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

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

There are 160325 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.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113422 Apr 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I know. Please explain that to Dr. D. He won't accept anything from me.

SZ is quite right and is consistent with what I have been telling you.

“The lies we tell other people are nothing to the lies we tell ourselves.”
&#8213; Derek Landy, Death Bringer

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113423 Apr 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's see. 60 million years rising at one inch per year is roughly 6 million feet. Aren't the Himalayas about 30,000 feet high? Are you sure he wasn't just talking about how old the rock is, you technical wizard, you?

The Himalayas are raising about 5 mm per year (rough average) at the present time..5mm =.019685 in or 98,000 ft. IF the rate were consistent. HOWEVER, the ROC of growth has accelerated over time due to the force and impingement of the two continental shelves.

In simpler terms, they are raising faster now than at any time in the past.

“What is to absurd to be believed is believed because it is too absurd to be a lie.”
&#8213; Robert Jordan, Lord of Chaos

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113424 Apr 4, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>At least that would be observable. THat's more than you've got Mr. LeviGarrett.

While broken yo-yo's are observable they are not particularly interesting.

Evolution, otoh, is both observable AND interesting.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113425 Apr 4, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> Listen, call me anything you want too as long as you don't swear at me I couldn't care less.
I have called you what your are, Delusional. That hits so close to home that you don't respond anymore.


marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> I know I'm telling the truth...
I know you believe that.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113426 Apr 4, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text> You have never observed a non-human evolve into a human.<quoted text> A child differs from it's own parents. That doesn't support human from non-human evolution.<quoted text>You're welcome, but your attempt to morph micro evolution into macro-evolution is not, and never will be, proven. No one is debating that things don't evolve. Observation supports that. The debate is do humans evolve from non-humans, and that has NEVER EVER been observed. Don't you just hate that!!!?

Boy, if that were only true I would hate it.
KAB

United States

#113427 Apr 4, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
KAB, don't you check the links supplied to you?
The Wiki link that was supplied to you says that the mountain range started to form 50 to 60 million years ago. The growth would have really taken off only in the last 10 million years. That was when India ran into southern Asia. And of course erosion was going on as the mountains grew.
Got it! Only 10 million years at one inch growth per year is roughly 1 million feet increase in height. Aren't the Himalayas in the 30,000 foot ballpark?
KAB

United States

#113428 Apr 4, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
What blanks? You shot yourself in both feet.
You correctly stated that raising the mountain chains would not be inconsequential. In fact, it would be such a momentous occurrence that it would surely be included in the flood story - and it isn't.
Where is the account of 8 people struggling to repopulate a barren and lifeless world? That isn't worth a mention in your tome? No, what is worth mentioning is God IMMEDIATELY needing to be appeased with animal sacrifices.
Raising mountain chains? Not a peep. For that matter, even REAL cataclysms such as the Santorini event are mysteriously missing from your all knowing oracle.
You correctly stated that phytoplankton, a major source of the Earth's oxygen, is in the ocean. I understand you aren't bright enough to extrapolate what would happen if you covered it with 2-5 MILES of fresh water and a third that much more silty runoff, and I know you aren't bright enough to quit spouting idiocy. You're just another JW zombie and quite honestly, what little novelty you once offered in bantering with and through your absolute lack of intelligence, honesty, integrity and content is getting quite boring - especially when you keep revisiting things like your vapid and inane "global rain guage."
I see you're understandably upset. If I was only firing dataless blanks at a well armed opponent I would probably come unhinged too as I continued firing blanks in even greater abundance in the futile misdirected dataless attempt to defend myself.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113429 Apr 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
In the future remember, as you state, things can change. Things could have changed a lot with the flood, like mountains. They could have grown considerably.

From a force perspective you would expect mountains to not do much of anything. The tallest mountain in the world (if you go from the base) is mostly under water.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113430 Apr 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Got it! Only 10 million years at one inch growth per year is roughly 1 million feet increase in height. Aren't the Himalayas in the 30,000 foot ballpark?

