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

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

There are 152164 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.

KAB

United States

#129886 Apr 28, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>So it is stealth data. It is there but no one can see it. You are King of the Dumb Asses.
Thanks for confirming you don't understand the science of resolution.
KAB

United States

#129887 Apr 28, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>All these data and more are conclusive evidence against a global flood. You realize that it is and it frightens the shit out of you so you retreat to your delusion and call it inconclusive without one whiff of data to explain why.
I have provided data demonstrating how each item on the list is inconclusive and will do so again if you need clarification. Which one do you want first?
KAB

United States

#129888 Apr 28, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow!
Just, WOW!
There is all sorts of evidence out there. None of it can properly be interpreted to be evidence for a flood. And yet all of these independent sources of evidence are "not conclusive".
You do realize that all of those pieces of evidence that you list are at least 99% conclusive against a flood. Since they are independent of each other you would multiply at the most 1% times 1% by 1% which would make the evidence 99.9999% conclusive. How much more conclusive do you need your evidence to be?
You're entitled to your opinion unaccompanied by data.

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#129889 Apr 28, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I can prove my version of buoyancy is correct. Care to try me by committing to follow all the way to the end a step-by-step analysis wherein your agreement at every step is prerequisite to proceeding to the next?
Why don't you stop asserting and start posting. Unless saying you are right is all you got.

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#129890 Apr 28, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You're entitled to your opinion unaccompanied by data.
You just made five posts with no data. Only assertions. All valueless opinion.

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#129891 Apr 28, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It appears you too are out of ammunition. It is your side which has consistently avoided following the data I provide step-by-step to the correct conclusion to which it leads. Instead you pull up short and do what you just did, again! Won't any of you commit to following a data analysis process step-by-step all the way to its conclusion?
No, that nuke hits home with you. Otherwise you wouldn't keep repeating these lies. It is easy to get to you. This is just a smokescreen. No one has to do a data analysis in order to understand you are wrong. It has been shown hundreds of times that you deny where the data goes.

As soon as you are shown to be wrong, you turn into this whiny-assed bitch that I am responding to now.

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#129892 Apr 28, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I have provided data demonstrating how each item on the list is inconclusive and will do so again if you need clarification. Which one do you want first?
No you haven't. You have offered misinterpretation and conjecture. You will just repeat the same nonsense over again and when it is pointed out why you are wrong, you will just do this same string of Nyah? Nyah! Nyah's!

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#129893 Apr 28, 2014
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
False and evidence that you are delusional.
You have said in the past that he is brainwashed. I think he's just a run-of-the-mill nutbag.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#129894 Apr 28, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It's you! You make far more posts to or regarding me than anyone else does, and I respond to far less of those posts than to anyone else's (MF is now running the closest second with Smitty and Chrome starting to get competitive for that slot), so it tends to skew the average significantly. If anyone wants a refresher course on how to achieve your status I will provide such upon request.
You seem to forget that none of us give a shit about your opinions of us. Anymore than some wino shouting at us from the street corner as we drive by laughing.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#129895 Apr 28, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't seem to understand the scientific/math term "resolution". It exists precisely to address how finer resolution info does disappear in coarser resolution data. HINT: Nyquist sampling theorem.
Only KAB would try to apply signal processing to geological data. Funny.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#129896 Apr 28, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow!
Just, WOW!
There is all sorts of evidence out there. None of it can properly be interpreted to be evidence for a flood. And yet all of these independent sources of evidence are "not conclusive".
You do realize that all of those pieces of evidence that you list are at least 99% conclusive against a flood. Since they are independent of each other you would multiply at the most 1% times 1% by 1% which would make the evidence 99.9999% conclusive. How much more conclusive do you need your evidence to be?
It doesn't matter. We all understand that evidence, facts, data, etc doesn't mean a damn thing to KAB. He's right because he says he's right. Just like the bible.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#129897 Apr 28, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The farce is strong with you. Your assimilation into the dork side (of science that is) appears complete. I see you are practicing the dropping of uncertainty qualifiers to make it appear that any tentative reference is definite and precise.
BTW, relating to your previous post, my data is the same as the authors' data. That's the beauty of the data thing. The data itself is unbiased. It's just there. It's what one does with it that makes the difference.
KAB said "unbiased". Isn't that the cutest thing?
KAB

United States

#129898 Apr 28, 2014
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
It might be. Try presenting it oh technically unsavvy one.
Oh embarrassingly inattentive one, I already have presented it. Here it is, AGAIN

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

United States

#129899 Apr 28, 2014
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
More simple math our technically unsavvy, confirmed incorrect source, cannot deal with.
I see the simple math is your favorite type, simply asserted.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#129900 Apr 28, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You're entitled to your opinion unaccompanied by data.
KAB, you know and I know that the data and evidence all say there was no flood.

