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 5,550)

Showing posts 110,981 - 111,000 of132,980
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
KAB

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#113049
Mar 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
no data
no dice.
BTW, the earth is not "round". It is an oblate spheroid.
I think there is a better chance of the earth being a cube than the earth being flooded.
I think there is a better chance of the earth being a cube than of evolution being completely off base.
I think there is a FAR better chance of the earth being used as a die in a cosmic game of craps than of the JWs being the one true religion.
So it's an absolute certainty that Earth is not cubic in shape.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#113050
Mar 28, 2013
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
So it's an absolute certainty that Earth is not cubic in shape.

Theoretically.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#113051
Mar 28, 2013
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You have to simplify it ... a lot, I mean really dumb it down, or they don't understand it at all.
The smart ones rely on the fact that the dumb ones will not understand it. Dead on KK.

So what is the agenda of the smart ones, like Sanford? They think evolution is bad for the happiness and good running of society, and therefore the "common people" need to believe in the Bible. Sanford virtually spells it out in the preface to his own book. So there you have it. The dishonest leading the blind. The way it always worked.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#113052
Mar 28, 2013
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
What's not to like? You provide no data to be examined/scrutinized, only assertions. That doesn't meet the slam-dunk criteria. Scientifically, data is necessary if you want to be taken seriously. A single specific example which withstands scrutiny will suffice.
OMG.
There is more data about the fossil record, the nested hierarchy of ERVs, pseudogenes, and ubiquitous proteins, than you could read in 10 years. You have been pointed to so much of it already that you will forgive me if I just post the conclusions in a single topix post.
Go look it up for yourself, doofus. You have no idea.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#113053
Mar 28, 2013
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
So it's an absolute certainty that Earth is not cubic in shape.
Nope.

Nothing in science is 100% certain.

Not even that.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#113054
Mar 29, 2013
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
No, the data does.
But you are measuring the data's validity only on it's popularity. So, to you, reality is decided by popular opinion.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#113055
Mar 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
But you are measuring the data's validity only on it's popularity. So, to you, reality is decided by popular opinion.
Only after the current Governing Body tells him what the approved popular opinion is at the moment.
KAB

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#113056
Mar 29, 2013
 
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope.
Nothing in science is 100% certain.
Not even that.
You may enjoy this article, as I did.

http://michigantoday.umich.edu/2007/Sep/sci_m...

Here are two quotes from it,

"Scientists talk a lot about facts, about things that we know are true. And it's true that most of what we know is so well established as to be beyond doubt. Dinosaurs once walked the Earth. Lightning is an electrical discharge. Continents drift. These things are true, part of reality."

"No scientific conclusion is ever completely final; everything is open to revision."

It appears that at least some scientists speak with forked mind. I know you don't have that problem with regard to this matter.
KAB

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#113057
Mar 29, 2013
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
But you are measuring the data's validity only on it's popularity. So, to you, reality is decided by popular opinion.
No, I'm not.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#113058
Mar 29, 2013
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You may enjoy this article, as I did.
http://michigantoday.umich.edu/2007/Sep/sci_m...
Here are two quotes from it,
"Scientists talk a lot about facts, about things that we know are true. And it's true that most of what we know is so well established as to be beyond doubt. Dinosaurs once walked the Earth. Lightning is an electrical discharge. Continents drift. These things are true, part of reality."
"No scientific conclusion is ever completely final; everything is open to revision."
It appears that at least some scientists speak with forked mind. I know you don't have that problem with regard to this matter.

Both statements are absolutely correct. If you don't understand then you don't understand science. Not a huge shock to the rest of us.

They are also exactly what we have been trying to tell you for some time.


“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#113059
Mar 29, 2013
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
But you are measuring the data's validity only on it's popularity. So, to you, reality is decided by popular opinion.

KAB is only interested in the popular opinion of his overlords.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#113060
Mar 29, 2013
 
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Only after the current Governing Body tells him what the approved popular opinion is at the moment.

i was talking over dinner with my nephew who is a graduate student in theology about the JWs, as well as other issues. He thinks they are even crazier than I do. He was telling me about some of the other things they make up as they go along.

One JW family apparently disowned their 5 year old son after he received a life saving blood transfusion after a car accident.

That was probably the LEAST crazy thing he told me about them. I am saving the good stuff for KAB. I just love it when he squirms.

Have you seen him answer any of my questions about his JW cult lately?

Me neither.

He has got to be the worst "witness" for "Jehovah" EVER.

KAB

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#113061
Mar 29, 2013
 
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Both statements are absolutely correct. If you don't understand then you don't understand science. Not a huge shock to the rest of us.
They are also exactly what we have been trying to tell you for some time.
Since you understand it, then certainly you can explain the harmony in the following:

"These things are true, part of reality."
and
"No scientific conclusion is ever completely final."

BTW, the expression "absolutely correct" is that as in "a certainty"?
LowellGuy

Lawrence, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#113062
Mar 29, 2013
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You may enjoy this article, as I did.
http://michigantoday.umich.edu/2007/Sep/sci_m...
Here are two quotes from it,
"Scientists talk a lot about facts, about things that we know are true. And it's true that most of what we know is so well established as to be beyond doubt. Dinosaurs once walked the Earth. Lightning is an electrical discharge. Continents drift. These things are true, part of reality."
"No scientific conclusion is ever completely final; everything is open to revision."
It appears that at least some scientists speak with forked mind. I know you don't have that problem with regard to this matter.
As to be beyond doubt. We can be without doubt yet still be convinced by evidence to the contrary. Clearly you don't understand what "doubt" means.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#113063
Mar 29, 2013
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Since you understand it, then certainly you can explain the harmony in the following:
"These things are true, part of reality."
and
"No scientific conclusion is ever completely final."
BTW, the expression "absolutely correct" is that as in "a certainty"?

The first statement is common vernacular, the second is scientific.



For example is evolution a fact or a theory?

Answer: Yes!

In the "real world" we accept certain things as facts.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#113064
Mar 29, 2013
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
BTW, the expression "absolutely correct" is that as in "a certainty"?

Yes. When speaking and thinking in those terms.

But not in science.
KAB

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#113065
Mar 29, 2013
 
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
As to be beyond doubt. We can be without doubt yet still be convinced by evidence to the contrary. Clearly you don't understand what "doubt" means.
I understand that, since doubt is uncertainty, to be without doubt about something, and yet acknowledge it may not be so, is to falsify the lack of doubt. That's not to take anything away from your keen ability to do just that.
KAB

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#113066
Mar 29, 2013
 
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
The first statement is common vernacular, the second is scientific.
For example is evolution a fact or a theory?
Answer: Yes!
In the "real world" we accept certain things as facts.
Do you accept as fact Earth not being cubic in shape?
KAB

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#113067
Mar 29, 2013
 
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. When speaking and thinking in those terms.
But not in science.
In this case I side with the scientists' position that there are certain things which are beyond doubt (i.e., we know for certain what the reality is). Earth not being cubic in shape is one of them.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#113068
Mar 29, 2013
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you accept as fact Earth not being cubic in shape?
Speaking in general or scientifically?

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 110,981 - 111,000 of132,980
|
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
•••
•••