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

There are 141326 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.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#129880 Apr 28, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
What is your understanding of the effect on a frictionless surface of the component of force acting on and parallel to that surface?
I have already explained that.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#129881 Apr 28, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The evidence of the mtDNA stands inconclusive.
The evidence of the ice cores stands inconclusive,
The evidence of the Atacama Desert stands inconclusive.
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.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#129882 Apr 28, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Determining where in the genetic cycle a proportion of raw mutations is culled from the herd doesn't change the raw mutation rate as a primary driver for diversity.
You keep insisting that the raw mutation rate is the same, but you have never explained how that assumption could rescue your n=3 4500 years ago hypothesis. On the other hand, I have explained to you why it cannot, even before this issue of egg pre-selection arose. You have not been able to refute my explanation, and in fact I don;t think you have even dared to respond to it.
KAB

United States

#129883 Apr 28, 2014
MMLandJ wrote:
<quoted text>
"Working" with data again? The geological data provided in Kumar, Head and Kring's 2010 paper, dated the "post-Pleistocene gully formation" at 11,000 years, with the only playa unconformity at 900 years. This data, along with the Grenada crater lake data, does not corroborate your speculation of a 4500 year global flood at Pingualuit, making this slide an isolated occurrence.
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

United States

#129884 Apr 28, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>It seems that everyone that comes on here comes to the same conclusions about your. Why is that do you think? Why don't you see how wrong your are? It is because you are a delusional nut job, don't you think?
You have heard conclusive evidence that precludes the occurrence of a global flood and you hem and haw and make up excuses to avoid this data. It is because you are afraid don't you think?
You offer little or no data to support your assertions. The closest you have come is to carry on about disconnected facts you claim are evidence supporting you, but you fail to establish any connection or rule out other possibilities for this evidence.
Despite all this you will continue to believe you are right and holding the line against our arguments while in reality doing nothing. What a disgusting little turd-weasel you are.
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?
KAB

United States

#129885 Apr 28, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Do you even read what you write. You are naming Dogen and describing yourself. You have had buoyancy explained to you from 6 or 8 different people but you still insist your wrong and confused version is the correct one. What a douchebag.
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?
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.

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#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.

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#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.

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#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.

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#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.

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) 13 min PredictionsAreMag... 163,749
How can we prove God exists, or does not? 11 hr Kong_ 80
News British Ban Teaching Creationism As Science, Sh... (Jul '14) 11 hr Swedenforever 159
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) May 19 Kathleen 19,031
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) May 18 SoE 178,597
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) May 18 MADRONE 1,870
Science News NOT related to evolution (Jul '09) May 15 emrenil 1,243
More from around the web