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

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

There are 168885 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.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#126037 Jan 26, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for the confirming data ... NOT!

LOL. Thanks for showing that you don't even know what data is, much less confirming data.





DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Here is an example of how you operate. You fix on a portion of data provided by others that supports your view and you disregard the remaining important data that does not. Not only do you fix on it, you misinterpret it.
The observed variation in the human genome is not possible given a starting point of three breeding pairs and 4500 years of time.
Going back to the cheetah, it is clear that 10,000 years has not been long enough for it to develop even a portion of the variation seen in humans.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#126038 Jan 26, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The "raw driving rate" matters MOST! Without it the amount of observed variation is impossible in 4500 years. With it the change is possible, and yet as expected, the amount of observed variation per unit of genome is less in the highly conserved than in the non-highly conserved regions due to the lower survivability.
False. The raw driving rate is irrelevant. As OBVIOUSLY, only the survivable rate matters. Duh. Only variations that survive pass their mutations on.

Its already been explained to you why tje variation in the highly conserved regions is lowwr and explained to you why the same conditions would apply 4500 yearzs ago.

So you lose again. You are reduced to asking dumb questions that have already been answered. Oh well. No Flood.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#126039 Jan 26, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You are so not technically savvy.
Let's test your hypothesis with data.
Suppose we have a scenario providing one and only one data point.
Two distinctly different hypotheses (e.g., evolution and design) are offered, and each is an equally valid potential explanation for that single data point. They are equally supported yet not the same. Do you agree such is possible?
Seriously. You call others not technically savvy and you provide this meaningless test to show it. It does confirm your paradigm of working backwards to make the data fit your view. A single data point tells you nothing. No one would design an experiment or make any conclusions based on such a ridiculous premise. Any attempt to use this to support any hypothesis is meaningless and has no statistical value.

7.315 supports both evolution and design.

red supports both evolution and design.

2:30 supports both evolution and design.

All meaningless. Each of these data points tells you nothing.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#126040 Jan 26, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>There was confirming data. Hence the phrase "here is an example". Thank you for confirming that you don't even know what data is.
You didn't give an example. You made an assertion, and called it an example. An example would be a specific instance of what you assert.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#126041 Jan 26, 2014
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Regarding SCIENTIFIC data, did you realize that the Bible is not a source of SCIENTIFIC data?
I know the Bible's not a science book.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#126042 Jan 26, 2014
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
I have... I've also seen Muppet Treasure Island and listened to Ravel's Bolero. Do you have a point, besides being pointedly oblivious?
Is Lucifer also identified in Muppet Treasure Island and Ravel's Bolero or only in Isaiah 14?
KAB

Wilson, NC

#126043 Jan 26, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Seriously. You call others not technically savvy and you provide this meaningless test to show it. It does confirm your paradigm of working backwards to make the data fit your view. A single data point tells you nothing. No one would design an experiment or make any conclusions based on such a ridiculous premise. Any attempt to use this to support any hypothesis is meaningless and has no statistical value.
7.315 supports both evolution and design.
red supports both evolution and design.
2:30 supports both evolution and design.
All meaningless. Each of these data points tells you nothing.
I understand, so make it two specific data points.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#126044 Jan 26, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You didn't give an example. You made an assertion, and called it an example. An example would be a specific instance of what you assert.
After almost three years of you making statements like this, I have come to the conclusion that you are that stupid.

The post I was responding to was the example. Do you need your hand held to find it?

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#126045 Jan 26, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand, so make it two specific data points.
If you understood, you wouldn't have made such a stupid post. You can argue all you want, but your hypothesis isn't supported by the haplotype data. If only a portion of the data supports your hypothesis, it isn't a complete hypothesis.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#126046 Jan 26, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I know the Bible's not a science book.
Well that's a start.

As demonstrated to you already, the Flood as described in the Bible did not happen.

So its not a great history book either, especially the earlier parts. Its a mythical / legendary chronicle of a people, and just like the Japanese or Hindu or Maori traditions, the early part is pure supernatural myth. Of course, if you ask a Hindu, he may still believe it too.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#126047 Jan 27, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You didn't give an example. You made an assertion, and called it an example. An example would be a specific instance of what you assert.

