It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the ...

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

There are 143951 comments on the Asheville Citizen-Times story from Mar 15, 2009, titled It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in evolution debate. In it, Asheville Citizen-Times reports that:

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 ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Asheville Citizen-Times.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119178 Jul 3, 2013
So Far KAB has not been able to respond (meaningfully) to this:

Pick any real Bible and look at it.
What are you afraid of? Why another dodge attempt?
Here are ONLY the relevant verses from Gen 1 (NASB)
==-=-=-=-=
2 The earth was [a]formless and void, and darkness was over the [b]surface of the deep
3 Then God said,“Let there be light”; and there was light.
4 God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.
5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
[DUH.... slobber,.. droooooll ..... He called the light DAY and the darkness NIGHT..... how can anyone be so stupid that this is not perfectly clear]
8 God called the [i]expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day....
13 There was evening and there was morning, a third day.
14 Then God said,“Let there be [s]lights in the [t]expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years;
15 and let them be for [u]lights in the [v]expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so.
16 God made the two [w]great lights, the greater [x]light [y]to govern the day, and the lesser [z]light [aa]to govern the night; He made the stars also.
17 God placed them in the [ab]expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth,
18 and [ac]to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good.
19 There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.
23 There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.
31.....And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.


==========

Your failure is noted and logged.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#119179 Jul 3, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>((((shields up!))))
http://youtu.be/COrOBw1KOgE

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119180 Jul 3, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Yes.
To all of the above.

Actually, there are not different intervals of time in Gen 1. Only Days (Alternating period of light and darkness - aka morning and evening).

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#119181 Jul 3, 2013
KAB, how come you still haven't explained the pattern of design we see among things human beings design? You've described it several times. I'm quite sure it's because you know that the explanation invalidates your perception of God as omniscient. But, maybe you have a good reason for having neglected this basic question that I've asked many times. Feel free to NOT simply describe the pattern as you've done in the past. Do go ahead and EXPLAIN it.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#119183 Jul 3, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
BLASPHEMY!!!

>:-(

KAB

Oxford, NC

#119184 Jul 3, 2013
FREE SERVANT wrote:
Chapter two of Genesis says in the day that God created the heavens and the earth, so this leads me to believe it was all created at once and God overviewed his work for six days and then he rested on the seventh day and his work was finished after he had seen to it that it was all good.
Don't trust what you're led to believe. The account in Genesis 1 clearly documents that YHWH took specific creative action on each of the 6 days. "Day" in Genesis 2 must, therefore, refer to the 6 preceding "days" collectively as a "day". Such is the legitimate flexibility of the meaning of the word "day".

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#119185 Jul 3, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't trust what you're led to believe. The account in Genesis 1 clearly documents that YHWH took specific creative action on each of the 6 days. "Day" in Genesis 2 must, therefore, refer to the 6 preceding "days" collectively as a "day". Such is the legitimate flexibility of the meaning of the word "day".
So you really can't trust the literal meaning of anything written in the Bible. We have told you so all along. Thank you for confirming this.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119186 Jul 3, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't trust what you're led to believe. The account in Genesis 1 clearly documents that YHWH took specific creative action on each of the 6 days. "Day" in Genesis 2 must, therefore, refer to the 6 preceding "days" collectively as a "day". Such is the legitimate flexibility of the meaning of the word "day".

Remember that Gen 1 is very specific in defining exactly what sort of day was being referred to.

It stresses the point over and over and over (6 times).

Remember how you failed to respond in an meaningful way to the data I presented.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#119187 Jul 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a nice hypothesis regarding what you perceive to have taken place. Now what's the next step in the scientific method?
BTW, I have studied it and do understand, whereas it appears you don't even know how many generations it would take to generate a population of about 100,000.
Don't be daft KAB, this refutes nothing I said.

For starters, we are not talking about simply generating a population of 100,000 say out of a single pair, and yes the calcs for that are simple.

We are talking about the unmixed female line disseminating throughout a more or less constant 100,000 in every generation. That is a more difficult problem.

It is not a simple exponential calc but one that relies on the far lower chance of other females reproducing only male offspring and their own mitochondrial line thus stopping. So assuming a constant population, with 2 live offspring per female, one in 4 females will lose mitochondrial representation in the next generation (by having 2 boys). 12,500 women would "lose out" in that generation.

In the following generation, its one in four of the remaining again but this will include the sample. 37,500/4 will lose out.

And so on.

How many generations until you are left with just ONE Mitochonrial line from the original 50,000 women? About 1000 years. But its not that simple.

