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

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 ... Full Story
KAB

United States

#113371 Apr 3, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks, I will take a look at it and get back to you.
If it is real science, and not some creatard nonsense, what do you want to be that you misinterpreted it?
You just revealed that it's a sure bet that misinterpretation is your pre-conclusion. How objective is that?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#113372 Apr 3, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You just revealed that it's a sure bet that misinterpretation is your pre-conclusion. How objective is that?
I did not say it was a sure bet. I said probably.

And if is very objective. You have had multiple science fails in the past. The past can be predictive of the future.

If a person fails at a relatively easy goal ten times in a row wouldn't you say that that person would be likely to fail an even more difficult goal?

So what event do you think that data applies to and when?
KAB

United States

#113373 Apr 3, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Marky, the Noah's Ark myth can be debunked by the simple claim that ice floats.
Please provide the reasoning.
KAB

United States

#113374 Apr 3, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
One more question KAB.
What do event is supported by the evidence of that article? When?
Something caused a massive amount of loose material to come down off the crater sidewalls an estimated 4200 years ago. If you want a list of specific possibilities, Dr. Dogen purportedly has a million, not including a global flood. Personally, I think he's lying and really doesn't have anywhere near that number. Even the geologists involved only give 2.
KAB

United States

#113376 Apr 3, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I did not say it was a sure bet. I said probably.
And if is very objective. You have had multiple science fails in the past. The past can be predictive of the future.
If a person fails at a relatively easy goal ten times in a row wouldn't you say that that person would be likely to fail an even more difficult goal?
So what event do you think that data applies to and when?
As long as you're being objective, an extremely desirable trait, quote a single science fail of mine.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#113377 Apr 3, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Something caused a massive amount of loose material to come down off the crater sidewalls an estimated 4200 years ago. If you want a list of specific possibilities, Dr. Dogen purportedly has a million, not including a global flood. Personally, I think he's lying and really doesn't have anywhere near that number. Even the geologists involved only give 2.
But as you see from my last post a flood did not occur within the lst 250,000 years. The 4,200 year figure is still well within the time when they can count individual layers by eye.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#113378 Apr 3, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Something caused a massive amount of loose material to come down off the crater sidewalls an estimated 4200 years ago. If you want a list of specific possibilities, Dr. Dogen purportedly has a million, not including a global flood. Personally, I think he's lying and really doesn't have anywhere near that number. Even the geologists involved only give 2.
And did either one of them cite da flud?
LowellGuy

United States

#113379 Apr 3, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Man, you can word it absolutely anyway you want too. I DON"T CARE!! For you to believe that you have any kinship of any kind to a tobacco stalk or a banana, absolutely amazes me!!!!
You are a coward, and you realized your cowardice during your scientific method exercise with Chimney. What a sad little man you are.
LowellGuy

United States

#113380 Apr 3, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Ok, but you are trying to infer that and imediate is something in the middle of a oathway heading in a direction. YOU CAN"T INFER THAT in this case. In this case, according to your redefintion of "intermediate" is meaningless, and irrelvant to this debate. An intermediate fossil is not a transitional fossil and in no way supports what your claims are!!!<quoted text>A valid theory must be observable. If it isn't, it can predict anything. It can predict that an elephant can hang from a cliff grasping a daisy if it needs too. Heck, you can't prove otherwise, NOTHING IS OBSERVABLE, ALL IS FANTASY!!...in your world. Dang, The Cambrian Explosion demands evolution happen quickly?????.....BUT OF COURSE....PUNCUATED EQUALIBRIA!!!Heck, in your world, you can even be related to tobacco stalks and bananas!!! I think I'll sue steve jobs for my part of his estate. Heck, if we're both related to common plants and bugs, I WANT WHAT IS MINE!!!!!!
Theories still can't be observed, you magnificent toolbag.

Every time you use that argument, you're lying. So, you just lied. You've had this explained to you, but you don't care about facts. You just care that what you say sounds good to you.

Here's me not being surprised that you have to wear a helmet 24/7.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#113381 Apr 3, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Man, you can word it absolutely anyway you want too. I DON"T CARE!! For you to believe that you have any kinship of any kind to a tobacco stalk or a banana, absolutely amazes me!!!!
And you can twist your own words any way YOU want to, but you have told a lie and since the error has been pointed out previously, your lie is now deliberate without question.

Consider this a lesson in human-based morality: We don't need to believe in God to know that the word of liars is worthless and they cannot be trusted.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#113382 Apr 3, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Ok, but you are trying to infer that and imediate is something in the middle of a oathway heading in a direction. YOU CAN"T INFER THAT in this case. In this case, according to your redefintion of "intermediate" is meaningless, and irrelvant to this debate. An intermediate fossil is not a transitional fossil and in no way supports what your claims are!!!
Intermediates - fossils measurably between existing observed species today, are a prediction of evolution. Creationism has offered no reason why they should exist. Evolution did, and expected them, and explains them.

Evolution ALSO predicted in the fossil record: reptile-like birds, mammal-like reptiles, creatures blurring the line between reptile and amphibian, between amphibians and fish, between whales and land mammals, between cats and dogs, and many more....and we FOUND THEM.

Evolution predicted - no mammals or birds in the fossil record before their possible forerunners. Never found. Millions of fossils, and this rule is not violated, which would be ridiculously UNLIKELY if all creatures were created at the same time, at the beginning.

