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

There are 141333 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.

KAB

Taipei, Taiwan

#119664 Jul 15, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I could go along with you if you would just provide confirming data instead of just the assertions. BTW, I start with a report of something, then seek data regarding the matter.

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#119665 Jul 15, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Now would be a good time for you to provide a specific citation of an example of my vitriol. Otherwise, you leave yourself exposed as incorrect yet again.
I recall several examples. I can't provide links, but you have expressed anger by use of colorful invective.

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#119666 Jul 15, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I could go along with you if you would just provide confirming data instead of just the assertions. BTW, I start with a report of something, then seek data regarding the matter.
But you are the one that needs to provide data. It is your assertion that the biblical flood is a real event. Where is the data? I have yet to see your data.
KAB

Taipei, Taiwan

#119667 Jul 15, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Rubbish. You asked for a smaller flood preceding your alleged Noachian one. Took about 5 minutes to find one. Now you want to specify the kind of flood? The one referred to was caused by a rise in sea levels. That is as close to the noah flood as you are going to get. The whole point also was that we can see plenty of evidence for geological events large and small giing back miiloons of years but nothing that can be attributed only to a worldwide flood a mee 5000 years back. So even a "breached dam" event would serve the purpose required.
This is further evidence that this alleged flood of massive proportions never occured.
I didn't ask for a flood preceding the Noachian one, although I have no objection to you providing one.

BTW, you might want to read your articles. The scientist doesn't attribute the flood(s) to rising sea level. If you're interested, I can tell you why I was scientifically suspicious that might be the case and then proceeded to confirm it in one of the articles. You obviously didn't discern the error in your notion.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119668 Jul 15, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Now would be a good time for you to provide a specific citation of an example of my vitriol. Otherwise, you leave yourself exposed as incorrect yet again.

Why would I give an example of your vitriol as I was not discussing such. Which word do you need to have defined; vitriol or projection?

I was responding to your EXAMPLE of projection.

Didn't you get that?

Duh.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119669 Jul 15, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I could go along with you if you would just provide confirming data instead of just the assertions. BTW, I start with a report of something, then seek data regarding the matter.

Except that is a lie. What you ACTUALLY do 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.

I assert.
You lie.

I win.


“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119670 Jul 15, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I could go along with you if you would just provide confirming data instead of just the assertions. BTW, I start with a report of something, then seek data regarding the matter.

But I know you can't control your lying. You are under the control of your master, the father of all lies.
KAB

Taipei, Taiwan

#119671 Jul 15, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah I would say it does. But why dont you stop asking gibbersh questions and go and find out for yourself? I for one am getting tired of your little game of continually demanding data and then making silly excuses when you get it. Ohhhhh wrong kind of flood. Ooooohhhh can you guarantee this or that.
Can you offer an alternative explanation for why cheetahs show a bottleneck 10000 years ago but few other creatures do? You cannot. So a fair and balanced, objective person, would accept the evidence.
Dogen states "No" regarding guaranteed bottleneck detectability. Perhaps you could resolve your differences and get back to me. You see what happens when you just make assertions instead of letting data lead you to the correct answer?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119672 Jul 15, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't ask for a flood preceding the Noachian one, although I have no objection to you providing one.
BTW, you might want to read your articles. The scientist doesn't attribute the flood(s) to rising sea level. If you're interested, I can tell you why I was scientifically suspicious that might be the case and then proceeded to confirm it in one of the articles. You obviously didn't discern the error in your notion.

Here you go again.

We have already confirmed there was no Noachian flood other than in mythology.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119673 Jul 15, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text> Dogen states "No" regarding guaranteed bottleneck detectability. Perhaps you could resolve your differences and get back to me.
Chimney example is certainly detectable (evidence: it was detected). And if memory serves (and it does) I also provided you with some of the variables that would be involved in that detectability.

Issue resolved. See what happens when you make shit up?


KAB wrote:
<quoted text> You see what happens when you just make assertions instead of letting data lead you to the correct answer?

That is your arena of expertise so we will rely on your view.

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#119674 Jul 15, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Dogen states "No" regarding guaranteed bottleneck detectability. Perhaps you could resolve your differences and get back to me. You see what happens when you just make assertions instead of letting data lead you to the correct answer?
The techniques used to detect a genetic bottleneck are more than good enough to show that none occurred around 4500 years ago for any species so far examined. That is more than enough to kill your flood theory no matter how you try to lie your way out of it. And this is just one line of multiple lines of evidence that refute a global flood. You can hem and haw and behave like a child, but that evidence is not going away or is not going to change its story.

