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

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 ... Read more
KAB

Oxford, NC

#135825 Jul 17, 2014
MMLandJ wrote:
<quoted text>
Does the bible caution about someone restricting the meaning of biblical words?
Please provide the verse(s) where the "floodgates of the heavens" were only over Mesopotamia.
Restricting the meaning of Biblical words would be a form of going beyond what is written. Also, there are no verses restricting the floodgates of the heavens to Mesopotamia.

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#135826 Jul 18, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
We have no precedent for an alien space craft.
In the same fashion: we have no precedent for a worldwide flood.

We do have evidence for evolution:
- for the lousy ones: wikipedia "evidence of common descent"
- for those that will take genuine effort: R. Dawkins "the greatest show on earth"
- J. Coyne "Evolution is true"
- and about the whole bibliography of modern biology, genetics, geology, paleontology and biochemistry pertaining empirical research (experiments and field observations).

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#135827 Jul 18, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
No physical data confirming the global flood didn't happen has been provided. For sure numerous attempts have been made.
Yes much such physical data have been provided already in the few months I am on Topix.
Also there have been considerable logical questions raised pertaining the ridiculousness of a worldwide flood as described in the bible. Like my last post #135806, which you, for the second time, left unanswered.

The only thing what happened is that you systematically avoided the physical data by endless smokescreen tattles about irrelevant things like toilet valves and volumeless vacuums and craters which lack any evidence of flood, let alone a global flood. And of course your blatant misunderstanding of buoyancy.

Also your unscientific attitude is embarrassing. For instance, "no physical data confirming the global flood didn't happen has been provided" while science demands methodologically to positively provide evidence for your claims.

After endless annoying tattles you are left with the following results, I quote:
1) "I have no physical evidence for a worldwide flood"
2) "But there has been a worldwide flood 4,500 years ago because it is in the bible".

Ladies and gentleman, we are BACK in the bronze age.
Where revelation prevails over evidence and observation.
Back to retardation, ignorance and superstition.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#135828 Jul 18, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Restricting the meaning of Biblical words would be a form of going beyond what is written.
Backwards.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#135830 Jul 18, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
We have no precedent for an alien space craft.
My position regarding the global flood is the same as yours regarding evolution until there is data that confirms the flood did not happen.
I don't assume an alien space craft would be like a human space craft because we have no precedent for an alien space craft.
No physical data confirming the global flood didn't happen has been provided. For sure numerous attempts have been made.
Evolution is based on evidence. The flood is based on hearsay. Big difference.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#135831 Jul 18, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
We have no precedent for an alien space craft.

Outright lie or massively ignorant.

KAB wrote:
<quoted text>My position regarding the global flood is the same as yours regarding evolution until there is data that confirms the flood did not happen.

We have provided evidence that the global flood did not happen. You have provided no evidence evolution did not happen. So by "same as your" you really mean "opposite to yours"
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>I don't assume an alien space craft would be like a human space craft because we have no precedent for an alien space craft.

Likewise you have no precedent for a global flood. Just saying.
KAB wrote:
<quoted text> No physical data confirming the global flood didn't happen has been provided. For sure numerous attempts have been made.

This is a lie. You have forgotten the 13 refutations of which you have seriously disputed zero of them.

So, in effect, you just admitted you are completely busted.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#135832 Jul 18, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Restricting the meaning of Biblical words would be a form of going beyond what is written. Also, there are no verses restricting the floodgates of the heavens to Mesopotamia.

Again, you are dealing with your issues via projection.

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#135833 Jul 18, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes much such physical data have been provided already in the few months I am on Topix.
Also there have been considerable logical questions raised pertaining the ridiculousness of a worldwide flood as described in the bible. Like my last post #135806, which you, for the second time, left unanswered.
The only thing what happened is that you systematically avoided the physical data by endless smokescreen tattles about irrelevant things like toilet valves and volumeless vacuums and craters which lack any evidence of flood, let alone a global flood. And of course your blatant misunderstanding of buoyancy.
Also your unscientific attitude is embarrassing. For instance, "no physical data confirming the global flood didn't happen has been provided" while science demands methodologically to positively provide evidence for your claims.
After endless annoying tattles you are left with the following results, I quote:
1) "I have no physical evidence for a worldwide flood"
2) "But there has been a worldwide flood 4,500 years ago because it is in the bible".
Ladies and gentleman, we are BACK in the bronze age.
Where revelation prevails over evidence and observation.
Back to retardation, ignorance and superstition.
Excellent. Well stated. This is pretty much why I have grown tired of discussing things with this imbecile. These are the conclusions he has when he got here. All the information he has received since and he still has these conclusions. No learning. No objectivity. No science. No teaching (that might his most vile and ludicrous claim). Nothing.

