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

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

There are 151414 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

Asia/Pacific Region

#119685 Jul 16, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you WOULD seek empirical evidence.
You refuse to admit that's what you would do, because it puts the lie to your whole "flood must be true" narrative.
Of course, I could pull the old Christian trick of, "if you believe it exists, you'll be able to see it, but if you don't believe it exists, you won't be able to see it." Fact is, though, you're still asking for empirical evidence. You're too intellectually cowardly to admit that's what you're saying, because you can't bear to backtrack and admit your previous error in reasoning for accepting the Bible story as true. Wouldn't it be good to be honest with us and yourself, instead of having to do all these linguistic handsprings to avoid the truth? The short-term cognitive dissonance is nothing compared to the long-term lie under which you force yourself to live by avoiding the dissonance. Man up. Honest people admit when they've erred. Dishonest people look for every possible way to avoid that admission.
Where have you been? I have consistently from day one to the present been driving for empirical evidence in everything. The desired/required evidence, however, just isn't always obtainable.

Ironically, among humans, linguistics is the means of choice for conveying the truth. It pays to be good at it.

BTW, have you erred?
KAB

Asia/Pacific Region

#119686 Jul 16, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
First, make an assertion that a global flood DID occur. Then, based on that assertion, decide not to seek empirical evidence (the only thing that actually matters) regarding the matter.
What does the Bible say about hypocrites?
I always seek empirical evidence, no matter the premise, positive or negative.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#119687 Jul 16, 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.
The fundamental point is not altered by your games of deflection. We csn detect smaller floods hundreds of thousands of years ago. Volcanic episodes tens of millions of yesrs ago. Ice aces. Asteroid impacts, continenental collisions. Magnetic reversals. Climate changes. Mass extinctions 250 million years ago. And 230 and 65mya. Etc.

Many of these are big events, but nothing like the magnitude of a flood covering the entire land mass of the world a mere 4500 years ago. Your suggestion is equivalent to being able to see a mouse at the other end of a football field but failing to be able to detect a bull elephant standing right in front of you. And not for lack of trying because you have been told that the elephant is definitely there.

Why cant you see the elephant? Because its not there. But still some lunatic is screaming "there must be an elephant, there MUST be, because I have a magic book that tells me there is!"

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#119688 Jul 16, 2013
10 Incredibly Deadly Plagues



You all keep going on about bottle necks. Well here are the top 10 plagues in history. Now from years 165-180 the Antonine plague wiped out 5 million people and again in years 541-542 the plague of Justinian wiped out 25 million people. My question is in around those 1500-2000 years does/will it show a bottle neck for the 193.5 million to 257.5 million that died? Many died in the last 250 years.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#119689 Jul 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to have forgotten that at the height of the global flood there was no land. Thus, tsunamis not a problem.
And YOU seem to have forgotten that such tsunamis hitting land would have left behind physical evidence that does not exist. Whoops, you failed.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#119690 Jul 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I always seek empirical evidence, no matter the premise, positive or negative.
So, you look for ways the Bible story could be wrong, and you have yet to find a single piece of evidence that disagrees with the Bible flood story? REALLY? So, our lack of genetic bottleneck at 4500 years ago doesn't disagree with the story?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#119691 Jul 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Where have you been? I have consistently from day one to the present been driving for empirical evidence in everything. The desired/required evidence, however, just isn't always obtainable.
Ironically, among humans, linguistics is the means of choice for conveying the truth. It pays to be good at it.
BTW, have you erred?
Genetic bottlenecks are empirical evidence. If geneticists aren't finding universal genetic bottlenecks at 4500 years ago, is it incompetence or conspiracy that drives that lack of detection? Or, did God magically undo the genetic effects? Or, is the greatest (breadth and depth) genetic bottleneck the world has ever known simply not detectable in the way every other genetic bottleneck has been detectable?
KAB

Taiwan

#119692 Jul 16, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I have already provided this. I also gave a list of things influencing how long a population bottleneck will be obvious.
Reliability of genetic bottleneck tests for detecting recent population declines.
Peery MZ, Kirby R, Reid BN, Stoelting R, Doucet-Bëer E, Robinson S, Vásquez-Carrillo C, Pauli JN, Palsbøll PJ. Mol Ecol. 2012 Jul;21(14):3403-18. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2012.05635 .x. Epub 2012 May 30. Review.
Defining the human immunodeficiency virus type 1 transmission genetic bottleneck in a region with multiple circulating subtypes and recombinant forms. Nofemela A, Bandawe G, Thebus R, Marais J, Wood N, Hoffmann O, Maboko L, Hoelscher M, Woodman Z, Williamson C.
Virology. 2011 Jul 5;415(2):107-13. doi: 10.1016/j.virol.2010.12.027. Epub 2011 May 4.
Previous estimates of mitochondrial DNA mutation level variance did not account for sampling error: comparing the mtDNA genetic bottleneck in mice and humans. Wonnapinij P, Chinnery PF, Samuels DC. Am J Hum Genet. 2010 Apr 9;86(4):540-50. doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2010.02.023. Epub 2010 Apr 1.
Lack of a genetic bottleneck in a recent Lessepsian bioinvader, the blue-barred parrotfish, Scarus ghobban. Bariche M, Bernardi G.
Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2009 Nov;53(2):592-5. doi: 10.1016/j.ympev.2009.06.017. Epub 2009 Jul 3. PMID: 1957765
Taking the parrotfish article, how do you see it relating to the global flood?
KAB

