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

Full story: Asheville Citizen-Times

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 ...
Comments
117,521 - 117,540 of 134,460 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••