Patient Zero has only shown me that he is exactly that. A zero.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#135834 Jul 18, 2014
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
While I agree he is prouder than a baboon with a fist full of poop, I really think he believe the majority of what he says.
Again, the symptoms are of Delusional Disorder, Grandiose Type.
"Grandiose: A person with this type of delusional disorder has an over-inflated sense of worth, power, knowledge, or identity. The person might believe he or she has a great talent or has made an important discovery."
http://www.webmd.com/schizophrenia/guide/delu...
I wouldn't want to besmirch his parents, but perhaps there is a familial history of schizophrenia? Perhaps the discussion of genetics and inherited traits is more personally relevant than he realizes.
Or I suppose he was hit in the head too often as a lad and/or frequented one too many acid parties in his wild and rebellious youth...?
MMLandJ

Wingate, NC

#135835 Jul 18, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
They were some folks that used to post on here. KAB brings them up once in a while, insinuating that he ran them off with the logic of his arguments. They probably got tired of dealing with the nitwit and found better things to do. They didn't say. Since he doesn't provide evidence and they had all the hallmarks of some if not a lot of training in science, they wouldn't have been buffaloed by such a buffoon as KAB.
Much as anything KAB claims as a victory (buoyancy for instance) exists only in his head.
For me, science has confirmed that there was no global flood and couldn't have been one in over 100,000 years and probably many millions of years. I am satisfied with the evidence and have seen nothing that challenges it or explains it better. I have grown tired of this arrogant moron that is here to preach his believe, isn't interested in science and offers nothing but circular arguments and delusion. I will discuss things on here, but I am planning to just ignore him as much as I can.
Thank you for providing the insight. Also thanks to MikeF and Dogen for the same.

KAB, if you are reading this, how about your insight?
MMLandJ

Wingate, NC

#135836 Jul 18, 2014
KAB wrote:
We have no precedent for an alien space craft.
We have no precedent for a global flood
KAB wrote:
My position regarding the global flood is the same as yours regarding evolution until there is data that confirms the flood did not happen.
Data has been presented throughout this forum which confirms your global flood never happened. The same cannot be said of evolution.
KAB wrote:
I don't assume an alien space craft would be like a human space craft because we have no precedent for an alien space craft.
I don't assume a local flood would be like a global flood because we have no precedent for a global flood.
MMLandJ

Wingate, NC

#135837 Jul 18, 2014
KAB wrote:
No physical data confirming the global flood didn't happen has been provided. For sure numerous attempts have been made.
Physical data confirming the global flood never happened has been provided. For sure you have made numerous attempts to misrepresent this data.
KAB wrote:
Restricting the meaning of Biblical words would be a form of going beyond what is written.
I know. So why are you doing it?
KAB wrote:
Also, there are no verses restricting the floodgates of the heavens to Mesopotamia.
I know. So why are you restricting the flood gates of the heavens from pouring rain over the entire earth at the same time?
KAB

United States

#135838 Jul 18, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
No you didn't.
It was not even evidence of a flood but according to the geological articles on the subject, evidence for well understood other features like ice cap sediments after at least 2 ice ages the crater experienced and earth quake land slides. the geological literature I read didn't even mention the word "flood".
Even IF there were evidence of a flood in Pingauluit crater of a flood, you still failed miserably to explain why this were to be evidence for a WORLDWIDE flood.
We have been going through this during several posts by several people and it is barely acceptable that you pop up with it again.
You are completely refuted and ruined on your Pingauluit tattles.
You should SHAME yourself after all those posts to even come up with this CRAP again.
It demonstrates your deplorable state of reasoning against all odds and sound debate.
Those "inapplicable morainic references" were the actual geological studies done by proper scientists on Pingauluit crater.
HOW TYPICAL for you to mention those studies "inapplicable morainic references".
While they actually are the scientific studies on the very subject.
No further responses are warranted until you acknowledge that ALL the glaciations were thousands of years before the sediment of interest was deposited. Why do you continue to return to this irrelevance? While you're at it you could also acknowledge you don't have a technical background. That would help explain why your responses on technical matters don't make technical sense and would make it easier to deal with you in an appropriately helpful way. Not everyone is required to be technically savvy, but to conduct oneself as if something he is not does a disservice to all involved.
KAB

