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

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#118628 Jun 25, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Bong! liar.

Bong!(sic). Wrong.
KAB

United States

#118629 Jun 25, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Not if it's by an omniscient God. Incremental design patterns caused by increasing levels of understanding, i.e. learning, don't forget.
Learning is only one reason. Conplex things tend to be composed of less complex subunits each of which may be composed of less complex subunits. Each of the subunits is a design in itself, preceding the more complex, no matter how omniscient the designer.
KAB

United States

#118630 Jun 25, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
I dearly wish your Lord could help you, because nobody else can. I was responding to #118584 - where you addressed ME about MY POST and linked SZ's.
What part of clueless and nuts do you NOT personify?
The following is where chromosome number entered the picture,

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TFA...

Is it or is it not your post?

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#118631 Jun 25, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The following is where chromosome number entered the picture,
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TFA...
Is it or is it not your post?
"Chimps and the other great apes have 48 chromosomes.
Neanderthals had 46 chromosomes, the same number as homo sapiens."

There is no deception, falsification or "dataless assertion." There is simply a statement. If you read something more into it than that homo neanderthalensis and homo sapiens were genetically closer than pan troglodytes and homo sapiens, the problem is in your mind.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#118632 Jun 25, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Learning is only one reason. Conplex things tend to be composed of less complex subunits each of which may be composed of less complex subunits. Each of the subunits is a design in itself, preceding the more complex, no matter how omniscient the designer.

Translation: god ain't so smarts that Kab can'ts figure him outs.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#118633 Jun 25, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Translation: god ain't so smarts that Kab can'ts figure him outs.
I thought the translation was: god was the first "multi-level marketing" product.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_scheme
KAB

Oxford, NC

#118634 Jun 25, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
"Chimps and the other great apes have 48 chromosomes.
Neanderthals had 46 chromosomes, the same number as homo sapiens."
There is no deception, falsification or "dataless assertion." There is simply a statement. If you read something more into it than that homo neanderthalensis and homo sapiens were genetically closer than pan troglodytes and homo sapiens, the problem is in your mind.
Why didn't you include the question to which you were responding?

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#118635 Jun 25, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Why didn't you include the question to which you were responding?
"What is the evidence showing that we have interbred with Neanderthals but not with chimps?"

I'm no geneticist, but it is evident that we had more in common with homo neanderthal than with pan troglodyte.
A LOT MORE.
I did not propose that humans and neanderthals did or did not interbreed, nor did I propose that neanderthals/chimps or humans/chimps interbred. I suggested that fertile offspring across species would be unlikely.
Now knock off the vain attempt at character assassination and go conduct cross species fertilization with yourself.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#118636 Jun 26, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Where is the data in Chrome's following post?
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TFA...
You are correct about data precedence. Now all you have to do is provide Datum B ruling out the flood.
Regarding your final point, you are correct. Chrome was wrong, thinking equal numbers of chromosomes were required.
The demand for data is admirable, and Datum B has been provided, repeatedly. But data is useless unless paired with the capacity to follow its logical implications, which you appear to lack.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#118637 Jun 26, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Learning is only one reason. Conplex things tend to be composed of less complex subunits each of which may be composed of less complex subunits. Each of the subunits is a design in itself, preceding the more complex, no matter how omniscient the designer.
That is also how evolution produces complexity.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#118638 Jun 26, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
Chucky, you ARE wrong about "ownership".
Consider this a learning opportunity and move on.
Please.
Learning only stops when one is dead. In this case, English belongs to England, no one can change that, not you. I have my reasons for saying that, the truth!

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#118639 Jun 26, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, it actually does change that fact, because the adjective form of
the word provides the definition you keep referring to, but you're using
the adjective definition for the verb form of the word. You might as
well say that "right" as in the direction is what is meant when someone
is going to right a ship in the water. Same spelling, different parts of
speech with different definitions. Why, other than the fact that you
built an argument around this error, would you treat an adjective and a
verb as though they're the same thing?
Answer this question, if the English did not originate the language, no one would have had the opportunity of the language, not even you or i. So, since it was first spoken there(England) as a language, it therefore belongs to the English. That is my stand!

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#118640 Jun 26, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Learning only stops when one is dead. In this case, English belongs to England, no one can change that, not you. I have my reasons for saying that, the truth!
Why don't you start your own topix thread about this insufferably boring non-issue, instead of polluting the evolution forum with your nonsense?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#118641 Jun 26, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Answer this question, if the English did not originate the language, no one would have had the opportunity of the language, not even you or i. So, since it was first spoken there(England) as a language, it therefore belongs to the English. That is my stand!
Why don't you start your own topix thread about this insufferably boring non-issue, instead of polluting the evolution forum with your nonsense?

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#118642 Jun 26, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't say "only things that exist can be owned by other things." I
said that "only things that exist can own other things." Did you ever
consider the notion that you could have misunderstood the English
language as spoken by someone fluent in it, and that your half-assed
comprehension, as useful as it may be for day-to-day interactions
finding restaurants or the library, might not be so useful for
discussions wherein the subtleties of the language are brought to bear
in the fleshing out of ideas? No...of course not! You know all the
English anybody would ever need to know!
I never claimed perfection in anything. I am not English, but i stand for the truth, like you, i had access to the language, because of the English.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#118643 Jun 26, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Origination does not equal ownership. Argument over. This is not an
English language fan club thread, its an evolution thread.
Its obvious to everyone that having been thoroughly obliterated when you
tried to attack evolution with your childish and inept arguments, you
retreated to your happy place of arguing about one of the most silly and
pointless possible subjects for a whole bloody year!
I have explained my reasons for that, that most of you failed to see. If your mind towards that is hard, mine is not, I always stand for the truth. Evolution to date, is a mess. You and i are able to speak the English language, because of the English people, who originally came from England.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#118644 Jun 26, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> I never claimed perfection in anything. I am not English, but i stand for the truth, like you, i had access to the language, because of the English.
Why don't you start your own topix thread about this insufferably boring non-issue, instead of polluting the evolution forum with your nonsense?

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#118645 Jun 26, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
"Originated in" is synonymous with "belongs to" or "owned by"?
The nations or countries that takes English as first or official language were influenced by? were the speaking English before the influence? these and many other reasons proves my point, English despite its transitions, still belongs to England.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#118646 Jun 26, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
My ancestors were English, yet I don't belong to England - but let's not
be too hasty about Chucky's logic. The Bible originated as the Torah,
so it belongs to the Semitic tribes and NOT the Christians. Jesus was
Jewish and he spoke Aramaic, so he cannot belong to gentiles.
A simple answer, politically you are an American, but culturally, you are English, except you were not born from those parents.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#118647 Jun 26, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Previously Refuted
Trash! nothing more than that.

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
Humans DID evolve from apes! 11 min emrenil 16
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) 22 min emrenil 1,357
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 30 min Igor Trip 149,950
Why Are There No Transitional Animals Today? (Mar '09) 33 min Brian_G 889
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 35 min Thinking 16,958
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 2 hr DanFromSmithville 1,418
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 5 hr One way or another 177,015
Creationism isn't a science and doesn't belong ... 5 hr thewordofme 725
More from around the web