Fitting that you end your post in a lie, since you have been lying all this time.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#119675 Jul 15, 2013
"Broken tooth in dino tail 'proves' T. rex was predator"

http://phys.org/news/2013-07-broken-tooth-din...

Must have happened after "The Fall", eh KAB?

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#119676 Jul 15, 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.
Marky, See attached for a link to "observations".

You might not agree with the results found, but these are scientific observations nevertheless.

http://phys.org/news/2013-07-homo-species-d-c...

One more Homo species? Recent 3-D-comparative analysis confirms status of Homo floresiensis as a fossil human species
KAB

Asia/Pacific Region

#119677 Jul 15, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
False. You are ognoring the data you have been given. Such as thebhuman haplotype data.
Interesting how I respond in some detail to data you assert I am ignoring. Such a response more characteristically results from analyzing/scrutinizing. Your side consistently takes the approach that if you provide something, it by definition accomplishes your purpose, and that is the end of the matter. It appears that your idea of a valid court system is one in which if the prosecution presents its case, that's all that's needed, and the accused is thereby convicted. I don't subscribe to that approach. I recognize it's necessary to allow for and objectively consider both side's cases before reaching a verdict.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#119678 Jul 15, 2013
KAB wrote:
I recognize it's necessary to allow for and objectively consider both side's cases before reaching a verdict.
If you claim to have ever objectively considered that Genisis might not be an accurate representation, you're simply lying.
KAB

Asia/Pacific Region

#119679 Jul 15, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, that is not a necessary consequence of the model at all. I think you still are not getting it quite. There is no upper limit on a partcular haplotypes possible life. Also, further changes to a haplotype do not wipe out the previous changes (or at least that is exceedingly unlikely). So changes do accumulate and thereby build up a nested hierarchy. This is exacrly what we need in order to understand ancestral relationships and is used to show migration patterns throughoutnthe world.
And incidently for those few lunatics who still take Genesis literally, none of this evidence is even remotely consistent with a bottleneck 5000 years ago.
You haven't given any evidence yet. You've just been trying to reason your way thru the situation, and you're currently in conflict with yourself. You now acknowledge, not surprisingly, that haplotypes, in general, live to a ripe old age. Yet you gave a straightforward mathematical analysis of how each one, upon being introduced, disappears in about 24 generations. Now reconcile the conflict, or you could cut to the chase and provide direct observation data from the real world showing what does happen.
KAB

Asia/Pacific Region

#119680 Jul 16, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
That doesn't matter. What happens when they would hit land is what matters. The tsunamis would destroy most everything that was on land 4500 years ago. Where is the evidence that this occurred? Or, do you have evidence of tsunami-proof buildings from 4500 years ago?
By the way, how's that genetic bottleneck coming?
You do realize that every time you bring something up, it's only going to beg the question: where's the evidence?
You seem to have forgotten that at the height of the global flood there was no land. Thus, tsunamis not a problem.
KAB

Asia/Pacific Region

#119681 Jul 16, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
We don't need to prove it didn't happen. It's your story, it's your claim, it's your burden of proof. Prove the flood occurred. Show us the empirical evidence, as that's the only thing that matters when it comes to demonstrating the reality of a natural phenomenon. It's not OUR job to do YOUR homework. Evidence or GTFO.
Have you checked the flood gauge lately?
KAB

Asia/Pacific Region

#119682 Jul 16, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
The same empirical evidence you have for the global flood.
I have a flood gauge reading. What do you have for the dragon?
KAB

Asia/Pacific Region

#119683 Jul 16, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
With which premise do you disagree? That a flood occurred, that it would create a genetic bottleneck in all life on Earth, or that such a universal bottleneck would be detectable (even when others are detectable)?
Science is able to detect some bottlenecks genetically and acknowledges they can't guarantee detection of all bottlenecks.
BTW, Dr. D wisely, for once, acknowledges this also. I know you trust him. Better you than me!

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) 17 min NoahLovesU 163,790
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 3 hr SoE 178,614
has science finally debunked the 'god' myth? 5 hr UncommonSense2015 10
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) 21 hr Chimney1 1,871
How can we prove God exists, or does not? Sat Kong_ 80
News British Ban Teaching Creationism As Science, Sh... (Jul '14) Sat Swedenforever 159
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) May 19 Kathleen 19,031
More from around the web