I don't care if you still do not understand what an intermediate is, or why its existence was predicted and can be explained by evolution, and that that makes evolution a valid scientific theory, or the fact that according to THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, its not the THEORY itself that is observed, but the predictions it makes.

Just keep spinning your wheels in the mud of your own deliberate ignorance Marksman. You won't fool anybody over 10.
A valid theory must be observable. If it isn't, it can predict anything.
No, it cannot. Evolution cannot predict that a bird will appear in the fossil record before the creatures that led to birds existed.

That would be a falsification of evolution. The fact that evolution expects some things and rules out others, all testable and observable, is what makes it a scientific theory.

By the way, Creationism as per Genesis also makes predictions for the fossil record. None of which stack up to observation.
KAB

United States

#113383 Apr 3, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
But as you see from my last post a flood did not occur within the lst 250,000 years. The 4,200 year figure is still well within the time when they can count individual layers by eye.
If you look at a brushed wall of the firn how many layers can you discern by eye within one year's accumulation?

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#113384 Apr 3, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Man, you can word it absolutely anyway you want too. I DON"T CARE!! For you to believe that you have any kinship of any kind to a tobacco stalk or a banana, absolutely amazes me!!!!
A yoyo with a broken string would amaze you

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#113385 Apr 3, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Raising the Himalayas and other mountain ranges many thousands of feet wouldn't be inconsequential.
Phytoplankton live in the ocean. That's why it has that green color.
BTW, I see you're already running out of live amunition and starting to fire more blanks.
No blanks. Poor zombiefella.... all that's left of him is a hand to type with and it doesn't even realize the brain pan never made it out of the churchyard.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113386 Apr 3, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Raising the Himalayas and other mountain ranges many thousands of feet wouldn't be inconsequential.
Phytoplankton live in the ocean. That's why it has that green color.
BTW, I see you're already running out of live amunition and starting to fire more blanks.

The Himalayas are at least 60 million years old.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himalayas

Humans,.... no matter who is doing the counting, are only a couple million, at most.

BTW, I see you're already running out of live ammunition and starting to fire more blanks.


“If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.”
&#8213; Adolf Hitler

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113387 Apr 3, 2013
KAB wrote:


The slide occurred around 4200 cal BP, when the surface
connection with Lake Laflamme (Bouchard and Saarnisto, 1989)
was possibly still active (Fig. 7A). As the LIS decayed, its geometry evolved and the ice margin would have receded toward the site of the subglacial lake. As the distance to the ice margin decreased, the ice-surface slope above the lake would have increased causing the lake volume to shrink. At the same time, the reduced ice thickness would reduce water pressure in the lake, whereas the pressure of pore fluids in low permeability sediments would remain high and could promote slope instability. The MWD could thus be related to slope instabilities associated with the rapid exorheic drainage through channels observed on the outer crater rim following the deglaciation (see section 2.4).
Another trigger mechanism of the MWD could have been an
earthquake, as the area is seismically active ..
Adams et al., 1991

http://www.geotop.ca/upload/files/publication...


" If other study sites in such low
productivity environments suffer from old carbon effects, this new
sedimentary record from northernmost Ungava has produced
a reliable new means of dating the disappearance of the last
remnants of the Laurentide Ice Sheet at 6850 cal BP, which coin-
cides with a major climatic and environmental transition
throughout the eastern Canadian Arctic."

----------

Nice data. Seems to refute your conjecture.

“Lies require commitment.”
&#8213; Veronica Roth, Divergent

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113388 Apr 3, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You were on a reasonable roll until you made the unreliable book assertion which remains unconfirmed.

Sorry, it has been confirmed.

Anyone else disagree?

I thought not.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113389 Apr 3, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks, I will take a look at it and get back to you.
If it is real science, and not some creatard nonsense, what do you want to be that you misinterpreted it?

DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING!

We have a winner!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113390 Apr 3, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You just revealed that it's a sure bet that misinterpretation is your pre-conclusion. How objective is that?

It is a conclusion based FIRMLY on SZ's knowledge of you and your posts.


“I'm telling you a lie in a vicious effort that you will repeat my lie over and over until it becomes true”
&#8213; Lady Gaga

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113391 Apr 3, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Something caused a massive amount of loose material to come down off the crater sidewalls an estimated 4200 years ago. If you want a list of specific possibilities, Dr. Dogen purportedly has a million, not including a global flood. Personally, I think he's lying and really doesn't have anywhere near that number. Even the geologists involved only give 2.

And neither of them agree with you.

Nor does your time for the flood agree with the data of 4,200 years.

Nor have you accounted for thriving civilizations continuing, uninterrupted, through that entire period.

Nor have you been honest about the nature of the collapse.

Nor do you have any evidence for this global flood.

The failure of the global flood puts a blight on your literal understanding of the bible.

In simpler terms, you lost again.

“Things come apart so easily when they have been held together with lies.”
- Dorothy Allison, Bastard Out of Carolina

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
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 14 min messianic114 149,909
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 23 min Brian_G 16,910
Creationism isn't a science and doesn't belong ... 31 min The Dude 722
Birds Evolved From Dinosaurs Slowly—Then Took Off 33 min The Dude 25
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 36 min Denisova 1,414
Humans DID evolve from apes! 40 min The Dude 8
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 3 hr MikeF 176,988
More from around the web