United States

#135839 Jul 18, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't EMBARRASSINGLY show off your complete misunderstanding of buoyancy.
Buoyancy is NOT due to pressure of water creeping under the object submerged.
You have NO IDEA of what buoyancy is.
EMBARRASSING.
END of TATTLE.
Answer the question posed INSTEAD.
I don't answer this tattles about physics any more.
I ONLY answer the EVIDENCE you provide for your claims.
ALL OTHER tattles are IGNORED.
I AM FED UP with your endless tattles and evasive dodging.
PERIOD.
After 231 reminders you owe me ANSWERS.
Do you even realize that buoyancy is ENTIRELY a consequence of pressure in a fluid, and that the pressure in the cases we have been considering is in turn due to gravity? Therefore, a root cause elemental analysis of these buoyancy situations doesn't begin with Archimedes general summary statement. It begins with a force analysis of gravity's effect on a fluid and any objects in contact with that fluid.
KAB

United States

#135840 Jul 18, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
AGAIN, WE DO HAVE these data.
Not addressing the things provided.
Feigning they were no provided (gambling that the other person did not noticed that, so let's try it).
What a miserable way of debating.
We do not have Everest growth measurement data from 4500 ya?

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#135841 Jul 18, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
No further responses are warranted until you acknowledge that ALL the glaciations were thousands of years before the sediment of interest was deposited. Why do you continue to return to this irrelevance? While you're at it you could also acknowledge you don't have a technical background. That would help explain why your responses on technical matters don't make technical sense and would make it easier to deal with you in an appropriately helpful way. Not everyone is required to be technically savvy, but to conduct oneself as if something he is not does a disservice to all involved.
Your stance of "all or nothing" is significant, since your "ALL" stance regarding the Bible IS amply demonstrated a NOTHING.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#135842 Jul 18, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you even realize that buoyancy is ENTIRELY a consequence of pressure in a fluid, and that the pressure in the cases we have been considering is in turn due to gravity? Therefore, a root cause elemental analysis of these buoyancy situations doesn't begin with Archimedes general summary statement. It begins with a force analysis of gravity's effect on a fluid and any objects in contact with that fluid.
Ignore it as you will, but glaciers are still not rubber flap valves glued to their bases.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#135843 Jul 18, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
We do not have Everest growth measurement data from 4500 ya?
You can't restrict your conniving to just the one tallest mountain on Earth.
A tremendous growth spurt of every mountain range on Earth over a couple thousand years would easily have passed unnoticed - only in your mind.

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#135844 Jul 18, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
No further responses are warranted until you acknowledge that ALL the glaciations were thousands of years before the sediment of interest was deposited. Why do you continue to return to this irrelevance? While you're at it you could also acknowledge you don't have a technical background. That would help explain why your responses on technical matters don't make technical sense and would make it easier to deal with you in an appropriately helpful way. Not everyone is required to be technically savvy, but to conduct oneself as if something he is not does a disservice to all involved.
Next time READ my posts, represent them PROPERLY, don't leave out 90% of what's been said and address it according to their content.

Dishonest SHIT.

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#135845 Jul 18, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
We do not have Everest growth measurement data from 4500 ya?
Irrelevant post, AGAIN NOT addressing what has been said.
Next time read the posts, address them according to their content.

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 min Kong_ 18,027
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 34 min Agents of Corruption 155,174
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 2 hr Kong_ 178,178
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) 8 hr Paul Porter1 947
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) Mar 26 Dogen 1,714
News Another Successful Prediction of Intelligent De... Mar 26 MikeF 1
News Intelligent Design: Corey Lee Mar 25 Paul Porter1 1
More from around the web