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

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#121366 Sep 6, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The import of your statement hinges on your position regarding whether Earth being cubic in shape is possible or impossible. What say you?
Is it impossible? Yes or no.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#121367 Sep 6, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The import of your statement hinges on your position regarding whether Earth being cubic in shape is possible or impossible. What say you?
Are you 6'3" tall? Do you eat cherries for breakfast? How often do you trim your toenails? These questions have NO BEARING on the conversation. Likewise, whether the Earth could be cubic is not my example nor my argument. If you insist on an answer, I say that in other dimensions the Earth could be analogous to "cubic" in shape, but that it is improbable enough to dismiss and in the known and observable portion of man's reality, it is not the reality.

Likewise with plants created before Sol, the Garden of Eden, the Noahcian flood, the parting of the Red Sea and a heaving host of other infinite improbabilities listed in ancient myths throughout the world.
They are easily, infinitely and overwhelmingly improbable enough to dismiss as "impossible."
KAB

United States

#121368 Sep 6, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Then you understand that a global flood 4,500 ybp is not possible.
No. Anything not by definition impossible is possible. Isn't that the current agreement based on cubic Earth reasoning provided by your side and accepted by me?
KAB

United States

#121369 Sep 6, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you 6'3" tall? Do you eat cherries for breakfast? How often do you trim your toenails? These questions have NO BEARING on the conversation. Likewise, whether the Earth could be cubic is not my example nor my argument. If you insist on an answer, I say that in other dimensions the Earth could be analogous to "cubic" in shape, but that it is improbable enough to dismiss and in the known and observable portion of man's reality, it is not the reality.
Likewise with plants created before Sol, the Garden of Eden, the Noahcian flood, the parting of the Red Sea and a heaving host of other infinite improbabilities listed in ancient myths throughout the world.
They are easily, infinitely and overwhelmingly improbable enough to dismiss as "impossible."
I agree with your "reality" reasoning. Beyond that, all the topics you mention are not in the same data category as Cubic Earth. Cubic Earth is in the zero category.
KAB

United States

#121370 Sep 6, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Is it impossible? Yes or no.
How is it that in this case you don't already know and boldly declare my answer without consulting me? BTW, in this case I have given my answer. I realize, however, that doesn't mean you'll get it right!

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#121371 Sep 6, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
No. Anything not by definition impossible is possible. Isn't that the current agreement based on cubic Earth reasoning provided by your side and accepted by me?
A global flood, by definition, is impossible.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#121372 Sep 6, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with your "reality" reasoning. Beyond that, all the topics you mention are not in the same data category as Cubic Earth. Cubic Earth is in the zero category.
Nope. They're all in the exact same category.
KAB

United States

#121373 Sep 6, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
A global flood, by definition, is impossible.
It may have been much less impossible then!

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#121374 Sep 6, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
How is it that in this case you don't already know and boldly declare my answer without consulting me? BTW, in this case I have given my answer. I realize, however, that doesn't mean you'll get it right!
I know what you have said. I just want you to say it simply and explicitly.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#121375 Sep 6, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
No. Anything not by definition impossible is possible. Isn't that the current agreement based on cubic Earth reasoning provided by your side and accepted by me?

Then you answered your own question!!!!

Not paying attention again?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#121376 Sep 6, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It may have been much less impossible then!
You mean way back when the moon was made of green cheese?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#121377 Sep 6, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with your "reality" reasoning. Beyond that, all the topics you mention are not in the same data category as Cubic Earth. Cubic Earth is in the zero category.

This is incorrect by your own definition. Anything not impossible is possible.

But both cubic earth and global flood are nearly infinitely improbable, ergo not worth taking seriously.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#121378 Sep 6, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It may have been much less impossible then!

No.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#121379 Sep 6, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It may have been much less impossible then!
Yup. Physics itself fluctuated radically at the whim of an invisible Jew while leaving zero evidence.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#121380 Sep 6, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It may have been much less impossible then!
Sure, because there is evidence that DNA and physics worked differently 5000 years ago?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#121381 Sep 6, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I have understood and accept these hap observations. Proceed.
Now, it looks like you were seeing the hap tree as just adding new variants to the mix, and you were asking why couldn't that happen quickly enough to show the observed tree in 4500 years, starting from 3 base pairs and with rapid doubling etc.

I already discussed how unlikely it is for a given mutant hap to replace the original one. And that this is even less likely to happen in a rapidly growing population, but then so it the extinction of the new hap less likely. Agreed on these points so far?

But when we look at the hap tree you see in the books today, you are not seeing all the haps in existence NOW. Most of the ancestral hierarchy is GONE. Its not there today. Its reconstructed logically from the relationships in today's haps. Now before we go into that, if we must, please understand this.

The basics ancestral groups are NOT found today. We see only the ends of these branches. Meaning that these ancestral groups had to disappear. Even in a stable population, the disappearance of a single once dominant hap type will take thousands of years. But we have multiple layers of this disappearance.

And in a rapidly growing population its virtually impossible for ANY dominant hap type to disappear. Yet they have.

This is WHY it couldn't happen in 4500 years.

Now, if you want to know how they reconstruct the ancestral tree, we will go into it, and perhaps we should. Another post.
SupaAFC

Glasgow, UK

#121382 Sep 6, 2013
Wow. First time I've dropped in here for absolutely ages and I see KAB is still here arguing ad nauseum. Does he still blag about "data"?

What about Marksman? Is he still on the go?
KAB

United States

#121383 Sep 6, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
I know what you have said. I just want you to say it simply and explicitly.
Sorry. You set the precedent of never requiring/allowing my explicit input in the past before indicating I had already provided it. My non-compliance now is your reward for past misbehavior. If I ever discern that you become a different person in this regard I will be more cooperative.
KAB

United States

#121384 Sep 6, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Yup. Physics itself fluctuated radically at the whim of an invisible Jew while leaving zero evidence.
Please identify a specific physics fluctuation you have in mind and an account to which it relates.
mrksman11

Asheville, NC

#121386 Sep 6, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
Wow. First time I've dropped in here for absolutely ages and I see KAB is still here arguing ad nauseum. Does he still blag about "data"?
What about Marksman? Is he still on the go?
Hey, I look around in here when I have time. I'm over arguing about the obvious though. It is a certainty that human from non-human evolution not only didn't happen, but never could have happened. If you guys want to believe a fantasy, who am I to cause your delusions to fade. Have a great day.

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) 1 hr DanFromSmithville 127,919
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 2 hr Dogen 94
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 6 hr Ooogah Boogah 13,578
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 22 hr DanFromSmithville 175,466
Ten Reason Why Evolution Is a Lie (Jul '09) Wed MikeF 1,902
More Theories to Disprove Creation Wed The Dude 64
Atheism - A Non Prophet Organisation (Mar '11) Tue The Dude 996

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE