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

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#113444 Apr 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Check with Chrome. I know he has some ideas.
LOL! You and Marky Boy are #@^%&* in the head. Of course I have a speculation of what caused the legends of the global flood - but YOU Bozos are so stuck in the fantasy that the Bible is inviolate that you couldn't even bother to notice when I mentioned it.
Instead of holding a reasonable dialogue, y'all just keep holding your eyes tightly shut so the planks don't dislodge, plug your fingers in you ears and spout "dataless but Bible but crater but Bible but crater but dataless but mountains but...."

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#113445 Apr 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I see you're understandably upset. If I was only firing dataless blanks at a well armed opponent I would probably come unhinged too as I continued firing blanks in even greater abundance in the futile misdirected dataless attempt to defend myself.
How unlike you to come to that admission. Been staring at the chrome too long, KAB?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113446 Apr 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
OK. So, your corrected calculation would yield just short of a million feet above sea level. They're only 30,000 feet high tho.
It's interesting that you were expecting an answer which wouldn't support your assertion.

Now you are going from basic dishonesty to outright lying again.

Go back and deal with ALL the data including accelerating ROC of uplift and 60 million years of erosion.

Now what do you get?

If you always do
what you have always done
you will always get
what you have always got.

In this case you get NOTHING!

Bwhahahaha


“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113447 Apr 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
So why did he choose 0.5mm with no explanation? Well, as he has explained, he didn't intend to do so but made a mistake. You are so not technically discerning. Knowing him, however, had he gotten the correct result, I doubt he would have published it since it doesn't support the no-flood hypothesis.

Sorry Mr. Liar. I explained that .5mm is the average current uplift per year. I also explained that this rate has been increasing over time.

Obviously you are not technically discerning and are substantially undereducated with regard to science.

But knowing you, however, you will tell another lie to try to worm your way out of another trap of your own digging.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113448 Apr 4, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
KAB, Dogen making a minor error in his personal calculation is not going to overturn the consensus of geologists about the age and formation of the himalayas. You really have no idea of the breadth and depth of geological knowledge of the earth, not even a glimmer.
If you did, you could not possibly attach so much importance to a minor posting error on a casual site.
NOTHING in geology supports the flood hypothesis.
EVERYTHING in geology supports the no-flood hypothesis.
Not just the himalayas but every mountain chain on earth has been extensively studied along with virtually every geological stratum, the ocean floor, canyons, rivers, continents, subduction zones, ice cores, etc. It all reconciles with the current understanding of an old earth, processes of tectonic plate movement and vulcanism etc as understood, and THAT all dovetails with evolution and biogeography. They are all independently converging lines of evidence. And you can add to that the independent convergence of astronomy and physics.
Its a whole consistent picture that fits together, makes successful predictions, and explains what we see extremely well. And no flood. Nowhere.
All you guys can do is pick imaginary holes in trivial aspects, or quote mines, or simple errors. But you never go and take a real look at the science. Your loss. Its pretty awesome.

And, unlike KAB, I am not committed to lying so will admit my errors when I make them.

He will never do so.
KAB

United States

#113449 Apr 4, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, rates of change have to be within the realm of reason. You keep forgetting that mountains are formed not only by uplift, but by erosion too. There has not been enough time to erode all of the various landforms that we see in the extremely short period since the Flood could have happened.
KAB, if you you want to make an argument for the Flood it has to be a consistent one. That is why real geology wins out over flood geology. We don't make false assumptions and then see if we can hit the evidence hard enough with a hammer so that it fits into a specific model. We look at the evidence and see where it goes. That is why we do not end up with self contradicting stories.
Aren't you wanting/needing growth rates to vary by orders of magnitude in order to allow for present measured rates and yet keep the mountains from getting WAY too high in the timeframe you want them to have grown? I don't actually see you providing any real geology, just assertions. In that regard tho, I have to give you credit for a consistent story. Would it have been overly consistent for erosion to take place both before and after the flood? If you hit those assertions hard enough with that hammer do you think some data might break free? Personally, I prefer to provide data directly rather than just pounding relentlessly on assertions.
KAB

United States

#113450 Apr 4, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, actually it is. You keep forgetting about the rate of erosion. Right now the rate of erosion is on the order of a centimeter a year. It was even higher during the various glaciations the Earth has seen recently. Orogeny is both an lifting up and a wearing down of strata.
Why do creatards tend to look at only half of the driving forces of complex systems?
Isn't the growth rate given the net growth accounting for both uplift and erosion? I think that's why it's referred to as a growth rate not an uplift rate. You are so not technically savvy.
KAB

United States

#113451 Apr 4, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
KAB, Dogen making a minor error in his personal calculation is not going to overturn the consensus of geologists about the age and formation of the himalayas. You really have no idea of the breadth and depth of geological knowledge of the earth, not even a glimmer.
If you did, you could not possibly attach so much importance to a minor posting error on a casual site.
NOTHING in geology supports the flood hypothesis.
EVERYTHING in geology supports the no-flood hypothesis.
Not just the himalayas but every mountain chain on earth has been extensively studied along with virtually every geological stratum, the ocean floor, canyons, rivers, continents, subduction zones, ice cores, etc. It all reconciles with the current understanding of an old earth, processes of tectonic plate movement and vulcanism etc as understood, and THAT all dovetails with evolution and biogeography. They are all independently converging lines of evidence. And you can add to that the independent convergence of astronomy and physics.
Its a whole consistent picture that fits together, makes successful predictions, and explains what we see extremely well. And no flood. Nowhere.
All you guys can do is pick imaginary holes in trivial aspects, or quote mines, or simple errors. But you never go and take a real look at the science. Your loss. Its pretty awesome.
It appears you didn't look at the science since you provided no data, just reiterated the assertions.
KAB

United States

#113452 Apr 4, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL! You and Marky Boy are #@^%&* in the head. Of course I have a speculation of what caused the legends of the global flood - but YOU Bozos are so stuck in the fantasy that the Bible is inviolate that you couldn't even bother to notice when I mentioned it.
Instead of holding a reasonable dialogue, y'all just keep holding your eyes tightly shut so the planks don't dislodge, plug your fingers in you ears and spout "dataless but Bible but crater but Bible but crater but dataless but mountains but...."
I haven't asserted either the crater or the Bible. I have provided their data, haven't I? Why don't you do the same?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#113453 Apr 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It appears you didn't look at the science since you provided no data, just reiterated the assertions.
I did not even reiterate the assertions.

Merely pointed out that an error of calculation by a fellow poster is not tantamount to a refutation of the combined work of thousands of scientists. We have data coming out our ears. But you, I expect, will do your best to ignore it. No? Read the following:

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/geologic...

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113454 Apr 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Aren't you wanting/needing growth rates to vary by orders of magnitude in order to allow for present measured rates and yet keep the mountains from getting WAY too high in the timeframe you want them to have grown? I don't actually see you providing any real geology, just assertions. In that regard tho, I have to give you credit for a consistent story. Would it have been overly consistent for erosion to take place both before and after the flood? If you hit those assertions hard enough with that hammer do you think some data might break free? Personally, I prefer to provide data directly rather than just pounding relentlessly on assertions.

Again you are telling lies. All anyone has to do is check the data from the past couple of pages.

Since the geology and plate techtonics are established it is up to you to provide data against the established science.

Aren't you wanting/needing the mountains to be orders of magnitude smaller to allow for your hypothetical flood? I don't actually see you providing any real geology, just assertions. In that regard tho, I have to give you demerits for an inconsistent story. If you hit those assertions hard enough with that hammer do you think some data might break free? Personally, I prefer to provide data directly rather than just pounding relentlessly on assertions. Unfortunately you don't agree with me.

You don't understand who has the onus of proof. Do you think the onus is on established science or on mythology?

Let us know when you get a clue.


“Isn't it funny how we live inside the lies we believe?”
&#8213; A.S. King, Please Ignore Vera Dietz

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113455 Apr 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Isn't the growth rate given the net growth accounting for both uplift and erosion? I think that's why it's referred to as a growth rate not an uplift rate. You are so not technically savvy.

Are you forgetting that it is you who are trying to warp the established science? You are so not technically savvy. Why don't you learn some basic science?

Oh yea, it is forbidden by the cult.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113456 Apr 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It appears you didn't look at the science since you provided no data, just reiterated the assertions.

Chimney1 Wrote: You really have no idea of the breadth and depth of geological knowledge of the earth, not even a glimmer.
If you did, you could not possibly attach so much importance to a minor posting error on a casual site.
NOTHING in geology supports the flood hypothesis.
EVERYTHING in geology supports the no-flood hypothesis.
Not just the himalayas but every mountain chain on earth has been extensively studied along with virtually every geological stratum, the ocean floor, canyons, rivers, continents, subduction zones, ice cores, etc. It all reconciles with the current understanding of an old earth, processes of tectonic plate movement and vulcanism etc as understood, and THAT all dovetails with evolution and biogeography. They are all independently converging lines of evidence. And you can add to that the independent convergence of astronomy and physics.
Its a whole consistent picture that fits together, makes successful predictions, and explains what we see extremely well. And no flood. Nowhere.
All you guys can do is pick imaginary holes in trivial aspects, or quote mines, or simple errors. But you never go and take a real look at the science. Your loss. Its pretty awesome.

It appears KAB didn't look at the science since he provided no data, just reiterated the assertions.

Who has the burden of proof in the scientific method?
[Hint: Not the established science]

“Once you place that crown of liar on your head, you can take it off again, but it leaves a stain for all time.”
&#8213; Terry Goodkind, Soul of the Fire

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113457 Apr 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I haven't asserted either the crater or the Bible. I have provided their data, haven't I? Why don't you do the same?

You have asserted both. And you have failed to provided RELEVANT data regarding the factual support of either.


“The man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to such a pass that he cannot distinguish the truth within him, or around him, and so loses all respect for himself and for others. And having no respect he ceases to love, and in order to occupy and distract himself without love he gives way to passions and coarse pleasures, and sinks to bestiality in his vices, all from continual lying to other men and to himself.”
&#8213; Fyodor Dostoyevsky, The Brothers Karamazov

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Twin Cities

#113458 Apr 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I see you're understandably upset. If I was only firing dataless blanks at a well armed opponent I would probably come unhinged too as I continued firing blanks in even greater abundance in the futile misdirected dataless attempt to defend myself.
Perhaps you could cultivate an acquaintance with a Geology expert. I'm sure you could find one at your local college or university.

I myself have occasionally called a professor at my local university and asked them questions, and they were always forthcoming and helpful in my matters.

Just a thought....

Level 1

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#113459 Apr 4, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Marky, we have observed human evolution in several ways. And by a much surer method of observation than the eyewitness report of one, or even several people.
You should know by now that observation by scientific methods is preferable in a court of law than mere eyewitnesses. Eyewitnesses can be wrong. They can have personal prejudices. They can even lie.
That is not the case with proper scientific evidence. Using that we can see that humans and apes had a common ancestor from our DNA, from the ERV's in our DNA. From the way two of our Chromosomes were joined together. If you want to know all of the ways that our relation to other apes can be seen talk to a evolutionary biologist.
You were hitting the nail on the head when you said, "That is not the case with proper scientific evidence" and that is the case with you. You don't have proper scientific evidence for human from non-human evolution, and that my friend is why this debate continues to this day.

Level 1

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#113460 Apr 4, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>

So I will stick with the "silly" theory....
I predicted that based on your intelligence level.

Level 1

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#113461 Apr 4, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
OK. Then you say this:
<quoted text>
So you agree with evolution, just not human evolution, correct?
No, I agree that things evolve, or change, I don't agree with you guys that it is even remotely possible that they change into something else. And don't give me the song and dance that all macro is is a bunch of micro. Micro is observable, macro has never been observed to be true.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113462 Apr 4, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>You were hitting the nail on the head when you said, "That is not the case with proper scientific evidence" and that is the case with you. You don't have proper scientific evidence for human from non-human evolution, and that my friend is why this debate continues to this day.

Ah, more nothing.

You must feel very at home in a universe that is 99.99999% vacuum.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113463 Apr 4, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>I predicted that based on your intelligence level.

Yes, as has been confirmed, the higher the I.Q. the greater the acceptance of evolution.

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) 1 min Chimney1 142,164
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 29 min Strel 14,578
Why natural selection can't work 40 min Strel 18
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 2 hr ChromiuMan 941
Why Are There No Transitional Animals Today? (Mar '09) 4 hr ChristineM 795
Darwin on the rocks Tue The Dude 832
Science News (Sep '13) Mon Ricky F 2,961
More from around the web