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

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

There are 163074 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.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#121685 Oct 24, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Enjoy this evidence salad:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TFA...

As I have said, if you are going to lie, lie to yourself. You will not find a more gullible audience.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#121686 Oct 24, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
For once you gave a demonstrably correct answer. The minimum requirement to begin building is one.
No quantified info is documented for the size of the tower.
Brick and bitumen are two materials documented (Gen. 11:3).
There is no record of the tools used.
It was built or being built in the Peleg's day (Gen. 10:25).
BTW, I chose not to wait 30 days.
Another pointless exercise comes to an end.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#121687 Oct 24, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text> That discussion is ongoing and has not yet succeeded in confirming your assertion.

This is a lie.

No further comment needed.

KAB wrote:
<quoted text> Are you ready to continue examining the data where we left it?
To what end? We love examining evidence as it bests you at ever turn.

Deal with the above refutations of your nonsense. Heck, pick the one you think is strongest and we will crush you with the evidence again.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#121688 Oct 24, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>A link to a random page on the thread. I did notice Discords posts. Haven't seen him posting in a long while. Is that your evidence?
I think you need to toss the salad again.

And his "evidence" is, as per typical, evidence against him.

Q. How does climate change support a global flood?

A. It does not.
KAB

United States

#121689 Oct 24, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>A link to a random page on the thread. I did notice Discords posts. Haven't seen him posting in a long while. Is that your evidence?
I think you need to toss the salad again.
Apparently, the link only gets you onto the appropriate page. The post # is given at the end of the link, or just look at all my posts on the page.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#121690 Oct 24, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Spreadsheets possess no special powers. They give results based on what the formulas tell them to give.
As you note, you have made assumptions. They may not be adequate/appropriate/valid.
You didn't change the assumptions in every way to suit me, and I have identified what hasn't suited me. You have done what works for you, nothing more. I have challenged everything you have provided.
Nonetheless, what does your crystal spreadsheet tell you should be the proportion of the mtDNA genome which should be mutated over a period of 4500 years, using your mutation rate of one for every 67 participants and arriving at the present population of about 7 billion?

Ah, so you want to replace accurate assumptions with false assumptions. Which Biblical figure would support doing this?
KAB

United States

#121691 Oct 24, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Another pointless exercise comes to an end.
As it has every time your back has been against the data wall.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#121692 Oct 24, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
For once you gave a demonstrably correct answer. The minimum requirement to begin building is one.

Begin, yes. But the ToB is compared to the GP in size. One person would not get that far.
KAB wrote:
<quoted text> No quantified info is documented for the size of the tower.

It was big enough to cause a stink. Great Ziggurat of Babylon was 300 ft. high and is not even mentioned by the Bible.
KAB wrote:
<quoted text> Brick and bitumen are two materials documented (Gen. 11:3).

So what?
KAB wrote:
<quoted text> There is no record of the tools used.

So what?

It was built or being built in the Peleg's day (Gen. 10:25).

So what?
KAB wrote:
<quoted text> BTW, I chose not to wait 30 days.

no point in waiting. You get dumber by the day.

7 Generations after the flood would put the date (based on your own assertions) at 4325 bce. That is using a standard 25 years per generation. Back then generations were shorter, but I have not accounted for that to give you every hope of trying to mount an argument.

Frankly, I have more faith in UFO abductees.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#121693 Oct 24, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently, the link only gets you onto the appropriate page. The post # is given at the end of the link, or just look at all my posts on the page.
So your evidence that the Earth was flooded to a depth of 5 miles is because glacial melt water alluvials exist and therefor Noah was real.
If your logic is sound, I have a mechanical pencil and a banana, therefor you owe me $2.18 worth of upholstery tacks and an assortment of disheveled ladybug wings.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#121694 Oct 24, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
As it has every time your back has been against the data wall.
Which has happened exactly zero times.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#121695 Oct 24, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently, the link only gets you onto the appropriate page. The post # is given at the end of the link, or just look at all my posts on the page.

We did that once. We are not going to fall for that again.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#121696 Oct 24, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
So your evidence that the Earth was flooded to a depth of 5 miles is because glacial melt water alluvials exist and therefor Noah was real.
If your logic is sound, I have a mechanical pencil and a banana, therefor you owe me $2.18 worth of upholstery tacks and an assortment of disheveled ladybug wings.
You asked for age appropriate flood evidence. That's what you got.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#121697 Oct 24, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently, the link only gets you onto the appropriate page. The post # is given at the end of the link, or just look at all my posts on the page.
Dogen again calls it. The link you presented was no more in support of you then, than it is now. No global floods, just references to high magnitude floods and the impact on alluvial fans (deltas). High magnitude does not mean world wide. The flood of 1993 on the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers was high magnitude. Didn't cover the state, let alone the world.

