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

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#118674 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.
Right, and until we learn how to design those less complex sub-units, we can't design the more complex item. Whoops, I guess that totally IS learning.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#118675 Jun 26, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't disagree with that theory.
And do you also not disagree about there being no boundary to the amount of complexity, derived from less complex sub-units, that can arise via evolutionary processes?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#118676 Jun 26, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
While numerous assertions have been made, no actual data confirming the flood could not have occurred has been provided. Someone, albeit a scientist, declaring that a civilization existed without interruption thru the timeframe of the flood is not data. It is an assertion. Declaring that the assertion is based on data is not data. It is an assertion.
And, nobody has thus far proven that it's impossible for leprechauns to be at the center of the sun. BOOYAH!

Ridiculous bullshit is ridiculous bullshit.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#118677 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!
They didn't ORIGINATE the root language; they merely ALTERED the language, just as the French, Italians, and Spanish ALTERED Latin, and just like you've altered it to make adjectives and nouns the same thing. Fortunately, the lingua franca today is not Idemish.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#118678 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!

Previously Refuted

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#118679 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.
I never said anything about perfection, did I? Hell, Dogen fucks up "manner" vs. "manor" all the time. Bugs me to no end, but you don't see me demanding perfection of him, do you? Others mix up "to" vs. "too." Do you see me jumping up and down about that? The difference is that when I pointed Dogen's error out to him, he acknowledged his error. It hasn't gotten any better, but at least he acknowledges that his spelling is chronically and pathologically flawed. You, however, fuck things up and when the error is pointed out to you, you don't acknowledge your error. What you say is that it doesn't matter if it's wrong or not because you're right and that's that. Well, that's stupid. People who do insist on being wrong even when they're shown what's right, and deny the error of their ways...what would you call that?

Stupid. Right.

And, that's what you do, so that's what you are. If you want people to stop treating you like you're stupid, stop justifying it with continuous stupidity. Improve yourself, or, at the very least, acknowledge the error. Do you acknowledge the error? Is it wrong to equate the definition of the adjective form of "own" with the verb form of "own?"

Be careful...honesty will force you to admit you've been dishonest this whole time.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#118680 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!

Not relevant to issue of ownership of English Language.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#118681 Jun 26, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> 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.

Not relevant to the issue of ownership of the English language.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#118682 Jun 26, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> 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.

No.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#118683 Jun 26, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> A simple answer, politically you are an American, but culturally, you are English, except you were not born from those parents.

Why don't you argue about the semantics of your own language.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#118684 Jun 26, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Trash! nothing more than that.

Previously Refuted

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#118685 Jun 26, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Poor you! you lack the boldness or audacity to challenge my statement, too bad!

Previously Refuted

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#118686 Jun 26, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Genesis is not a myth. Like i said, nothing can sprang up on their own without a maker or creator, one sure reason why evolution remains a mess. and again, English belongs to the English, does that sounds negative to you?

Guano happens.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#118687 Jun 26, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Your response to the question was that humans and Neanderthals have the same number of chromosomes but they and chimps do not. It's as simple as that, and it appears that is not evidence they didn't interbreed.
This has nothing to do with character assassination. It's simply about what is correct and what is not, and making progress in correct understanding.

Again, you do not seem to understand evidence.

Different numbers of chromosomes make it MUCH less likely that they could interbreed. It is not an absolute stopper.

Just like in the past you just want to get in that something is possible, and want to ignore the odds of it happening. That is unscientific and dishonest.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#118688 Jun 26, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> You have been mentioning evidence that you don't even have. Summarily, we have two schools of thoughts under this, Atheism and Theism. Do your thinking.

False dichotomy.

Their is also deism and agnosticism to name only two additional possibilities.
KAB

United States

#118689 Jun 26, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Bullcrap. You *have* been provided the data. Many times. You've been given the references to reputable scientists and their publications. So stop with the lying. You've lost this one so how about you move on to something else. This has gotten boring.
I don't initiate the volleys. I have only been responding to assertions that it has been confirmed the flood didn't occur. I assure you that when your side moves on, so will I. Of course, you always have the option of providing confirming data NOW, and I assure you that will bring my challenges to an end. Try me.
KAB

United States

#118690 Jun 26, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Right, and until we learn how to design those less complex sub-units, we can't design the more complex item. Whoops, I guess that totally IS learning.
In some cases that is certainly true, but not for someone omniscient. That one would likely/necessarily design the less complex first since it is needed as part of the more complex.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#118691 Jun 26, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't initiate the volleys. I have only been responding to assertions that it has been confirmed the flood didn't occur. I assure you that when your side moves on, so will I. Of course, you always have the option of providing confirming data NOW, and I assure you that will bring my challenges to an end. Try me.
I think everyone is pretty tired of your tripe. If anyone wants to post it again, they're welcome to it. As far as I'm concerned, your are a delusional liar and not worth the time to go to the trouble for - what?- the fifth time now?

In the mean time, how about you go camp out in the Atacama and ponder your navel.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#118692 Jun 26, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
In some cases that is certainly true, but not for someone omniscient. That one would likely/necessarily design the less complex first since it is needed as part of the more complex.
Trying for the King of Stupid title? An omniscient and omnipotent god would have to start small and build up to large? Apparently, you never read what you've typed before hitting Post Comment.
KAB

United States

#118693 Jun 26, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
And do you also not disagree about there being no boundary to the amount of complexity, derived from less complex sub-units, that can arise via evolutionary processes?
I have not seen or heard of anyone reporting that being directly observed. Lenski's gang has probably travelled furthest along that route, and after more than 50,000 generations they still have only the same kind of bacteria as at the start. You've touched on perhaps the key reason why design is currently a better explanation than evolution since design can explain the discontinuities between kinds.

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) 7 min The Dude 120,729
The Satanic Character of Social Darwinism 31 min The Dude 699
Darwin on the rocks 53 min Bluenose 354
Bobby Jindal: "I'm Not an Evolutionary Biologist" 5 hr woodtick57 361
Monkey VS Man Sun Bluenose 14
Charles Darwin's credentials and Evolution Sun TurkanaBoy 204
There is no scientific evidence whatsoever for ... Oct 17 Discord 431

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE