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

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

There are 162986 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.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#119852 Jul 17, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, the land would have gotten significantly less flat, but not instantly. It was a good portion of a year before land even began to appear.
As to meltdown avoidance I am doing that the same way you're imagining its occurrence, datalessly so far. There's no reason to assume a global meltdown unless confirmed by data.
Hey, Jackass! We're talking about your imaginary flattening of the earth. I don't need any goddamn data. It's your bullshit. You provide the data.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119853 Jul 17, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for your astute observation that we can't tell how long a haplotype will persist once introduced.

Ah,... another lie.

ATTENTION NONEXISTENT LURKERS!

Here is what Chimney actually said.






Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I gave you links to haplotype data way back. You then questioned how it worked and I have attempted to explain despite the limitations of this forum. I see you still dont get it. There is no conclusion from what I have posted that the max lifespan of a haplotype is 24 generations. You are forgetting that while 25% of females provide no mitochondrial haplotype to the next generation, the other 75% provide 100% Thus its a random process whether a given haplotype becomes more or less prevalent down the line and no maximum age limit.
You are drawing the wrong conclusions. I suggest you take a piece of paper or a spreadsheet and work it out for yourself.


Note that KAB again lied and that he was again caught in the act.
KAB

Taipei, Taiwan

#119854 Jul 17, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Because you have provided evidence that can be explained just as well by smaller local processes while at the same time ignored evidence that rules out the flood.
You still fail to understand something basic to the scientific method. Any amount of data can support a hypothesis and while that is good, it only takes ONE verified disproofof to send the whole hypothesis into the dustbin. Atacama, the ice sheets, and the absence of bottlenecks each separately and individually are enough to refute the flood. You might even explain away one of them but the other two still falsify the hypothesis. And of course these are by no means the only falsifications. Nope, wont go into them until you at leasst understand how bottlenecks work, something you have not demonstrated yet.
Thus far, the evidence purported to rule out the global flood can and has been explained by other means. I have done so for all three categories you mention, Atacama, ice sheets, and bottlenecks. You are absolutely correct that no matter how substantial the evidence for one side it only takes one confirming item from the other to resolve the matter. I brought this to everyone's attention long ago.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#119855 Jul 17, 2013
Hey, KAB!

You imaginary lurkers are shacking their heads saying "What the heel is wrong with this doofus, KAB? Does he love getting his ass kicked or what? Must be some sort of masochist. Is that common in his cult?"

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#119856 Jul 17, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Thus far, the evidence purported to rule out the global flood can and has been explained by other means. I have done so for all three categories you mention, Atacama, ice sheets, and bottlenecks. You are absolutely correct that no matter how substantial the evidence for one side it only takes one confirming item from the other to resolve the matter. I brought this to everyone's attention long ago.
And you were wrong. Face it, KAB. You're a loony fighting a losing battle. Better slink off into the night before you have to face reality.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119857 Jul 17, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Thus far, the evidence purported to rule out the global flood can and has been explained by other means. I have done so for all three categories you mention, Atacama, ice sheets, and bottlenecks. You are absolutely correct that no matter how substantial the evidence for one side it only takes one confirming item from the other to resolve the matter. I brought this to everyone's attention long ago.

This is a lie.

What you have done is create thin rationalizations that support your confirmation bias. You have failed to come up with actual science to account for the reality that the flood has been conclusively refuted by the evidence. The bottleneck evidence alone completely refutes the flood rendering it absolutely impossible to account for even the human genome if the flood were true.

This is not a problem for you because, as we have demonstrated countless times, you are not interested in the data or any reality outside of your own religious cult.



Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Because you have provided evidence that can be explained just as well by smaller local processes while at the same time ignored evidence that rules out the flood.
You still fail to understand something basic to the scientific method. Any amount of data can support a hypothesis and while that is good, it only takes ONE verified disproofof to send the whole hypothesis into the dustbin. Atacama, the ice sheets, and the absence of bottlenecks each separately and individually are enough to refute the flood. You might even explain away one of them but the other two still falsify the hypothesis. And of course these are by no means the only falsifications. Nope, wont go into them until you at leasst understand how bottlenecks work, something you have not demonstrated yet.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119858 Jul 17, 2013
MikeF wrote:
Hey, KAB!
You imaginary lurkers are shacking their heads saying "What the heel is wrong with this doofus, KAB? Does he love getting his ass kicked or what? Must be some sort of masochist. Is that common in his cult?"

You have identified an actual common trait among cult members. As you know the JW, just like most cults, turns the negative estimation of outsiders around and claims that people of God have always been persecuted, we are being persecuted, ergo we are the people of God. It is absolutely absurd, even funny, but also quite typical. Look at any cult and you will find nearly the exact same process at work. Jim Jones, Waco, Mormons,.... and of course Jews, but they actually may have a pretty good case ;)

So they rationalize realistic objections as the work of the devil (or whatnot) to explain why they suffer at the hands of an evil world.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#119859 Jul 17, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you forget that during the height of the biblical flood there was no land?
There's no place like data. There's no place lke data.
How can I forget something that did not happen. Your fantasy stories are data, but only of your delusional state.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#119860 Jul 17, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Thus far, the evidence purported to rule out the global flood can and has been explained by other means. I have done so for all three categories you mention, Atacama, ice sheets, and bottlenecks. You are absolutely correct that no matter how substantial the evidence for one side it only takes one confirming item from the other to resolve the matter. I brought this to everyone's attention long ago.
You did? Where was this? It wasn't on here. You refuted nothing and you brought no substantive evidence to the table.