And the fact is when unrelated facts show there is no flood you would multiply the odds of a flood times each other. Statistics is not your friend either.
KAB

United States

#129901 Apr 28, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I see one glaring error right off. You have assumed that the control regions correspond to hypervariable and coding to conserved. Wrong. Parts of the coding and control regions are conserved and parts are hypervariable although the most hypervariable will probably be neither coding nor control.
And where in the cycle does affect the raw rate. You fail to understand that an egg cell that never even makes it to ovulation has not even entered the genetic cycle, and the eggs that do make it to ovulation and hence the opportunity to be fertilised are therefore already heavily skewed in terms of mutation distribution.
But even if this were not the case, the fact that mutations in the conserved regions are more likely to be deleteriois means that the variations making it into the permanent "branching ancestry" of variation are far more likely to be in the hypervariable regions so these regions will show a greater rate of change than conserved regions.
You arse about with you "raw" claim
And have still not faced the fact that it does not help you in the least.
You refuse to understand what kills your case, an pretend to have a point when you only havve an empty bromide.
Such pitiful dishonesty KAB. You must know you are doing it. How do you live with yourself?
Thank you for exposing your command of human genetics. Consider the following quote from the accompanying reference.

"The human mitochondrial genome contains two parts: one encompasses DNA coding 13 mRNA, 2 rRNA, and 22 tRNA, and the other constitutes a control region responsible for the expression of mitochondrial genome."

http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/...

Having confirmed you fail to understand, consider further that an egg has DNA, mtDNA in particular. It is part of the genetic cycle.

Hopefully now you will recognize there is no "if this were not the case". What you stated is not the case.

Undersandably, you may feel the need for a bromide after this. I don't recommend living like that however.
KAB

United States

#129902 Apr 28, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I have already explained that.
You have not explained what force a frictionless surface experiences from a force acting in the plane of that surface. If you choose to insist you have explained it then the conclusion will be understood that there is no force experienced in any direction in the plane of the surface. Thus, the only force the surface can experience is normal to it.

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#129903 Apr 28, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for exposing your command of human genetics. Consider the following quote from the accompanying reference.
"The human mitochondrial genome contains two parts: one encompasses DNA coding 13 mRNA, 2 rRNA, and 22 tRNA, and the other constitutes a control region responsible for the expression of mitochondrial genome."
http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/...
Having confirmed you fail to understand, consider further that an egg has DNA, mtDNA in particular. It is part of the genetic cycle.
Hopefully now you will recognize there is no "if this were not the case". What you stated is not the case.
Undersandably, you may feel the need for a bromide after this. I don't recommend living like that however.
This is just responding with a quote from the source material. You haven't explained how it refutes what Chimney stated. You are obviously out of your league on these types of data and are grasping at any straw.

I see you haven't responded to my posts. When are we going to see your step by step elucidations of buoyancy, haplotype data, ice core data, Atacama desert data and the like. We would all love to see your "version" of reality laid out systematically.
KAB

United States

#129904 Apr 28, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, the mtDNA data is conclusive. The fact that you fail to understand it means nothing.
The evidence of the ice cores is conclusive. The fact that you refuse to accept the physics of buoyancy or even the obvious result that would occur if buoyancy mysteriously did NOT lift the ice caps is even better. The EVIDENCE is that nothing unusual happened around the time of the alleged flood. Conclusive,
The Atacama desert is not an argument I have followed as closely, but it looks pretty clear that no evidence of your deluge exists there either.
You're entitled to your opinion.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#129905 Apr 28, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You're entitled to your opinion.
I have been away for too long.

I forgot that this is KAB's way of admitting defeat.

Whenever he has been bested in an argument, which is a daily occurrence to say the least, he replies by saying "You're entitled to your opinion."

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 Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 15 min Shavin Marvin 209,530
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Amused 20,237
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr Aura Mytha 45,439
America evolving into lockdown on purpose Sun Dogen 68
New law to further hatred towards police Sat One way or another 4
Hillary, a taco stand on every corner Sat One way or another 4
News A better theory of intelligent design Sep 23 Chazofsaints 21
More from around the web