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

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

There are 143899 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

#119584 Jul 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no idea what the shortest time the global flood evidence in its entirety could have persisted. I'm not a global flood evidence dynamics expert. That's why I seek confirming data for any relevant assertions made.

Whereas there have never been a global flood and whereas we can have no data for events that never occurred it is therefore not possible to provide you with data for the global flood.

Likewise we cannot provide evidence for talking snakes for similar reasons.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119585 Jul 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
If I become convinced there are none giving objective consideration to my input, I'm ought of here.

We have given objective consideration to your input and come to the conclusion that it is crap.

I am calling your bluff. You need to be here to decrease your own internal cognitive dissonance. You aren't going anywhere.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119586 Jul 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Data is the foundation for confirming correct understanding. Understanding itself may be correct or incorrect.

You either did not read or understand my post.

Further, you are the most data adverse person here. If you believe what everyone else knows is wrong, isn't that the definition of a delusion.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119587 Jul 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I do know that science seeks to falsify, but your side has refused to falsify the 4500 ybp bottleneck posssibility, stating it's my responsibility to prove it true, although you now indicat it's your responsibility to falsify it. Go figure!
BTW, I have provided 2 such bottleneck examples so far.

It IS your responsibility. But WE did it anyway. The lack of a bottleneck in humans (and every other other animal we examined). So we have conclusive proof that the flood never happened.

You have shown zero examples so far. The requirement for your side would be 100% of all land animal life (at minimum).

You lost again. Global flood verdict is in. Final answer: No Global Flood.

Have a nice day.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119588 Jul 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I look for evidence constantly and consistently, and your side constantly refuses to provide it. I do seek to find it myself, but realize I'm only one person, and you represent the opposition, and therefore, could be expected to be more likely to readily have such evidence at the ready.

Sorry, all lies.

You don't provide much in the way of evidence/data.
The global flood has been refuted via multiple tests including, most recently, genetic bottleneck data. It simply is not possible.
It IS your responsibility (under the scientific method) to provide evidence. However, if I EVER find any evidence for a global flood I promise to provide it to you. Don't hold your breath.

Global Flood - Case Closed

KAB

Taipei, Taiwan

#119589 Jul 14, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I really wonder how you manage to take all the evidence in that you have been given already and yet continue to delude yourself that a WW Flood is possible.
The only assumption you can be left with is that God, embarrassed by his genocidal murderous spree, covered up the evidence!
Well, humans nailed him anyway.
I haven't been given evidence, only assertions that there is such. That's why I keep asking for the data. In the past, I had the same perceptions as you, but discovered there's no there there.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119590 Jul 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Does science tell us that every population bottleneck in a species is guaranteed detectable genetically? Data please!

Detectability of a genetic bottleneck decreases with age, generational length and is related to the size of the bottleneck. A minor bottleneck could be very difficult to detect after as little as 25 - 50,000 years. A major bottleneck quite a bit longer. A near extinction event (like we are discussing) among species with longer generations and normally large numbers would be detectable for probably up to 250,000 years.

"estimates of MVP for many species are in the thousands. Based on a meta-analysis of reported values in the literature for many species, Traill et al. reported a median MVP of 4,169 individuals.[5]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_viable_p...

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119591 Jul 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Does science tell us that every population bottleneck in a species is guaranteed detectable genetically? Data please!

No.

But for humans we have detected bottlenecks (not genetic in this case) from over a million years ago. Here are some others.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/...
KAB

Taipei, Taiwan

#119592 Jul 14, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would a global flood's evidence be less likely to persist than a local flood's evidence? Why would a year-long flood's evidence be less likely to persist than a week-long flood's evidence? Why would a younger flood's evidence be less likely to persist than an older flood's evidence?
Why would a universal genetic bottleneck not be detected by geneticists, while many other genetic bottlenecks are detected? How is it that they just so happen to miss the biggest, most extreme genetic bottleneck possible among all Earth life (certainly all terrestrial life)?
When there are basic fundamental problems with your narrative like these, why would we, or anybody of sound mind, begin with the assumption that it's true rather than simply not accepting it as true until the evidence...EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE...demonstrates that it is?
Again: how many claims need a book have in it that are demonstrably true for all the claims that can't be demonstrated to be true to be accepted as true prima facie? There must be some numeric threshold, or some ratio of demonstrable : not demonstrable claims. You've never actually laid this formula out. It's subjective, according to you. Whatever meets your criteria is whatever you say meets it, and nobody gets to look in the black box. That's not how science works, that's not how skepticism works, and that's not how logic works. Are you being scientific? Are you being skeptical? Are you being reasonable? No on all fronts. As soon as you let everyone see inside the black box, you'll begin to do these three things. Until then, wishful thinking and nothing more.
So you shouldn't be afraid to examine specific evidence to confirm your assertions. What specific example do you want to consider first?
KAB

Taipei, Taiwan

#119593 Jul 14, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
And, as we've said before, to determine if a natural phenomenon took place, stories are not adequate as evidence. EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE is what matters. No matter how many people say a global flood occurred centuries, if not millennia, before their birth, the claim will NEVER be taken as fact until the empirical evidence demonstrates that it occurred. As soon as you can not only overcome the contradictory evidence (lack of universal genetic bottleneck, lack of geological evidence, lack of significant universal simultaneous cultural interruptions, and so on), AND have positive empirical evidence to support the premise, it's nothing more than wishful thinking.
Now, do you have ANY of that?
Apparently you're not going to provide any confirming data.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119594 Jul 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you think thousands of additional feet of water on the lower contours of Earth would tend to do to the areas of higher contours?

