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

#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.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119604 Jul 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
So you have no particular pyramid in mind. Your just making your usual off-the-cuff assertions.

Incorrect. As pyramids, temple complexes, obelisks, etc were being built throughout this time period it is necessary to know what year you want to look at.

Isn't that reasonable? No one pyramid was being built for more than a couple of decades. As I have already provided references for all manor of human activity throughout the period of 2,600 - 2,400 b.c.e. it seems the ball would be in your court. This is now a trivial and completely intellectual exercise, of course, as we have ruled out the possibility of a Noah type flood any time within the last 100,000 years at the least.

It seems to be getting harder and harder for you to maintain your rationalizations.

Sorry for any mental disturbance this is causing you.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119605 Jul 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text> Give a specific example of the evidence you have in mind, if you dare.

You have so much invested in this myth that you just can't let go of it, can you?

Maybe you could join a mind control cult which does not depend upon this myth being literally true.

I hear the Scientologists have an opening.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119606 Jul 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I've noticed you feeling the pressure (less amunition, more vitriol).

I find at least one clear example of projection in these forums every day.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#119607 Jul 14, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>

Once again, all we see is you wait a week or a month or a year, and post the same baloney all over again. Rational debate does not work that way Marksman.
THe truth never changes my friend. Human from non-human evolution is not observable, testable, or replicatable then, and it remains the same today. It is not a valid scientific theory, it is a humanistic philosophy. There is not a drop of science in it. Fossils are not evidence for your faith based belief because they do not show heritage. All they show is that something once existed, and the rest is nothing more but biased interpretation. Both were true the day the forum began and it is still true today. You claim to have addressed these things point for point, and you are living in a dream if you think that. Your "excuses" answers my statements about like punctuated equalibria has been observed, tested, and replicated. It is a fantasy to explain another fantasy, and that is also what your "excuses" do. Not a drop of science in either.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#119608 Jul 14, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> THe truth never changes my friend. Human from non-human evolution is not observable, testable, or replicatable then, and it remains the same today. It is not a valid scientific theory, it is a humanistic philosophy. There is not a drop of science in it. Fossils are not evidence for your faith based belief because they do not show heritage. All they show is that something once existed, and the rest is nothing more but biased interpretation. Both were true the day the forum began and it is still true today. You claim to have addressed these things point for point, and you are living in a dream if you think that. Your "excuses" answers my statements about like punctuated equalibria has been observed, tested, and replicated. It is a fantasy to explain another fantasy, and that is also what your "excuses" do. Not a drop of science in either.
Of course it is observable. The only problem is that you don't like the method of observation. And yet it is testable. Since we can observe it we can test whether those observations fit into the claim of man's evolution from other apes. So far it has.

So how do you propose making those observations?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119609 Jul 14, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> THe truth never changes my friend. Human from non-human evolution is not observable, testable, or replicatable then, and it remains the same today. It is not a valid scientific theory, it is a humanistic philosophy. There is not a drop of science in it. Fossils are not evidence for your faith based belief because they do not show heritage. All they show is that something once existed, and the rest is nothing more but biased interpretation. Both were true the day the forum began and it is still true today. You claim to have addressed these things point for point, and you are living in a dream if you think that. Your "excuses" answers my statements about like punctuated equalibria has been observed, tested, and replicated. It is a fantasy to explain another fantasy, and that is also what your "excuses" do. Not a drop of science in either.
All BS as we have shown. You have become nothing more than a chronic liar and whiner. You refuse to learn, that is on you. Where is your Bible does it say you have to ignore reality to be a Christian. I am unable to find such a passage in mine.
KAB

Taipei, Taiwan

#119610 Jul 14, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
And you're of the mind that rapidly rising ocean levels (by rain and "fountains of the deep" or tectonic shifts under the ocean) wouldn't result in violent oceanic activity. Minor earthquakes cause tidal waves that wipe out entire island cities. Now, add greater tectonic activity and the rapidly increasing mass of the ocean, and tell us all why you think this would result in a gentle rise without violent tsunamis greater than anything the planet has ever seen. Go ahead. We're all eager to hear how increasing all the variables results in LOWER oceanic activity.
Here's a clue to the answer. What are tsunamis like in the open ocean? Why do ships head out to sea when one is appoaching?
KAB

Taipei, Taiwan

#119611 Jul 14, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
So, if I claimed that a dragon was living in my basement, you wouldn't just take my word for it. After all, I'm just a fallible human being.
What if 100 different people, none related directly to me or each other, from different parts of the world, with no vested interest in the outcome, said that there's a fire-breathing dragon living in my basement?
What if those 100 people were also able to provide identical descriptions of the dragon? Is it true then?
What if those 100 people go to their deaths professing the existence of this dragon? What if they're killed specifically for this profession?
What if those 100 people also made a bunch of other claims, all of which had been proven true? Now would you accept the dragon as real? Or, does the claim about the dragon have to stand on its own merits and its own evidence?
Will you allow me to see the dragon?
KAB

Taipei, Taiwan

#119612 Jul 14, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jul/19/scien...
"The new research, published today in the journal Nature, found evidence of at least two floods between 180,000 and 450,000 years ago."
These were floods that cut off Britain from mainland Europe, twice. Probably the result of rising sea levels during interglacial periods. Now following up, to the Nature article.
http://www.livescience.com/1711-megaflood-cre...
The original paper discussing how sonar in the English Channel was used etc to make the discovery...
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n71...
But its a paying subscriber journal.
Nevertheless, what you demanded.
Is a breached dam like the Noachian flood? This is not what I requested.
KAB

Taipei, Taiwan

#119613 Jul 14, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
That's an interesting approach. First make an assertion that something didn't occur. Then, based on that assertion, decide not to seek data regarding the matter.

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) 5 min deutscher Nationa... 143,207
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 41 min dirtclod 14,787
Ten Reason Why Evolution Is a Lie (Jul '09) 56 min outlaw44 1,955
Why natural selection can't work 2 hr paul porter 30
Question on complexity Common Sense says..... (May '12) 15 hr Dogen 19
Have you read the comments of avid evolutionist... (May '12) 15 hr Dogen 8
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... Sat ChromiuMan 966
More from around the web