You like to change the rules of English as you go along. But if it were you making the assertion (as you are again in the above) then it is okay by you.

"Oh, You Hypotwit" - Tweedy Bird.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#126048 Jan 27, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I know the Bible's not a science book.

Remind your alternate personality/evil twin of that. He does not seem to get it.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#126049 Jan 27, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>After almost three years of you making statements like this, I have come to the conclusion that you are that stupid.

DING, DING, DING, DING, DING!!!

We have a winner.

Dan, no offence, but if it took you 3 years to figure that out then,..... well, maybe the knife needs to be resharpened.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#126050 Jan 27, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Is Lucifer also identified in Muppet Treasure Island and Ravel's Bolero or only in Isaiah 14?

Even your pointlessness is without a pointless point.
KAB

United States

#126051 Jan 27, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>After almost three years of you making statements like this, I have come to the conclusion that you are that stupid.
The post I was responding to was the example. Do you need your hand held to find it?
Thank you for the clarification. What important data did I disregard, and what data did I misrepresent, and how was it misrepresented?

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#126052 Jan 27, 2014
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
DING, DING, DING, DING, DING!!!
We have a winner.
Dan, no offence, but if it took you 3 years to figure that out then,..... well, maybe the knife needs to be resharpened.
Like you have said before, I am an optimist.
SupaAFC

Elgin, UK

#126053 Jan 27, 2014
mrksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Evolution has never been well supported, it is a faith based humanist philosophy. After all the things you named above, human from non-human evolution has never been observed, tested, nor replicated, which is demanded by the scientific method. THus human from non-human evolution is not science. As far as creationism? It is a faith based belief system also. You can laugh about it if you want, there are millions who do not, but do laugh at human evolutionists. I witnessed it yesterday. I don't care who is our next president, who dies next year, and who wins the super bowl, world series, or the NBA champions, human from non-human evolution will still not be science.
I didn't ask for a rant, I asked what progress you and like-minded people have made in debunking evolution and getting it thrown out of scientific and academic circles.

What progress have you guys made? What are your projections for 2014? When's evolution getting thrown out of public classrooms? When are scientists going to dump evolution as a valid theory?

Where's the results of the last 4-6 years, Marksman?

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#126054 Jan 27, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for the clarification. What important data did I disregard, and what data did I misrepresent, and how was it misrepresented?
I don't have time and Topix doesn't provide the space to list it all. Lets stay contemporary and refer back to my point that you initially responded to. You claimed I didn't provide an example when the example was clearly provided.

I will lump the remaining 5000 pages into this statement. YOU LIE ABOUT PROVIDING DATA TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS AND YOU LIE ABOUT OBJECTIVELY REVIEWING DATA SUPPLIED TO YOU.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#126055 Jan 27, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Well that's a start.
As demonstrated to you already, the Flood as described in the Bible did not happen.
So its not a great history book either, especially the earlier parts. Its a mythical / legendary chronicle of a people, and just like the Japanese or Hindu or Maori traditions, the early part is pure supernatural myth. Of course, if you ask a Hindu, he may still believe it too.
Flood? Did you say flood???

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/01/24/anc...
KAB

United States

#126056 Jan 27, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>If you understood, you wouldn't have made such a stupid post. You can argue all you want, but your hypothesis isn't supported by the haplotype data. If only a portion of the data supports your hypothesis, it isn't a complete hypothesis.
All the data which supports evolution also supports design. If you think otherwise, provide specific data for consideration.

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 gives us robot soldiers and soul-less... 16 min Davidjayjordan 2
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 27 min candlesmell 94,457
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 4 hr Eagle 12 - 6,004
Thank God, Evolutionists dont reproduce 11 hr Davidjayjordan 1
Altruistic Behaviour negates the theory of Evol... 12 hr Davidjayjordan 30
Evolutionists are now labeled..'Chicken People' 12 hr Davidjayjordan 5
Beauty is the Lord's Golden Section Sat Rose_NoHo 7