the possible time period - but there is one.
etc
Now what have you got? Merely the dogmatic conviction that there MUST have been a Flood cos the Bible says so, even though its simply not consistent with anything we can observe.
You go on endlessly about data, but cannot understand the consequences of piles of data staring you in the face!
Did you notice that you didn't provide any data, only assertions?

BTW, there is worldwide sediment, deposited by water (that's my story), and you seem to have forgotten the cheetah and that no species has been confirmed for no bottleneck 4500 years ago.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#112063
Mar 12, 2013
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The following is a snippet from talkorigins.org FAQs,
Q: The odds against a simple cell coming into being without divine intervention are staggering.
A: And irrelevant.
Is it your scientific/mathematical understanding that the probability of something happening is irrelevant with regard to whether it happened or not?

Yes. Any event in the past that occurred has a 100% chance of having occurred.

Any event the past that did not occur has a 0% chance of having occurred.

It is also actually impossible (at least at this time) to know what the odds actually should have been prior to the abiogenesis event.

Furthermore, and perhaps this is the most important issue, talkorigins deals with issues concerning evolution, not abiogenesis. So for the purposes of evolution it really does not matter if the first cell was poofed into existence by god. They are only concerned with what happened after that first cell appeared.




“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#112064
Mar 12, 2013
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not going to demonstrate that something is correct, only to have you state that it wasn't something that concerned you anyway. When I see you give a specific which concerns you, that's what I will address.

So play by KABs rules or he will take his ball and go home.

I realize that your cult has not prepared you to deal with issues in an open and honest sort of way, so I am more forgiving on this issue than my peers may be.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#112065
Mar 12, 2013
 
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You are wrong. The unique markers HAVE been identified. They would be -
worldwide sediments consistent with you story - there are not.
genetic bottlenecks at 4000-6,000 years ago - there are none.
evidence of simultaneous disruption of all cultures 4-6,000 years ago - didn't happen.
no chance of a continuous ice core record right through the possible time period - but there is one.
etc
Now what have you got? Merely the dogmatic conviction that there MUST have been a Flood cos the Bible says so, even though its simply not consistent with anything we can observe.
You go on endlessly about data, but cannot understand the consequences of piles of data staring you in the face!

But it is not completely impossible that a quick flood jumped in there and drowned everyone then the survivors repopulated the earth in the next year, in turn those millions of children made their way back to where everyone had been living and pick up their cultures where they had left of.... AND had sudden and magical genetic non-uniformity that one would expect of long term genetic evolution.....

The odds are not more than say 10^100^100, or so.

Okay 10^100^100^1000000

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#112066
Mar 12, 2013
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you notice that you didn't provide any data, only assertions?
BTW, there is worldwide sediment, deposited by water (that's my story), and you seem to have forgotten the cheetah and that no species has been confirmed for no bottleneck 4500 years ago.

Did you notice that you are disingenuous in the absolute extreme?

Did you notice that DNA has been sequenced for many species now and they don't all show a 4,200 (or whatever) year bottleneck? For your story to be true 100% of all existing species should show a bottleneck at the exact same time 4,000+ years ago.

Did you also notice that civilizations did not stop suddenly at any time in the last 6,000 years? Not even for the CREATION event!!!

Did you notice you accept the flood as literal (putz) and not the 6,000 year old universe even though they are in the same book (though not by the same original authors).

I can go on and on, but you cannot respond to more than one issue at a time and I have already triple overburdened you.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 109,981 - 110,000 of134,017
|
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.

•••
•••