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

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#119705 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?
This seems like a dataless post to me. You are making an assertion, but you don't have anything to support it or even relate it to the discussion. This is more of your dithering and belaboring.

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#119706 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.
If the Church would have brought evidence of equal or greater extent to refute Copernicus, I could see the comparison, maybe. You realize that in this comparison, you are the Church and not Copernicus.

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#119707 Jul 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for highlighting why proving the universal genetic bottleneck is a futile approach.
Well sure it is a futile approach, but that seems to be what you thrive on.

If a finite number of species are examined for a genetic bottleneck occurring at a specified time and it doesn't show up in any of these organisms, that pretty much rules out a universal bottleneck for that time.

With the techniques available today, a bottleneck at 4500 years in even a handful of organisms would be as apparent as a roadside billboard. If a thousand organisms were examined and one of them were to actually have a bottleneck in or around 4500 years, that wouldn't help you either. But, I bet you would cling to that one piece of evidence with a death grip.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119708 Jul 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
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.

Ignoring for a moment that the above is a complete lie and not at all what you do or are interested in doing....


When one side is completely unable to counter the evidence of the other then that side typically loses. Since genetic evidence presents the equivalent of a Ultra HD 4K video of the crime, clear face shots of the perp, finger prints and DNA and your defense it to simply ignore it or ask the other side to provide evidence for you, then your case is lost.

If you want objectivity then provide it. So far you are throwing the case to us.

"You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has facts, and those facts have to be guarded by men with science. Who's gonna do it? You? You, KAB? We have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119709 Jul 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
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.

Your lack of understanding of the data does not cause an issue for those of us who do.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119710 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.

Several, very obvious, problems with this.

1. We have refuted the notion of a literal global flood occurring in at least the last 100,000 years.

2. Your waive of hand does not account for what would have happened as flood waters rose and receded.

3. No global flood ever occurred.

4. You have admitted you have no evidence for a global flood.

5. You are suffering from the delusion that as long as you keep arguing you are still in the game. You lost long ago.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119711 Jul 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you checked the flood gauge lately?

Is it right next to the talking snake gauge?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119712 Jul 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I have a flood gauge reading. What do you have for the dragon?
He has a dragon gauge reading. Actually a GFG will work just as well on dragons and vice versa.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119713 Jul 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
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!

Not a problem.

If the global flood were true then we would see bottle necks in all major species of animals.

We do not see that.

Therefore no global flood.

Major bottlenecks are easier to detect than minor ones.
Near extinction level bottlenecks are even more obvious.
Bottlenecks are easier to detect in species that have longer generations (and further back into the past due to such).

Humans are an ideal species in which to detect bottlenecks and indeed we have a confirmed major one 70,000 years ago. A 4,500 year near extinction level bottleneck would be glaring, but is not to be found in humans nor any of the other animals we have examined.

Conclusion: there was no near extinction level event (global flood) 4,500 years ago.

period.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119714 Jul 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Data driven Copernicus is my kink of guy!

Copernicus would have had a good laugh at you had you lived at the same time.

Copernicus did not just look up at the sky one night and say "gee, I think I will ignore some data and make up a vision of how the sky works because my religion tells me to do so.

So you and Copernicus are polar opposites.

Copernicus became well educated in math and science FIRST. It was because of this education that he understood the present understanding was not correct even if it was based on the Bible. He then worked out a (more) correct system based on actual observations and calculations.

Again, the opposite of you. Your education seems limited to mental masturbation for which you have several Ph.D.'s, but that hardly qualifies you to understand science which is well above your head. While I have no doubt you COULD learn science, your cult does not allow you to do so.

Too bad, so sad.


Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
No, they said he was possessed by a demon.
Copernicus actually knew what he was talking about. His discovery was not predicated on steeped religious ignorance; it was based on him understanding the math and science did not work.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119715 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.

To the millions of lurkers out there: This is a lie. KAB always says this, but analysis of his posts consistently demonstrates the opposite. Don't take my word for it, go look at the history of his posting.
KAB wrote:
<quoted text> 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.

Again, to the millions of lurkers out there: Here KAB is essentially saying that linguistics (which he is not good at - he frequently misuses words or uses a completely wrong word) is more important than scientific facts. Is that what you believe my dear lurker friends? Me neither.

I would think someone skilled at linguistics would be good at convincing others of his thesis. Yet we can find no one (literally not one single person) who has been convinced by him about anything he has argued for.

KAB (again, don't take my word - look for oneself) is egomaniacal to a degree he cannot support with his tepid education. He professes he is doing well and has the answers for everything yet nothing of the sort is ever evidenced in his posts.

"Whoever has ears to hear, let them hear."

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119716 Jul 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I always seek empirical evidence, no matter the premise, positive or negative.

This would be another lie.

Who is the father of all lies? He keeps you well fed.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119717 Jul 16, 2013
replaytime wrote:
10 Incredibly Deadly Plagues
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =_CohXNy3pEEXX
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.

No. While these events are sad, the number dying is trivial to the existing genome.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119718 Jul 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Taking the parrotfish article, how do you see it relating to the global flood?

How does something real relate to mythology?

Intriguing but meaningless question.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119719 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?

What is the context?

We refuted the global flood so I would like to know what issue we are working on now.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119720 Jul 16, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>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!!!

Clearly you don't understand.

I would encourage you to actually READ the link, but I don't think that would help.

What might actually help is you reading some science books. But I would not want you to hurt yourself.

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

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119721 Jul 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Firing blanks again, I see.

In what sense was Mike firing blanks?

He simply called you out for your chronic lying.

Not only was the round live, but it hit a bulls-eye.


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.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119722 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.

The reasoning is actually sound. Few discoveries are made by ignorant people who ignore the data and make things up as they go along.

Copernicus rigged the deck. He was very well educated in math and science and had data that supported him. None of that is true for you, now is it?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#119723 Jul 16, 2013
Dogen wrote:
To the millions of lurkers out there:
Millions. LOL

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#119724 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.
The mainstream was using the same standard of evidence YOU use. Bible is true, therefore reality MUST conform to what it says. Copernicus said reality must be taken on reality's terms. You and they disagree with that position. Which side of history did YOU think you were on?

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) 3 min Aura Mytha 131,732
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 1 hr Dogen 426
How would creationists explain... 1 hr The Dude 284
Science News (Sep '13) 2 hr positronium 2,939
sea-dwelling dinosaur found alive (Apr '10) 3 hr The Dude 87
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 3 hr The Dude 13,613
Genetic entropy Mon Chimney1 157