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

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

There are 151417 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.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#119302 Jul 8, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for your response characteristic of your acknowledging a valid point you'd rather weren't so.
It wasn't a valid point. It was abject stupidity. If it had been valid, I would have responded to it. As such, I merely laughed. Which is what it deserved.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119303 Jul 8, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Its pretty obvious to me that you did not actually understand what you wrote and its applicability. That's largely why you got the response you did. BTW, I have read every directly applicable body of info posted, if I saw it, and responded accordingly. Try posting something now and see what happens.

Perhaps he should have said read AND understood. You have made a very convincing case that you have had no formal scientific training above, perhaps, the H.S. level, so it may be to much to ask you to understand Ph.D. level, peer reviewed, science. However, that is what you ask for.
KAB

United States

#119304 Jul 8, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
No, those are my words expressing your ideas. You don't like the logical ramifications of your ideas, but that's not my fault nor my problem. You make the claim that a global flood occurred that would necessarily result in genetic bottlenecks. Are geneticists, in general, as a global population of professionals, competent at identifying genetic bottlenecks? If yes, then they surely have identified the genetic bottleneck in humans, a genome that has had the greatest amount of scrutiny thus far, that confirms the timeline your Bible story requires. YOUR claim requires YOU to provide evidence to support it. It's not the skeptic's obligation to disprove whatever batshit nonsense some lunatic decides to believe in. PROVE YOUR CASE OR ADMIT YOU HAVE NO RATIONAL JUSTIFICATION FOR ANYBODY TO BELIEVE YOUR CLAIMS ARE TRUE.
Consider how the following enters the calculation of time required to achieve human diversity,

"Does Diversity Reflect Age or Number?
Still, the interpretation of our genetic archives is a difficult science. One conundrum is trying to tease apart the influence of time and population size. You might think that the longer two populations have been isolated from each other, the more divergence you would see between them. However, in addition to mutation rate, population size can affect diversity. For example, modern Africans have greater genetic diversity than Asians or Europeans—but is this diversity due to their evolutionary age or their greater population numbers during the last million years? One study showed that the diversity of mtDNA in African farming populations was greater than that in Africa's less numerous hunter-gatherer populations (Watson et al., 1996). Because no one believes agricultural peoples preceded hunters, this finding attests to the idea that population size is a critical factor in measures of genetic diversity."

http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/Huma...

Isn't greater diversity the factor upon which a modern human start in Africa is concluded?
KAB

United States

#119305 Jul 8, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
And again you cannot prove it.
nor provide evidence.
nor provide supporting logic.
Be not afraid of stupidity: some are born stupid, some achieve stupidity and some have stupidity thrust upon them.(with appologies to Wm. Shakespeare)
I no longer provide data confirming your error. It is an unnecessary use of valuable time and effort. I offer to match you however. You provide data confirming an error of mine and I will provide another example of yours.
KAB

United States

#119306 Jul 8, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
That is my point. Thank you.
There are not any words in the text that could logically or rationally be translated as 'evidence' or 'logic'.
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
"Now faith (pi'stis) is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."
Neither evidence nor logic are mention in the text.
You may be hallucinating if you see the words evidence or logic in Heb. 11:1
A logical evidentiary basis for faith is, at the very least, included in the list of possible meanings for the Hebrews 11:1 passage.
KAB

United States

#119307 Jul 8, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you're saying that the way the word is used depends upon the physical evidence we discover. Fascinating.
Do you agree that generally a word has multiple possible meanings?
Do you agree that context can eliminate some possible word meanings from contention in a given instance?
Do you agree that a contradiction doesn't necessarily exist if there is a legitimate meaning which aviods contradiction?
Why choose contradiction when such is not required?
KAB

United States

#119308 Jul 8, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Again glaringly, demonstrably incorrect. Anyone carefully reading and considering the content of Genesis 1 can readily confirm this to be the case. HINT: He called the light "day" and the darkness he called night. "And there was evening and morning the ____ day."
1
2
3 Then God said,“Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. So there was evening, and there was morning, one day.
6
7
8 and God called the dome Sky. So there was evening, and there was morning, a second day.
9
10
11
12
13 So there was evening, and there was morning, a third day.
14 God said,“Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to divide the day from the night; let them be for signs, seasons, days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the dome of the sky to give light to the earth”; and that is how it was. 16 God made the two great lights — the larger light to rule the day and the smaller light to rule the night — and the stars. 17 God put them in the dome of the sky to give light to the earth, 18 to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. 19 So there was evening, and there was morning, a fourth day.
20
21
22
23 So there was evening, and there was morning, a fifth day.
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31 God saw everything that he had made, and indeed it was very good. So there was evening, and there was morning, a sixth day. CJB
Data, data, data. How will KAB deny the data.
As you confirm yet again, he called the LIGHT "day".
KAB