Zip, nada, nothing, zero, null,|0|, nadir, naught, nil, nix, nobody, nought, nullity, scratch, zilch.

The bottom of the ocean is under MILES of water and it has no effect on the geography.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119595 Jul 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you propose I confirm the universal genetic bottleneck? Was it you that asked for 5 examples but wouldn't commit to accepting that as global flood evidence?

Science works in the opposite way you do.

Science would propose a hypothesis like so:

'A global flood occurred in the last 10,000 years'

Then a means to test that.

'A global flood would have caused bottlenecks in all species'

A means to falsify:

'If there is not a common bottleneck then the hypothesis is falsified'.

So bottlenecks would be checked for a significant number of species. If all species do not show a common bottleneck then the hypothesis is falsified.

As we already have this data we know there is not a near extinction level bottleneck in ANY species that we have examined in our review.

Ergo no universal bottleneck and no flood.

Of course this is a very summary view of how science actually works to highlight the points important to this discussion.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119596 Jul 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
All it takes is some data to confirm the assertions, but your side continues to be virtually all talk and no confirming data. Try providing one example of data preserved from another flood, stemming from conditions which were the same as for the global flood. In other words, pick a flood, as I have requested before, and let's get specific and see where it leads. Why won't you do that? Are you afraid of the data?

No, sorry, it is you who have nothing but assertions.

You have no confirming data.

We have provided multiple solid refutations which you have not been able to challange.

You see why it is so easy to beat you?

Genetic bottleneck data ALONE completely refutes the global flood story from Genesis.

Therefore you are beating a dead horse.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119597 Jul 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You have repeatedly asserted that the flood never happened, and you have mede reference to purported data confirming those assertions. The only thing you have not done, albeit minor in your assessment, is actually provide the confirming data or specific references to it.

Fail

Global flood already refuted with data.

Argument is over.


Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Why? We have proven that a flood as narrated in the Bible never actually happened. Why would we look at the details of a myth?
Myths persist for their educational and moral value, not for their details.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119598 Jul 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Try pressing down in some places on something of fixed volume and see what happens at the other places.
Take a simple geology class.

More importantly, it is not necessary to discuss what would happen in the case of a global flood since we have confirmed one never happened.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119599 Jul 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Standing water doesn't erode nearly as effectively as running water. A comparison of an upwelling global flood with a standard running water flood would help you appreciate that.

I am losing interest in your fairytailland.

Global flood has been refuted, with data, in this forum.

Issue is a dead horse.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119600 Jul 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I can see that in your analysis no mtDNA haplotype can be older than about 500 years, and I don't think you believe that to be the case.

Incorrect.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119601 Jul 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I haven't been given evidence, only assertions that there is such. That's why I keep asking for the data. In the past, I had the same perceptions as you, but discovered there's no there there.

Lie.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#119602 Jul 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently you're not going to provide any confirming data.
Not my job. Your Bible. Your claim. Your burden of proof. We have lots of evidence that says it never occurred. You have admitted that the empirical evidence does not support the claim that a year-long global flood occurred 4500 years ago, just like the empirical evidence does not support a fire-breathing dragon living in my basement. Your flood story is just as fact-based as my dragon story. If you don't take my dragon seriously, why should we take your flood seriously?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#119603 Jul 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
So you shouldn't be afraid to examine specific evidence to confirm your assertions. What specific example do you want to consider first?
Shifting the burden of proof. Your story, your claim, your burden of proof. Show us the empirical evidence of the year-long global flood 4500 years ago. Until such evidence is presented, the default and proper position on the claim is to reject it, just like you'd reject my dragon claim until such time as empirical evidence of the dragon living in my basement was presented.

You and logic are not on speaking terms. The sooner you understand that, the sooner you can admit that you hold an irrational position.

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
The Definition of a Creationist Scientist 55 min Chimney1 107
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr Subduction Zone 173,376
What Motives Created Social Darwinism? 2 hr Chimney1 95
Beware of Kamikaze Snakes. They Are Evolving in... 3 hr Chimney1 77
Darwinism: Science or Philosophy? 14 hr Zog Has-fallen 55
Is the Evolutionary theory mathematically prove... 22 hr Chimney1 134
News Pope Francis Affirms Evolution and Big Bang Theory Thu Chimney1 420
More from around the web