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

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

There are 164685 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.

The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#122050 Nov 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you ever experienced water rising around you at 8cm per minute? It's not very fast, is it?
Actually if you're trapped in that flood, yes it is. Then take into account it's worldwide. Then take into account that to keep the level going at 8cm a minute the rate of water has to continually increase as the sphere of water increases in volume. Very quickly that's a LOT of mass you've got moving all over the planet simultaneously for 40 days non-stop.

Then double it if we cover Everest.

Not that we'd need to.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#122051 Nov 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It's your side which acts as if local evidence means local flood.
That's pure bullshit. None of us have ever taken that position and you know it. This is simply you being Word Weasel again.
KAB wrote:
I'm encouraged you realize that's incorrect reasoning.[/QUOTE}

I'll take Jim Ryan's advice on reasoning long before I'd take it from a snug little prick.

[QUOTE who="KAB"]Short of something unique about the global flood other than being global, it is not discernible as a global flood.
"Other than it being global" Just a minor detail, huh?

How many local floods can you present that covered high mountains?
KAB wrote:
Explain why the upwelling flood could not have caused the sediment flushing event.
I don't need to. You are the one claiming this happened during your stealth flood. YOU explain it.
KAB wrote:
It should prove therapeutic for you.
You mean debating an idiot. I suppose so.
KAB wrote:
OK, so you don't understand probability.
Massive evidence against a global flood vs. a handful of maybes. Far better than you apparently.
KAB wrote:
If you're interested I'll explain how it applies in this case.
See Jim Ryan reference above.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#122052 Nov 4, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually if you're trapped in that flood, yes it is. Then take into account it's worldwide. Then take into account that to keep the level going at 8cm a minute the rate of water has to continually increase as the sphere of water increases in volume. Very quickly that's a LOT of mass you've got moving all over the planet simultaneously for 40 days non-stop.
Then double it if we cover Everest.
Not that we'd need to.
I did the calculations rather quickly, but I think that amounts to 80,000 metric tons per kilometer per minute. That would be a lot of mass in short order.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#122053 Nov 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
"So what?", you ask? So, all flood evidence is local, that's what! Just as, if there had ever been a global thunderstorm, its evidence would be the same as for local thunderstorms. Thanks for the enlightning example.
If the evidence in the northern Canadian high-walled meteor crater was caused by a flood, a possibility the sediment data physically allows, it would have had to have been a global flood. As a bonus, only to be overlooked by your side, the sediment event also happens to have occurred only once about 4500 years ago GFT even tho the crater has been there about 1.4 million years. Are you familiar with probability?
Then you must also consider Barringer Crater in Arizona.

"Lake sediments found in the crater bottom indicate that the crater filled with water creating an impact-generated lake and a freshwater habitat. Conditions in northern Arizona are currently too arid for such a lake, but during the Pleistocene, 50,000 years ago, the climate was colder and wetter."

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/science/kring/epo_web...

Question: Why can they find evidence of the presence of water in this crater from 50,000 years ago....but not from a mere 4500 years ago?

And you still have not adequately defended Atacama.

"Dunai et al.(2005)ís sample sites were specifically chosen to exclude areas where the outwash from the high Andes east of the desert would erode or cover the local rocks. Only local rainfall could erode the selected areas, so only local, medium elevation, near-shore precipitation (or lack thereof) was relevant to the erosion rates.

Their results show that most of the rocks they sampled have been at or near the surface for 20-30 million years. These are among the oldest exposure ages in terrestrial rocks. The implication is that there has been negligible erosion since that time."

http://lablemminglounge.blogspot.com/2011/09/...

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#122054 Nov 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It's your side which acts as if local evidence means local flood. I'm encouraged you realize that's incorrect reasoning. Short of something unique about the global flood other than being global, it is not discernible as a global flood.
Explain why the upwelling flood could not have caused the sediment flushing event. It should prove therapeutic for you.
OK, so you don't understand probability. If you're interested I'll explain how it applies in this case.