Previously refuted.
KAB

United States

#113431 Apr 4, 2013
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you think of a mechanism by which a flood would cause mountains to grow considerably?
I suppose it makes sense to you to use pretend geological events to support a pretend Flood, but how many layers of make-believe are you willing to accept?
Check with Chrome. I know he has some ideas.
KAB

United States

#113432 Apr 4, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Strata are changing levels all the time. But The Himalayas have been going consistently up over the last 60 million years.
They should now be in the ballpark of 6 million feet high. Are they?
KAB

United States

#113433 Apr 4, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
The Himalayas are raising about 5 mm per year (rough average) at the present time..5mm =.019685 in or 98,000 ft. IF the rate were consistent. HOWEVER, the ROC of growth has accelerated over time due to the force and impingement of the two continental shelves.
In simpler terms, they are raising faster now than at any time in the past.
“What is to absurd to be believed is believed because it is too absurd to be a lie.”
&#8213; Robert Jordan, Lord of Chaos
Why did you calculate the height using a 0.5mm annual rate? You stated that the growth rate is 5mm per year.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113434 Apr 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Why did you calculate the height using a 0.5mm annual rate? You stated that the growth rate is 5mm per year.

ooops. Sorry. That was a math error. I noticed the result seemed a bit less than I expected.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113435 Apr 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Check with Chrome. I know he has some ideas.

Oh, another dodge.

“Isn't strength the ability to renounce every lie in your heart?”
&#8213; Bisco Hatori, Ouran High School Host Club, Vol. 7
KAB

United States

#113436 Apr 4, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
ooops. Sorry. That was a math error. I noticed the result seemed a bit less than I expected.
OK. So, your corrected calculation would yield just short of a million feet above sea level. They're only 30,000 feet high tho.
It's interesting that you were expecting an answer which wouldn't support your assertion.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#113437 Apr 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Why did you calculate the height using a 0.5mm annual rate? You stated that the growth rate is 5mm per year.
He said "5mm per year at the present time", not 5mm every year for the last 50 million years. Dogen and others also explained to you why the rate would not be constant.

Is it really so hard, or are you just argumentative?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#113438 Apr 4, 2013
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you think of a mechanism by which a flood would cause mountains to grow considerably?
I suppose it makes sense to you to use pretend geological events to support a pretend Flood, but how many layers of make-believe are you willing to accept?
About as many layers as we see in the Grand Canyon, I guess.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#113439 Apr 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
In the future remember, as you state, things can change. Things could have changed a lot with the flood, like mountains. They could have grown considerably.
No, rates of change have to be within the realm of reason. You keep forgetting that mountains are formed not only by uplift, but by erosion too. There has not been enough time to erode all of the various landforms that we see in the extremely short period since the Flood could have happened.

KAB, if you you want to make an argument for the Flood it has to be a consistent one. That is why real geology wins out over flood geology. We don't make false assumptions and then see if we can hit the evidence hard enough with a hammer so that it fits into a specific model. We look at the evidence and see where it goes. That is why we do not end up with self contradicting stories.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#113440 Apr 4, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Got it! Only 10 million years at one inch growth per year is roughly 1 million feet increase in height. Aren't the Himalayas in the 30,000 foot ballpark?
Yes, actually it is. You keep forgetting about the rate of erosion. Right now the rate of erosion is on the order of a centimeter a year. It was even higher during the various glaciations the Earth has seen recently. Orogeny is both an lifting up and a wearing down of strata.

Why do creatards tend to look at only half of the driving forces of complex systems?

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#113441 Apr 4, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
About as many layers as we see in the Grand Canyon, I guess.
Good correlation.

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
One species or three 1 hr replaytime 13
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr replaytime 61,602
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 6 hr Dogen 220,717
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 8 hr Dogen 2,721
Curious dilemma about DNA 9 hr Dogen 14
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 18 hr Aura Mytha 28,325
News Book aims to prove existence of God (Nov '09) Mar 23 Regolith Based Li... 99
More from around the web