New haplotypes have to enter the population as fast as they are being removed, or you would end up with only one haplotype world wide, whereas we observe the opposite. New haplotypes are very likely to be removed before they can disseminate anyway, jsut by chance. Periods of population fall and rise will change the rate of dissemination. And so on.

When scientists calculate Y-Adam and Mito Eve, they are factoring all this in as much as possible.

Furthermore haplotypes form nested hierarchies too. So its not a single event fixing, its one, then another, then another etc.

That is how scientists derive the estimate of 200,000 years or so for the mitochondrial Eve pattern based on the haplotypes we find in the world (DATA!)and there is NO WAY to do that in 5000 years.

For Y chromo Adam, the picture is similar in principle.

The number they get is around 200,000 years for mito Eve. Frankly, I would respect their peer reviewed, analysed, argued, logically justified calculations over yours KAB. Even of they were out by a whole order of magnitude which is highly unlikely, 20,000 years would still be far too long ago for your Flood scenario.
KAB

Cary, NC

#119188 Jul 4, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I haven't seen these. What is the source of this alledged data?
Here's one for the cheetah. Note the uncertainty factor.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4...

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#119189 Jul 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's one for the cheetah. Note the uncertainty factor.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4...
What is most telling in your article is how much they emphsise the unusual genetic uniformity of the cheetah compared to most other species owing to this rare recent bottleneck. I am not sure how many times you have to be told this for it to sink in but ALL the animals would show a bottleneck like the cheetah's - actually a more exreme one - if they were global flood survivors on the Ark.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#119190 Jul 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't trust what you're led to believe. The account in Genesis 1 clearly documents that YHWH took specific creative action on each of the 6 days. "Day" in Genesis 2 must, therefore, refer to the 6 preceding "days" collectively as a "day". Such is the legitimate flexibility of the meaning of the word "day".
So, YOU can trust what YOU are led to believe, but nobody else can if their understanding differs from yours. Of course, because you're the exclusive holder of "THE TRUTH."
KAB

Detroit, MI

#119191 Jul 4, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
That is why uneducated people should not be allowed to think.
Still data even.
Still logic very uneven.
I explained it to you. You just don't like the answer.
I generally don't like dataless answers. You certainly know that by now.
KAB

Detroit, MI

#119192 Jul 4, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Then you have to throw out the genetic bottlenecks that you think support your Bible stories.
I can throw mine out if you can throw yours out.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119193 Jul 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I generally don't like dataless answers. You certainly know that by now.

LOL. That is just one of your delusions. If you really did not like dataless answer they would not be your modus operandi.

You are so funny oh data free one.

It has been the posts with data in them that you have been avoiding like the plague.

Everyone else here know that by our observations of your behavior. Only you seem to lack this critical insight.



“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119194 Jul 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I can throw mine out if you can throw yours out.

You are not counting logic.

of course, why would you?
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#119195 Jul 4, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
In other words, you talked yourself into a corner and being unable to address it, you attempt to save face by projecting your failure onto others.
How do you talk yourself into a corner when you ask a girl why human from non-human evolution doesn't pass the scientific method, and she replies something like "fried rice"....????

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119196 Jul 4, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>How do you talk yourself into a corner when you ask a girl why human from non-human evolution doesn't pass the scientific method, and she replies something like "fried rice"....????

Your failure to understand the scientific method is not KK's fault.

Human evolution passes ALL of the criteria of the scientific method.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119197 Jul 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I can throw mine out if you can throw yours out.

All bottlenecks that we have discussed so far support the fact that there was no global flood in the past 100,000 years or more.

It is your responsibility under the scientific method to prove that all genetic bottlenecks in all species fit under the global flood paradigm. You can't.

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#119198 Jul 4, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
What is most telling in your article is how much they emphsise the unusual genetic uniformity of the cheetah compared to most other species owing to this rare recent bottleneck. I am not sure how many times you have to be told this for it to sink in but ALL the animals would show a bottleneck like the cheetah's - actually a more exreme one - if they were global flood survivors on the Ark.
This was going to be my next point as well. Kab is drowning in his own flood myth and clinging to any straw that floats by.

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
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 11 min DanFromSmithville 174,090
News Intelligent design 6 hr Critical Eye 25
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 6 hr Critical Eye 20,904
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) Thu Igor Trip 178,702
Science News NOT related to evolution (Jul '09) Sep 2 macumazahn 1,248
News Pastafarians rejoice! Deep sea creature floatin... Sep 2 karl44 1
Satan's Lies and Scientist Guys (Sep '14) Sep 2 dollarsbill 14
More from around the web