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

KAB wrote:

<quoted text>
I've provided flood evidence from the appropriate time period, to which your side understandably responds "local". So since flood evidence for a flood is not going to be accepted, that does raise the bar. That's why the search is on for at least flood evidence in the earth's chronically driest areas.

That there were every floods anywhere in a particular era is not the same as a single miles-deep year-long flood event over the entire planet. And, the evidence of no such event (corals that lived through such a time, uninterrupted dendrochronological records, physics, etc.) makes acceptance of such an event happening a complete farce.

You have to provide evidence that a single flood event took place over the entire planet, lasted an entire year, wiped out all life on Earth, and that all life resumed from just a pair of each species (or representatives from various genera, if you prefer).

Where's the evidence that such a flood occurred, and how does it explain away all the evidence that such a flood NEVER occurred?

MikeF wrote:

<quoted text>
As previously discussed, a source must be treated with skepticism until proven reliable. You agreed to that.
<quoted text>
We don't accept unproven sources as reliable. You do. Big difference.

The Bible is a proven reliable source. This is increasingly reinforced as this forum proceeds with no one providing verifiable data proving even one testable thing in it wrong.

KAB wrote:

<quoted text>
You're entitled to your religion, but not to teach others something is so which has not been established as such. Try just objectively presenting evidence and letting people draw their own conclusions.

You've been watching Kent Hovind's videos lately, eh?

KAB wrote:

<quoted text>
I too do not accept a claim as evidence for the claim.
Your extended premise is flawed. Not all things can be proven. I think you know that, but just forgot. In your zeal to make a point you just didn't think it thru carefully enough. A completely reliable source is not one which has nothing more to offer. Rather, it is one that has built a record of reliability which garners trust in the veracity of unproven things it has to offer. It is known as "never" wrong because of its record to date.

And, yet, science NEVER takes reputation into account. Science doesn't give a damn about reputation. Science only cares about what can be demonstrated.

Therefore, you reject science. You have once again proclaimed it yourself.

MikeF wrote:

<quoted text>
And if against, ignore it. Right?

I haven't ignored any yet, and won't. I tackle them head-on and with data I might add.

KAB wrote:

<quoted text>
The Bible is a proven reliable source. This is increasingly reinforced as this forum proceeds with no one providing verifiable data proving even one testable thing in it wrong.

Rabbits. Cud. QED.

LowellGuy wrote:

<quoted text>
So, you're saying that not everything in the Bible has been verified. Not everything in the Bible has evidence to support it. You're saying that you treat the claims in the Bible skeptically, yet you accept them as true without any supporting evidence. Please explain to us how that qualifies as skepticism.

My position is that I don't treat claims from a reliable source skeptically while, at the same time, remaining open to any evidence regarding the claim.

LowellGuy wrote:

<quoted text>
Is the source reliable if huge swaths have yet to be verified? If I successfully predict 4 dice rolls in a row, are you going to bring me to Vegas to work the craps tables? What if I successfully predict 10 in a row? What if you didn't know about the 100 rolls I failed to successfully predict? Am I still a reliable source? What if you had been told about my failures but chose to only pay attention to the 10 rolls you saw me predict successfully? Am I still a reliable source?

I see you recognize it's a judgment call just like conclusions stemming from inconclusive physical data.

KAB wrote:

<quoted text>
A declaration in Wikipedia and you're convinced?!
The fact that no comparable thought has been provided from the same timeframe (approx. 1500 BCE).

Job was not written in 1500 BCE. More like 900 BCE. What sort of wishful thinking make you pick 1500 BCE?

KAB wrote:

<quoted text>
They all come from derived values, none of which contradict a global flood 4500 years ago.

ROTFLMFAO!

Best Joke of the Day!

KAB wrote:

<quoted text>
I have explained how Design accounts for them "perfectly".

You are seriously delusional.

forreal wrote:

<quoted text>R you adding Ice from the North & South pole to the ratio!LOL

While that would swamp low lying regions, it does not change the ratio more than a couple of points. Why don't you just learn to own up to your mistakes?

KAB wrote:

<quoted text>
He forgot to include that they were each refuted when presented, but he likes to keep presenting them and just not mention that part. He could at least mention that I provided responses to each, even if he doesn't accept them, but that wouldn't suit his purpose to make it appear that I have no answer for any of it.

This is a parade of outright lies. You don't seem to be able to even understand why it is YOUR responsibility to provide evedience and not ours. You type some words and call that a refutation, no matter how stepped in nonsense it is. You have no valid science on your side and never have. That burns your butt, but that is the reality you have left.

KAB wrote:

<quoted text>
I've provided flood evidence from the appropriate time period, to which your side understandably responds "local". So since flood evidence for a flood is not going to be accepted, that does raise the bar. That's why the search is on for at least flood evidence in the earth's chronically driest areas.

So who is conducting this search for flood evidence in the earth's driest areas??

I suspect the same people who are also searching for the Ark and Pharaohs chariot wheels.

You of course do know that actual geologists have been looking for some signs of this for many, many years.

Just picture this secular geologist finding irrefutable scientific evidence that Noah's flood actually happened...he would be totally rich and able to pick any university he wanted to work at...and his name would go down in history.

KAB wrote:

<quoted text>
My position is that I don't treat claims from a reliable source skeptically while, at the same time, remaining open to any evidence regarding the claim.

You don't treat claims from a reliable source skeptically, but you DID claim that you approach claims from the Bible skeptically.

You also said that you don't reject science, but you approach the Bible in an anti-scientific manner.

Remind us how that isn't rejecting science. You use the most unscientific approach possible, you claim you approach the Bible skeptically, then you claim that you don't treat claims from the Bible skeptically, then you claim you don't reject science. Do you hear yourself?

KAB wrote:

<quoted text>
I see you recognize it's a judgment call just like conclusions stemming from inconclusive physical data.

So, as long as you say it's reliable, it's reliable, and that's all it takes for you to suspend skepticism, even though you also said that you don't reject science, which demands skepticism all the time no matter what, and that you DO approach the Bible skeptically, except that you don't.

And we SHOULDN'T call you a liar? REALLY?

KAB wrote:

<quoted text>
I haven't ignored any yet, and won't. I tackle them head-on and with data I might add.

Again: rabbits don't chew cud. Taking the most generalized definition and ignoring the more specific and CORRECT definitions isn't evidence that rabbits chew cud. Ignoring the fact that the Bible actually said "bring up the cud" (which rabbits don't do) and insisting that droppings count isn't evidence that rabbits chew cud. Are droppings "cud?" Does cud come from the anus? Do rabbits chew something regurgitated from the stomach or something that emerges from the anus? Does the Bible say that rabbits chew cud?

You already know the correct answers to all of these questions. Problem is, you've also already committed yourself to the claim that everything in the Bible is true, so you've got to contort reality to fit the Bible. It takes so much effort to find ways to twist the facts to match up with what ignorant Bronze Age nomadic sheep herders thought about rabbits that you get emotionally invested in the battle, forgetting that in any other context, you'd NEVER say that rabbits chew cud.

KAB wrote:

<quoted text>
Did you really miss the accusation of never providing any data, or are you just being coy?

I must have. But you claim no data when you are given data. Then you demonstrate to us that you don't understand data and what to make of it. You just go round in circles.

KAB wrote:

<quoted text>
Now there's a novel idea, put the TOTAL burden of proof on the fundie (and proceed with your own religion without accepting any challenges or providing any proof for anything). That part about ignore evidence is especially scientific! At least it's an accurate characterization.

1. You finally show some honesty. You admit you are a fundamentalist.
2. You don't understand the point that when you claim there was a world wide flood, it is up to you to back the claim. Go to a scientific meeting or talk. You will see what I mean. The speaker doesn't say here is my conclusion now you all run out and bring me evidence that it is or isn't correct.
3. Again you show some honesty. Yes, you continually ignore evidence and yes we have accurately characterized you.

KAB wrote:

<quoted text>
The Bible is a proven reliable source. This is increasingly reinforced as this forum proceeds with no one providing verifiable data proving even one testable thing in it wrong.

How is its reliability proven? If you want to show the reliability of the Bible, then show it. Bring us the data.

Either put up or shut up.