Previously refuted.

Remember?

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#122055 Nov 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
That possibility would be worth considering if not for your telling rants.

You are not interested in reality. That is another fact that has been verified on countless occasions.

You are a clown with a little dance around the data.

Amazingly unimpressive.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#122056 Nov 4, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean the one that has a near complete lack of salinity that totally bollixes your scenario? Have you found the core sample data that indicates it has ever had any marine sediments? You do realize that fluids seek own level and that the crater is a mere 50 miles from salt water (which is heavier than fresh water), do you not?
That's your cue, KAB - time to divert, distract, ignore, divert, distract, ignore,... or maybe you'll just try deception this time?
As I recall, if you learn more about the Canadian crater you'll find it has/had a leak in the bottom. What is the mystic relationship you see between the crater and "heavy" salt water 50 miles away?
KAB

Wilson, NC

#122057 Nov 4, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually if you're trapped in that flood, yes it is. Then take into account it's worldwide. Then take into account that to keep the level going at 8cm a minute the rate of water has to continually increase as the sphere of water increases in volume. Very quickly that's a LOT of mass you've got moving all over the planet simultaneously for 40 days non-stop.
Then double it if we cover Everest.
Not that we'd need to.
Indeed, the report indicates the global flood was very traumatic (deadly) for those who were arkless. Such a huge increase in covering mass would certainly be expected to cause significant crustal deformation. Voila, Everest!

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#122058 Nov 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed, the report indicates the global flood was very traumatic (deadly) for those who were arkless. Such a huge increase in covering mass would certainly be expected to cause significant crustal deformation. Voila, Everest!
You're positively nutz.

Where's you DATA, putz?
KAB

Wilson, NC

#122059 Nov 4, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
That's pure bullshit. None of us have ever taken that position and you know it. This is simply you being Word Weasel again.
<quoted text>
"Other than it being global" Just a minor detail, huh?
How many local floods can you present that covered high mountains?
<quoted text>
I don't need to. You are the one claiming this happened during your stealth flood. YOU explain it.
<quoted text>
You mean debating an idiot. I suppose so.
<quoted text>
Massive evidence against a global flood vs. a handful of maybes. Far better than you apparently.
<quoted text>
See Jim Ryan reference above.
Every time I provide age appropriate flood evidence you're first in line declaring "local floods" and doing it without providing any data. Also, I HAVE explained how the global flood would cause the sediment flushing. You have not explained and now decline to explain how it could not have done so. You do realize how this looks for you, don't you?
KAB

Wilson, NC

#122060 Nov 4, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Then you must also consider Barringer Crater in Arizona.
"Lake sediments found in the crater bottom indicate that the crater filled with water creating an impact-generated lake and a freshwater habitat. Conditions in northern Arizona are currently too arid for such a lake, but during the Pleistocene, 50,000 years ago, the climate was colder and wetter."
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/science/kring/epo_web...
Question: Why can they find evidence of the presence of water in this crater from 50,000 years ago....but not from a mere 4500 years ago?
And you still have not adequately defended Atacama.
"Dunai et al.(2005)ís sample sites were specifically chosen to exclude areas where the outwash from the high Andes east of the desert would erode or cover the local rocks. Only local rainfall could erode the selected areas, so only local, medium elevation, near-shore precipitation (or lack thereof) was relevant to the erosion rates.
Their results show that most of the rocks they sampled have been at or near the surface for 20-30 million years. These are among the oldest exposure ages in terrestrial rocks. The implication is that there has been negligible erosion since that time."
http://lablemminglounge.blogspot.com/2011/09/...
The Barringer study you cite does not state there is no 4500 year old sediment in the bottom of the crater, does it? As to Atacama, the evidence is incapable of revealing a year of erosion in the past 20-30 million, isn't it?
KAB

Wilson, NC

#122061 Nov 4, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
You're positively nutz.
Where's you DATA, putz?
As in this case, good things come to him who waits. I'm confident that if we continue, your side will provide me more data. It was your side which provided the global scale flood gauge complete with flood capture data. That's just the way the truth works. The more you keep stirring around it the more it gets revealed.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#122062 Nov 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
As I recall, if you learn more about the Canadian crater you'll find it has/had a leak in the bottom. What is the mystic relationship you see between the crater and "heavy" salt water 50 miles away?