Jim gave us a taste of what it is like to defeat a delusional wreck and you give us the all you can eat buffet.

You don't even understand the concept of a genetic bottleneck well enough to ask pertinent questions let alone refute it.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#119861 Jul 17, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you forget that during the height of the biblical flood there was no land?
There's no place like data. There's no place lke data.
There's no data in your place. There's no data in your place.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#119862 Jul 17, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps it's the one thought to be 70,000 years ago. No one here has provided the data for how that was determined.
No wonder you go it alone. A partner would have to do all the work. Look it up yourself.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#119863 Jul 17, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, the land would have gotten significantly less flat, but not instantly. It was a good portion of a year before land even began to appear.
As to meltdown avoidance I am doing that the same way you're imagining its occurrence, datalessly so far. There's no reason to assume a global meltdown unless confirmed by data.
There is no reason to assume a global flood unless confirmed by data. I am awaiting data. I only respond to data. I provide data, but get no data in return.

1. I await your data explaining how most plant species survived being buried under hundreds of tons of water and sediment.

2. I await your data on how land animals from across vast oceans were able to get to the Ark and then disperse to their points of origin after a global flood.

3. I await your data explaining how the Atacama desert can have river beds that show no side of erosion for greater than 100,000 years.

4. I await your data explaining the absence of a genetic bottleneck in the animals purported to be on the Ark.

5. I await your data explaining how a wooden craft of the size described could maintain the structural rigidity to endure extended sailing in never before seen rough seas.

6. I await your data showing how extant cultures existed on either side of the timeline of the alleged flood.

7. I await your data explaining the existence of fossil meteor craters found world wide.

8. I await your data explaining how enough food and space was available to house and maintain all the animals said to be on the Ark.

9. I await your data on await your data explaining where all the flood water came when the volume necessary is not known to be available.

10. I await your data explaining why the monotheistic flood myth is predated by a similar (very much so) polytheistic flood myth.

11. I await your data explaining why the flood myths of China are in no way similar to the global flood myth outside of the fact that all are about floods.

So far you have provided no data addressing these points to support your assertions.
KAB

Taipei, Taiwan

#119865 Jul 17, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
And, as soon as you can explain why the necessary universal genetic bottleneck is so damned difficult to detect, while so many others, earlier AND later, are detectable, you'll have a point.
Reject the greater miracle.
What makes you think it's difficult to detect? For how many cases have you provided data regarding failed attempts to find the universal bottleneck?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#119866 Jul 17, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
What makes you think it's difficult to detect? For how many cases have you provided data regarding failed attempts to find the universal bottleneck?
You have that backwards.

We don't have to show data for something that does not exist. It is up to the person making the positive claim to support himself.

For example you don't look for data that there is not a second small moon orbiting Earth. You would look for data for the moon. One wouldn't look for data that there was no universal bottleneck, if you believe that there was a flood you would look for evidence that there was a universal bottleneck.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#119867 Jul 17, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
What makes you think it's difficult to detect? For how many cases have you provided data regarding failed attempts to find the universal bottleneck?
It is impossible to detect evidence that is not present.
KAB

Taipei, Taiwan

#119868 Jul 17, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would this one, in particular, be so difficult to find across so many species, when so many others aren't? Why would a much more drastic bottleneck, so much more recent than many that have been identified, be so profoundly difficult to identify?
Which is the likelier explanation: it never happened; it happened but there's a huge series of coincidences that makes it appear that it never happened, but it TOTALLY happened?
Just provide specific data for specific species, and let's see what results.
KAB

Taipei, Taiwan

#119869 Jul 17, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
And, let's not forget that it's only scientifically valid and relevant if KAB says so.
It's not rocket science. Virtually anyone can do the experiment, and draw their own conclusions.
KAB

Taipei, Taiwan

#119870 Jul 17, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet, you say floods CAN and DID build mountains. So, it's a dataless claim. Good for you for not being a hypocrite. Oh, wait...that's EXACTLY what you are.
What I have actually stated is that significant changes in pressure distribution across a pliable surface can change the contours of that surface. Do you disagree? If you think the global flood would have created such a condition, then you can draw your own scientific conclusions from that.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#119871 Jul 18, 2013
KAB wrote:
If you think the global flood would have created such a condition...
You're the only one who thinks that.'Cause you're nuts.
KAB

Taiwan

#119872 Jul 18, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
But you do have evidence *AGAINST* a global flood.
My knee jerk initial reaction was to agree with you, but upon reflection, I couldn't, in good conscience, think of any, only assertions like no universal bottleneck. I require data.

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 Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 3 min Dogen 1,329
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 8 min Eagle 12 - 78,512
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr Simon 222,156
Mathematicians PROVED evolution IMPOSSIBLE! 5 hr Dogen 779
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) Wed Science 32,431
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... (Jan '17) Aug 5 yehoshooah adam 4,381
News Intelligent Design Education Day - Dallas Aug 2 John B 4
More from around the web