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

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#119645 Jul 15, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Since when?
You only concern yourself with supporting your own beliefs. Mr. Confirmation Bias.
Lurkers are a red herring. Or do you just like to believe things for which there is no evidence?
Bingo!

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#119646 Jul 15, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Isn't that what they told Copernicus?
That you equate yourself with someone like Copernicus is irony, hypocrisy, delusion obscene and almost pornographic.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#119647 Jul 15, 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.
With the number of species numbering in the millions, you have a long way to go.

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#119648 Jul 15, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
So far I'm just beating a dataless horse!
You are a liar. It is we that have beaten a dataless horse, Wackadoodle (Google that).

Ignoring data, failing to provide data, and unsubstantiated claims have been saddled with you since Call to the Post.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#119649 Jul 15, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I look for evidence constantly and consistently, and your side constantly refuses to provide it.
Why must you continually lie?
KAB wrote:
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.
Huh?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119650 Jul 15, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for the dataless article.

Trying to keep up with you.

Actually, if you knew what data actually was you would understand that the article if filled with it.

But more important for you to maintain your self delusion.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119651 Jul 15, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You are so not technically savvy. This is a matter of a physical system experiencing a major parametric shift and adjusting to a new equilibrium. You are trying to compare a disturbed state to an equilibrium state.

You are so not technically savvy. This is one reason why I chose the example I did. It mirrors your own examples and demonstrates the fallacy of your thinking.

At any rate the global flood is refuted on multiple genetic grounds so what would happen if an (impossible) global flood occurs is like musing upon what happens if the Mad Hatter lights a match in Wonderland.

Your conclusions were refuted in previous discussions.

Have a nice day.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119652 Jul 15, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
If we already have this data, why isn't it being provided? It should be so simple, yet you don't go beyond asserting it. That could make one suspicious that the assertions may not be correct.

We were suspicious that your assertions were not correct, which is why we provided the information.

Since you have not been able to provide data to the contrary a status quo situation exists where we are required to do nothing to counter your innuendo.

I have given you links to the scientific method. Why have you not read them?


Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
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.

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#119653 Jul 15, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Why must you continually lie?
<quoted text>
Huh?
Mike, I have a gibberish to English dictionary handy. Kab's post translates to:
"I make wild, unsupported assertions and expect my opponents to provide evidence." "You are more skilled and knowledgeable than a dried up old turnip fart like me and if I can't beat you I will twist what you say in an attempt to make it look like you don't know anything."
That is pretty close I think, but a lot of gibberish could mean anything so it is hard to be sure.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#119654 Jul 15, 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.
Lie.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#119655 Jul 15, 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.
And you data for an upwelling flood?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#119656 Jul 15, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I've noticed you feeling the pressure (less amunition, more vitriol).
Nope. We simply getting a little tired of your whiny little ass.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119657 Jul 15, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
So far I'm just beating a dataless horse!

Yes. You run into that quite a lot when you try to prove myths are facts.

But with the existing body of genetic bottleneck data you are without recourse if you cannot refute it.

A more recent bottleneck would generally be much more pronounced in the genome than an older one (given the same species) so your task is made easier by that fact.

---------

As lame as your arguments (more like insinuations) are there is a point to be addressed. There are basically two type of scientific literature, pop and fully academic. There seems to be a wide chasm between them. Nearly all pop science literature presumes no science beyond H.S. level, which is no where near what is needed to understand specialized professional literature which is written by and for professionals in the same field.

Though I know you are not serious when you ask for data, the data you refer to is deeply ensconced in the professional literature. The problem there is that while the data is physically accessible, it is not easily understood by a lay audience, even a generally well educated one.

To understand a scientific study fully one must know the background (previous similar studies), the methods of the field, the common language. Scientific terms are more specific and specialized than the same term in general use. So if I read an article in my field (say on the 'Effect of Brainwave Entrainment training on Psychophysical and Psychological Perception of Depressing using the BDI') the, if I am well read in my field I know exactly what they are talking about.

By the way, I just made up the title of the study. Any similarity between this title and real studies, either living or dead is purely coincidental.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119658 Jul 15, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
To what empirical evidence are you referring regarding the dragon?

Oh, you do like pretend play.

Since you have nothing you want to pretend it never happened and start over so you can keep arguing.

Your previous comments about lurkers interests me. If such a creature existed then how do you think THEY would feel about your dishonesty, subterfuge, smoke-screening, and misleading prose? Don't you think they could see through that just as easy as the rest of us do?


“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#119659 Jul 15, 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?
They are barely noticeable. What does that have to do with your gentle, upwelling flood?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119660 Jul 15, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently, your side is in lock step that no confirming data will be provided.

Ah, more dishonesty. You know that data is your responsibility. You have none.

What do you not understand about this?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#119661 Jul 15, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Mike, I have a gibberish to English dictionary handy. Kab's post translates to:
"I make wild, unsupported assertions and expect my opponents to provide evidence." "You are more skilled and knowledgeable than a dried up old turnip fart like me and if I can't beat you I will twist what you say in an attempt to make it look like you don't know anything."
That is pretty close I think, but a lot of gibberish could mean anything so it is hard to be sure.
Ah! Gotcha!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119662 Jul 15, 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.

It is more fear than intrinsic dishonesty, in my opinion.
KAB

Taipei, Taiwan

#119663 Jul 15, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I find at least one clear example of projection in these forums every day.
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.
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.

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) 25 min TurkanaBoy 132,999
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 30 min TurkanaBoy 568
How would creationists explain... 33 min TurkanaBoy 364
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 2 hr Chimney1 13,624
Science News (Sep '13) 15 hr Hatti_Hollerand 2,937
Creationism coming to Ohio classrooms? Not with... Sat nobody 7
24 hour dental emergency (Nov '13) Dec 19 Zach 4
More from around the web