You are not able to actually provide any evidence of anything and you have to run away from actual scientific discussions.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#122063 Nov 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed, the report indicates the global flood was very traumatic (deadly) for those who were arkless. Such a huge increase in covering mass would certainly be expected to cause significant crustal deformation. Voila, Everest!

Yet the global population before and after 4,500 ybp remained unchanged at about 50 million.

A flood can not cause mountains. That requires plate tectonics, oh science ignorant one.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#122064 Nov 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
As in this case, good things come to him who waits. I'm confident that if we continue, your side will provide me more data. It was your side which provided the global scale flood gauge complete with flood capture data. That's just the way the truth works. The more you keep stirring around it the more it gets revealed.

It was your vivid imagination that provided that.

You need to learn about science. No delusions require.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#122065 Nov 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The Barringer study you cite does not state there is no 4500 year old sediment in the bottom of the crater, does it? As to Atacama, the evidence is incapable of revealing a year of erosion in the past 20-30 million, isn't it?

No
Yes.

This would be obvious to someone who ever took a science class.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#122066 Nov 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Every time I provide age appropriate flood evidence you're first in line declaring "local floods" and doing it without providing any data.

Data previously provided.
KAB wrote:
<quoted text> Also, I HAVE explained how the global flood would cause the sediment flushing.

You have provided some pseudoscientific delusions.
KAB wrote:
<quoted text> You have not explained and now decline to explain how it could not have done so. You do realize how this looks for you, don't you?

Data previously provided.

This is too easy.


“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#122067 Nov 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
As in this case, good things come to him who waits. I'm confident that if we continue, your side will provide me more data. It was your side which provided the global scale flood gauge complete with flood capture data. That's just the way the truth works. The more you keep stirring around it the more it gets revealed.
I bet even the other Witnesses call this one nuts.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#122068 Nov 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The Barringer study you cite does not state there is no 4500 year old sediment in the bottom of the crater, does it?
{FACE/PALM}

Uh...because THERE IS NO FRIGGIN 4500 YEAR OLD SEDIMENT AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CRATER!
That's the whole point! They FOUND sediment from about 50k years ago, but NONE from 4500 years ago.

They ALSO didn't find an alien spacecraft at the bottom of the crater. Would this be evidence for aliens using your "logic"?
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>As to Atacama, the evidence is incapable of revealing a year of erosion in the past 20-30 million, isn't it?
No.

Fail.

The deposition of, presence of, and removal of a column of water approximately 2 miles high over the Atacama would have eroded the existing loose soil that presented the 20-30 million year-old data. The soil (if any) remaining after your (non-existant) flood drained, would have then started to be exposed to cosmic rays, and the test I referred to would have shown 4500 years instead (assuming that this test can read numbers that low).

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#122069 Nov 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed, the report indicates the global flood was very traumatic (deadly) for those who were arkless. Such a huge increase in covering mass would certainly be expected to cause significant crustal deformation. Voila, Everest!
Significant crustal deformation that somehow leaves all these meteor craters completely untouched as well as the Atacama desert surface. Amazing. Tell me more lies.

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.

Asheville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
What Ever Happened To Murdered Plastic Surgeon (Mar '17) 2 hr Frances 18
Another Wanda Greene Thread Gone 3 hr Code W 23
Who Is Overseeing Buncombe County? Thread 2 9 hr Jackie Bozo Van D... 17
Blame it On The Police 10 hr Bill Cameron 85
Cecil Bothwell loses in primaries 23 hr Cecil 51
3rd Millionaire Wanda Greene Thread Disappeared Sat Butthead 13
Whats The Big Deal Sat Larry 7

Asheville Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Asheville Mortgages