United States

#119309 Jul 8, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, 24 hours is a red herring.
"So there was evening, and there was morning, a _____ day."
Reality is a bummer when you live in make believe land, isn't it?
Are you acknowledging they didn't have to be 24 hour days?
KAB

United States

#119310 Jul 8, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, now you want to bring PHYSICAL DATA into this?
Are you sure you want to do that buddy boy?
That would sort of CLOSE the flood gates, wouldn't it?
I let you think about bringing PHYSICAL DATA into this. Till then we have the words of the Bible. And you are left with a problem. What will you choose? Your cults dogma, or the Bible? Or (since you have provided a 3rd option) the PHYSICAL DATA!
Bwhahahahahahahaha
Now you have me right where I want you!
Physical data is in, as it always has been and should be (Romans 1:18-25).
KAB

United States

#119311 Jul 8, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
This is hilarious! And what did he call the darkness?
He called the darkness night.
KAB

United States

#119312 Jul 8, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Here we go again, context moron. Evening and morning the 'N' day. Context!
How does calling the light "day" equate to 24 hours?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119313 Jul 8, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Consider how the following enters the calculation of time required to achieve human diversity,
"Does Diversity Reflect Age or Number?
Still, the interpretation of our genetic archives is a difficult science. One conundrum is trying to tease apart the influence of time and population size. You might think that the longer two populations have been isolated from each other, the more divergence you would see between them. However, in addition to mutation rate, population size can affect diversity. For example, modern Africans have greater genetic diversity than Asians or Europeans—but is this diversity due to their evolutionary age or their greater population numbers during the last million years? One study showed that the diversity of mtDNA in African farming populations was greater than that in Africa's less numerous hunter-gatherer populations (Watson et al., 1996). Because no one believes agricultural peoples preceded hunters, this finding attests to the idea that population size is a critical factor in measures of genetic diversity."
http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/Huma...
Isn't greater diversity the factor upon which a modern human start in Africa is concluded?

Again, you seem to have a problem comprehending what you read and understanding that you have provided more evidence for our position and not for your own.

Can you figure out why this supports what we contend about evolution in general and bottlenecks in particular?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119314 Jul 8, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I no longer provide data confirming your error. It is an unnecessary use of valuable time and effort. I offer to match you however. You provide data confirming an error of mine and I will provide another example of yours.

Again, this is a lie.

Dataless assertions were not working for you so you moved on to outright lying.

Fine by me. I will not sink to your level, but I will point out what level you are working at.

I have found you to be not worth as a debate opponent.

But till I find someone better I will continue to beat on you. Gives me something to do.

Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
And again you cannot prove it.
nor provide evidence.
nor provide supporting logic.
Be not afraid of stupidity: some are born stupid, some achieve stupidity and some have stupidity thrust upon them.(with appologies to Wm. Shakespeare)

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#119315 Jul 8, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I no longer provide data confirming your error.
Yet you repeatedly make that demand of us. Hypocrite.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119316 Jul 8, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
A logical evidentiary basis for faith is, at the very least, included in the list of possible meanings for the Hebrews 11:1 passage.

No. If you wish to lie you have my permission.

But anyone can look up the passage (Heb 11:1) and see that you are simply incorrect.

Maybe your cults version of the bible has made up something and inserted it here as they have in so many passages of the NWT.

Isn't there a scripture about not doing things like that?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#119317 Jul 8, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you agree that generally a word has multiple possible meanings?
Stupid question. Obviously, yes.
KAB wrote:
Do you agree that context can eliminate some possible word meanings from contention in a given instance?
Stupid #2. Yes.
KAB wrote:
Do you agree that a contradiction doesn't necessarily exist if there is a legitimate meaning which aviods contradiction?
Depending on the context, it is possible.
KAB wrote:
Why choose contradiction when such is not required?
Indeed. Why do you?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#119318 Jul 8, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
As you confirm yet again, he called the LIGHT "day".
No shit. Why are you arguing points not in dispute? Just to waste time or an attempted diversion.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#119319 Jul 8, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you acknowledging they didn't have to be 24 hour days?
Read your bible.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#119320 Jul 8, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
He called the darkness night.
Very good. Now, in context, did night mean something other than night? Like god said night but he really meant a month or a bunch of years. Maybe he wasn't really sure of what he was talking about.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#119321 Jul 8, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
How does calling the light "day" equate to 24 hours?
Who said it did, Mr Red Herring? Obviously the references are to daylight and nighttime. You know, the first DAY.

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) 3 min ChristineM 201,152
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 6 min Aura Mytha 40,377
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 11 min ChristineM 15,853
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 3 hr ChristineM 90
Scientists create vast 3-D map of universe, val... Sat One way or another 6
The conscious God or the inanimate nature Sat Fear-God 8
Proof that all of Christianity is a lie Jul 21 THE LONE WORKER 41
More from around the web