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

#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.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119614 Jul 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
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?

Since a global flood has never happened and not actually possible the question is moot.

Moot: Rendered unimportant by recent events or information.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119615 Jul 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Will you allow me to see the dragon?

No.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119616 Jul 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Is a breached dam like the Noachian flood? This is not what I requested.

Not at all. A breached dam actually happens. Noachian floods are myths.
As are the floods of Ziusudra, Gilgamesh, and Atrahasis that predate Noah's myth.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119617 Jul 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
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.

That is not exactly your approach. Your approach is to make an assertion that something did occur. Then, based on that assertion, decide to seek data regarding the matter.

My approach was to provide the data that it is not possible based on a number of lines of evidence (most recently the bottleneck refutation).

At any rate the flood has been refuted. It is not possible based on the bottleneck data alone.

You know it and it eats at you.

“A have offended, Brickie, Dark”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Blue, Suncore, Replay whoever

#119618 Jul 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Will you allow me to see the dragon?
Is this a come on? Watch out Lowell Guy.
KAB

Asia/Pacific Region

#119619 Jul 14, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Isn't that what they told Copernicus?
KAB

Asia/Pacific Region

#119620 Jul 14, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
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...
Does science tell us that every population bottleneck in a species is guaranteed detectable genetically? Data please!

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) 18 min reporterreport 117,294
Darwin on the rocks 37 min TurkanaBoy 77
The Satanic Character of Social Darwinism 1 hr Chimney1 653
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 4 hr MikeF 174,428
Why are there no dinosaur pen is fossil? Sep 27 David M 2
New Fossil Reveals Multicellular Life Evolved 6... Sep 26 TedHOhio 8
Birds Evolved From Dinosaurs Slowly—Then Took Off Sep 26 TedHOhio 2

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE