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

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

There are 157718 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

#129906 Apr 28, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Why don't you stop asserting and start posting. Unless saying you are right is all you got.
You agree to not bail out of the analysis before the end, and I will start posting.
KAB

United States

#129907 Apr 28, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I've never thought for a moment that you care about my opinions, nor should you.
KAB

United States

#129908 Apr 28, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Only KAB would try to apply signal processing to geological data. Funny.
If the principle relates, use it. Did you note it was referenced as a hint not an application? Hints are meant to help congealed mental elements start flowing again.
KAB

United States

#129909 Apr 28, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I know that NOT ALL data and evidence say there was no flood. I have specifically presentes some to the contrary, haven't I?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#129910 Apr 28, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I've never thought for a moment that you care about my opinions, nor should you.
And don't.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#129911 Apr 28, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
If the principle relates, use it. Did you note it was referenced as a hint not an application? Hints are meant to help congealed mental elements start flowing again.
It does not relate. It concerns itself with sampling rates in analog to digital conversion and interpolation back to analog. Applying it to geology is plainly stupid.
KAB

United States

#129912 Apr 28, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Did you read Chim's post? Didn't you spot his error, especially in light of the reference material, specifically the quote, I provided? CLUE: If you remove the control and coding regions from human mtDNA, what's left?

Regarding your topic list, REPEATING what I've already responded, which do you want to see first?
KAB

United States

#129913 Apr 28, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
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."
Actually, I state it when judgments unaccompanied by data are made.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#129914 Apr 28, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You agree to not bail out of the analysis before the end, and I will start posting.
Either you are going to do it or you are not going to do it. The decision is ENTIRELY your own.
KAB

United States

#129915 Apr 28, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
It does not relate. It concerns itself with sampling rates in analog to digital conversion and interpolation back to analog. Applying it to geology is plainly stupid.
What gets lost if the sampling rate isn't high enough? With the degree to which you've exposed yourself now, not proving you know the answer would be plainly stupid.
KAB

United States

#129916 Apr 28, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Either you are going to do it or you are not going to do it. The decision is ENTIRELY your own.
As John Arbuckle would say, "You get what you pay for."

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#129917 Apr 28, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
What gets lost if the sampling rate isn't high enough?
Fidelity.

Don't ask pointless questions. You and I both knew the answer so why waste the time? Just trying to make yourself look technically savvy? That ship has sailed.
KAB wrote:
With the degree to which you've exposed yourself now, not proving you know the answer would be plainly stupid.
Please explain where in geology, the physical evidence appears as analog then digital then analog again.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#129918 Apr 28, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You're entitled to your opinion unaccompanied by data.
You would just deny the data again. I have seen you do it time after time we don't need to supply data any longer. It is your turn to show any evidence at all for your claims.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#129919 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.

And you screw the data, making claims from the data that are completely unsupported.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#129920 Apr 28, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
As John Arbuckle would say, "You get what you pay for."

I believe it is Jon, not John.

As in Jonathan Q. "Jon" Arbuckle

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#129921 Apr 28, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
What gets lost if the sampling rate isn't high enough? With the degree to which you've exposed yourself now, not proving you know the answer would be plainly stupid.

Sampling rates apply to digital medium.

Surely you know that.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#129922 Apr 28, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, I state it when judgments unaccompanied by data are made.

You state it when you have lost.

You state it a lot.

Only you are fooled by yourself.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#129923 Apr 28, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I know that NOT ALL data and evidence say there was no flood. I have specifically presentes some to the contrary, haven't I?


No. You have attempted to do so but failed in your typical blundering fashion. The weakness of your arguments does not bode well for your mythology. You end up being the best player on our team in the same way your putrid and feeble attempts at supporting the insane notions of your cult are the best way to innoculate would be brainwashees.

Pray continue, so that all may be free of your damaged thought processes.

Continue Jimbo Jr, continue!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#129924 Apr 28, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I've never thought for a moment that you care about my opinions, nor should you.

NO ONE here, save for yourself, cares about your opinions. That you are fooled by your own delusions is amusing, even if a bit sad.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#129925 Apr 28, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
If the principle relates, use it. Did you note it was referenced as a hint not an application? Hints are meant to help congealed mental elements start flowing again.

Hint: you are a dumb arse.

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
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 1 min Aura Mytha 1,194
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 min Into The Night 52,117
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 4 min USAUSAUSA 218,817
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 9 min Dogen 24,870
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 23 min Dogen 475
Can the universe be God's brain? (Jun '07) Jan 19 scientia potentia... 98
News Darwin's Doubt: Giving a Case for Intelligent D... Jan 19 scientia potentia... 1
More from around the web