When it comes to the flood, you are fountain of ignorance.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#121698 Oct 24, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You asked for age appropriate flood evidence. That's what you got.
age appropriate global flooding? the proven myth of the Noachian flood is still a proven myth...imagine that.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#121699 Oct 25, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Spreadsheets possess no special powers.
Actually they do. They force one to turn vague ideas into specifics, to really think through the nuts'n'bolts of a problem.

You can say, KAB, "Oh there just had to be enough mutation at the right time in the right circumstances, and you have these migrations containing only the newer level haptypes and all the old ones die off in the population left behind....etc.etc.etc...

But when you are forced to sit down and work through these scenarios using the data we know and reasonable assumptions... then you see WHY your scenarios do not work.
They give results based on what the formulas tell them to give.
Correct. So when you put the formulas in, you are confronted with the need to make them realistic. Nuts n bolts.
As you note, you have made assumptions. They may not be adequate/appropriate/valid.
Yes, but also note that where I have stretched assumptions, I have generally done it in a direction that would favour YOUR position, not mine. And it still did not work.
You didn't change the assumptions in every way to suit me, and I have identified what hasn't suited me.
I did everything I could think of that would work for YOU. Such as doubling population every generation from the flood for as long as possible consistent with 7 bn people alive today. Such as assuming pure random mixing across the whole population which favours you not me (because it allows wider dispersal of new haptypes faster).
Nonetheless, what does your crystal spreadsheet tell you should be the proportion of the mtDNA genome which should be mutated over a period of 4500 years...?
We are not talking about a "proportion of the mtDNA genome". We are talking about point mutations etc on that genome. That means a single base difference can amount to a new haplotype.

The difficulty you have is in explaining why all the older haptypes are gone. Some should remain if all but 3 ancestral haps have been generated since 4500 years ago. And remember its not only the oldest. Several generations of haptypes are no longer present but their existence is understood by the distribution of changes in the daughter types which do exist.

I cannot make your hypothesis work. Of course there is more to it than just my puny effort - all of modern genetics cannot make it work even when "creation scientists" try.

What saddens me is that while real science is building an ever deeper understanding of the true history and migration patterns of human populations over the real time scales (ditto physics, biology, geology, astronomy etc) involved, that you guys lock yourselves in the cage of biblical literalism when we have discovered so many more exciting and awesome things about the universe we live in.

None of that means you HAVE to abandon God, or even abandon the moral sense of the Bible. But taking the Bible literally? That is just silly.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#121700 Oct 25, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You asked for age appropriate flood evidence. That's what you got.
As already agreed, its not flood evidence if non flood explanations are just as viable. You need to find something that is hard to explain without a global WW flood.

On the other hand, not just haptypes but ice cores, the atacama desert, archeological finds, known methods of sedimentation etc etc, are evidence against a global flood because it is hard to explain them in the context of one.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#121701 Oct 25, 2013
KAB wrote:
You didn't change the assumptions in every way to suit me, and I have identified what hasn't suited me.
We got to the point where you were asking the following:

What if in a migration, all the new haptypes were concentrated in the migrating part and all the old haptypes were retained in the population left behind (statistically totally improbable), and the part that migrated thrived but the one left behind died out, and this statistically improbable scenario played out not just once but repeatedly all over the world, time after time etc etc.

That is where you had reached. In other words, you had reached absurdity in the attempt to make the data fit your scenario.

Now, unless you can think of something more realistic, your scenario is falsified.
KAB

United States

#121702 Oct 25, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Which has happened exactly zero times.
Here's an entry point to recent instances on two pages of you going belly-up upon being confronted with confirming data.

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TFA...
KAB

United States

#121703 Oct 25, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Dogen again calls it. The link you presented was no more in support of you then, than it is now. No global floods, just references to high magnitude floods and the impact on alluvial fans (deltas). High magnitude does not mean world wide. The flood of 1993 on the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers was high magnitude. Didn't cover the state, let alone the world.
When it comes to the flood, you are fountain of ignorance.
It is age appropriate worldwide flood data. That's all it was offered as.
KAB

United States

#121704 Oct 25, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>age appropriate global flooding? the proven myth of the Noachian flood is still a proven myth...imagine that.
All flood evidence is local, isn't it? Think about it.

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 ... 1 hr 15th Dalai Lama 1,416
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 5 hr Aura Mytha 222,270
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 20 hr Regolith Based Li... 32,461
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) Mon Dogen 78,757
Mathematicians PROVED evolution IMPOSSIBLE! Aug 19 Science 814
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