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
111,381 - 111,400 of 134,513 Comments Last updated 5 min ago

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Gobekli Tepe

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#113459
Apr 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#113464
Apr 4, 2013
 
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>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.

This is simply false.
KAB

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#113466
Apr 4, 2013
 
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
According to this reference the current rate of rise of the Himalayas is more than a centimeter per year,

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/himalaya.htm...

Who should we believe, given your multiple regular confirmed instances of error? See the problems you create for yourself when you don't bother with data, but act as if you do? People will not be inclined to believe your assertions and will gradually come to ignore you.
KAB

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#113467
Apr 4, 2013
 
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
And, unlike KAB, I am not committed to lying so will admit my errors when I make them.
He will never do so.
I have acknowledged error on multiple occasions.
KAB

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#113468
Apr 4, 2013
 
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
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...
One thing at a time. First the assertions you didn't reiterate, and I quote,

"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."
KAB

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#113469
Apr 4, 2013
 
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
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....
Have you not noticed the sources of the geology related data I provide? It's your side which isn't providing data.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Gobekli Tepe

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#113470
Apr 4, 2013
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you not noticed the sources of the geology related data I provide? It's your side which isn't providing data.
An article you may be interested in:
"Large decreases in the proportion of wetland pollen and increases in microscopic charcoal occurred in the core during four different times between 3,000 and 6,000 years ago. One of those events was the abrupt and global mega-drought of around 4,200 years ago, a drought that had serious societal repercussions, including famines, and which probably played a role in the end of Egypt’s Old Kingdom and affected other Mediterranean cultures as well.

"Our pollen record appears very sensitive to the decrease in precipitation that occurred in the mega-drought of 4,200 years ago,” Bernhardt said.“The vegetation response lasted much longer compared with other geologic proxy records of this drought, possibly indicating a sustained effect on delta and Nile basin vegetation."

Similarly, pollen and charcoal evidence recorded two other large droughts: one that occurred some 5,000 to 5,500 years ago and another that occurred around 3,000 years ago.

These events are also recorded in human history – the first one started some 5,000 years ago when the unification of Upper and Lower Egypt occurred and the Uruk Kingdom in modern Iraq collapsed. The second event, some 3,000 years ago, took place in the eastern Mediterranean and is associated with the fall of the Ugarit Kingdom and famines in the Babylonian and Syrian Kingdoms.

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#113471
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.
Too bad that you don't know what proper scientific evidence is.

And there is no debate. In the scientific world there is not debate. There is only a handful of kooks who disbelieve it, and they have no academic credibility at all. As a percentage there are 5 times as many historians who deny the holocaust as scientists who deny evolution.

Now when it comes to uneducated people there are plenty of disbelievers. There is a reason that we do not go to uneducated people for opinions.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#113472
Apr 4, 2013
 
Dogen wrote:
Yes, as has been confirmed, the higher the I.Q. the greater the acceptance of evolution.
Doggone it. The silly Marksman was finally right about something and it was unintentional.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Gobekli Tepe

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#113473
Apr 4, 2013
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you not noticed the sources of the geology related data I provide? It's your side which isn't providing data.
Another place you may find interesting:

“In a striking blow against the simplified story of religion vs. geology, Montgomery describes the views of the early leaders of the Christian church. Major figures in Christian history—including Origen, Clement, Augustine, Jerome, and Thomas Aquinas—considered literal readings of Genesis to be a sign that one was uneducated.

Faced with evidence in nature that contradicted a certain reading of the Bible, all of them decided that the only sensible response was to adjust how they read the Bible. In their view, nature clearly showed the way things were, so any discrepancy had to lie with one’s understanding of scripture. It actually wasn't until the Protestant Reformation in the 1500's that literalism became prominent.”

http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/08/geolog...

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

17 Users are viewing the Evolution Debate Forum right now

Search the Evolution Debate Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
24 hour dental emergency (Nov '13) 3 min Courtney Galler 2
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 3 min Subduction Zone 113,146
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 16 min The Dude 171,523
GOP House candidate Bob Frey believes dinosaurs... 1 hr TurkanaBoy 21
The Universe is fine-tuned for life 1 hr TurkanaBoy 422
One reason some Atheists arecomplete idiots. 3 hr The Dude 58
British Ban Teaching Creationism As Science, Sh... 4 hr wondering 153
•••
•••