Taiwan

#119693 Jul 16, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Please provide your made up, non-existent data of a global flood forming a mountain.
Oh! That's right! You don't have any data, do you? Even made up crap.
I know what happens when pressure is applied to some parts of a fixed volume pliable object. Do you?
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#119694 Jul 16, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
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
You actually posted something in which the scientists don't even know what it is, as evidence that humans evolved from none humans? You made my case, not yours!!!
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#119695 Jul 16, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, your conclusions above were refuted in previous discussions. Since you have not answered these refutations you cannot simply keep repeating your original assertions.
Excuses clothed in fantasy are not explanations and need not be treated as such.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#119696 Jul 16, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>And YOU seem to have forgotten that such tsunamis hitting land would have left behind physical evidence that does not exist. Whoops, you failed.
Not to mention the erosion caused by the draining of that massive amount of water.

Again, evidence of floodwater erosion is seen in multiple places on earth from much longer ago.
KAB

Taiwan

#119697 Jul 16, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
What part I don't give a flying f**k didn't you get?
<quoted text>
See above comment.
<quoted text>
Absolute lie. You have not interest at all in what is correct. You're only interest is in maintaining your belief in myths.
Firing blanks again, I see.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#119698 Jul 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I know what happens when pressure is applied to some parts of a fixed volume pliable object. Do you?
I do.

Now, Mr I-Have-to-Change-the-Subject-B ecause-I-Have-No-Answer, how about your provide your made up, non-existent data of a global flood forming a mountain.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#119699 Jul 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Firing blanks again, I see.
Nope. Balls-on accurate.

Now, about that mountain building flood data that you keep dodging...
KAB

Taiwan

#119700 Jul 16, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>That you equate yourself with someone like Copernicus is irony, hypocrisy, delusion obscene and almost pornographic.
Did the mainstream tell Copernicus he was wacked, and was he correct? That's the extent of the comparison. To wit, having everyone against you doesn't mean you're wrong, so you should cease using that fallacious line of reasoning.
KAB

Taiwan

#119701 Jul 16, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
With the number of species numbering in the millions, you have a long way to go.
Thanks for highlighting why proving the universal genetic bottleneck is a futile approach.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#119702 Jul 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Did the mainstream tell Copernicus he was wacked, and was he correct? That's the extent of the comparison. To wit, having everyone against you doesn't mean you're wrong, so you should cease using that fallacious line of reasoning.
You're still wrong.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#119703 Jul 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for highlighting why proving the universal genetic bottleneck is a futile approach.
Of course, you know damn right well that not what I alluded to but then totally dishonesty is part and parcel of your religion.

You are right about one thing, proving your imaginary universal bottleneck is a waste of time. It never happened 4500 years ago.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#119704 Jul 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Did the mainstream tell Copernicus he was wacked, and was he correct? That's the extent of the comparison. To wit, having everyone against you doesn't mean you're wrong, so you should cease using that fallacious line of reasoning.
You are reaching for straws. The mainstream at the time was the Church which however indirectly you represent here. Again in a position against science and facts. Your position is as then based solely on a literal interpretation of scripture. Unlike then, science has developed a massively robust body of evidence in numerous fields and along even more numerous lines. The comparison is just you reaching for straws as you drown in the evidence that refutes your mythical flood.

Even the modern Church has embraced far more science than you seem to have done or understand. This is all about your fear. If part of the book you worship is falsified, then how can you continue on in your belief. You can. People have been doing that for a long, long time.

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 29 min Chimney1 40,228
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 42 min Rosa_Winkel 15,747
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 1 hr Reno Hoock 83
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr DanFromSmithville 201,013
Scientists create vast 3-D map of universe, val... 3 hr One way or another 6
The conscious God or the inanimate nature 14 hr Fear-God 8
Proof that all of Christianity is a lie Jul 21 THE LONE WORKER 41
More from around the web