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

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

There are 164943 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.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#115213 May 11, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for the reference. Here's a quote from it,
"Studies by a group of British scientists have suggested that some river beds have been dry for 120,000 years."
It's still not data, but it's a step closer. See if you can discern the most significant word in the statement and explain why it's significant.
Science is ALWAYS tentative. ALWAYS.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#115214 May 11, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll give you the same challenge SZ
Reference a study that documents the accuracy and reproducibility or radiometric dating.
I'm waiting.....
I'll give YOU a challenge.

Reference a study that documents the accuracy and reproducibility of 2 H + 1 O = 1 molecule H2O + energy.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#115215 May 11, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
OK. Following the usual pattern, you've made the assertion. Now provide the data which confirms. You don't just go to the Atacama and say it sure is dry here. It probably hasn't rained here for thousands of years. Well, I know you would, but the scientists are different. Something has to be measured. What is it?
The amount of reality you're willing to deny?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#115216 May 11, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I see you got the point. Since flood evidence exists, how do you use that data to conclude there was no global flood? Does your confirmation bias help?
There is no flood evidence.

All you have ever presented was some sediment from a crater in Canada easily explained by far more mundane causes.

We have shown you piles of evidence that no massive flood or disruption to human, plant, or animal life has occurred, no large scale world wide sedimentation has occurred, in fact nothing has occurred on the scale of the Biblical Flood during the period that you claim it had to have happened.

Therefore, unless God or the Devil carefully cleaned up the mess afterwards to eliminate all trace of it, and also planted piles of evidence against it just to fool us (like 600,000 year old ice cores), then it just didn't happen buddy. Genesis is a book of early Jewish myths. Even the Jews get that and know its mostly allegorical, not factual.

You CANNOT pretend to be a data junkie while trying to hold out against the massive amount of data that invalidates your position.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#115217 May 11, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll give you the same challenge SZ
Reference a study that documents the accuracy and reproducibility or radiometric dating.
I'm waiting.....
I missed this post by How's That for Stupid.

Here is one study:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/...

And another paper:

http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/evolution...

Radiometric dating is sound since the mathematics are correct. We know that without contamination the dates given by it should be correct. When an anomalous date appears it is time to see what went wrong.

As an analogy if we drop something it should accelerate at roughly 9.8 m/sec^2.

There are many exceptions to this "rule". For example a tall enough height could mean that air resistances becomes a factor. The object dropped could be a magnet in a conducting tube and it will slow due to eddy currents. The object could be dropped from an extreme height where the Galilean simplification could no longer be used. The list goes on and on.

The same applies to dating rocks. Radiometric dating is so well accepted that operator error is assumed if a "wrong" answer is received. As I said, there were several things Austin could have done wrong. By telling a place to simply date a sample he was the operator and he was wrong. If the sample had xenocrysts or phenocrysts he was wrong since he did not tell the testing site. If he did not keep his sample pure he was wrong with his handling and again wrong by not telling the testing site. The first thing done if you get an anomalous date is to date again. Stevarino did not do that now, did he? Austin is not a complete idiot. He probably knew that his sample could have failed. Like most creatards he probably is not honest.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#115218 May 11, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
YEC desperadoes.
I'm keeping that one.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#115219 May 11, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Seriously? How many times has this been posted on here and ignored by you? 10? 100? More?
You have been presented with data and references regarding this on numerous occassions. It is an OUTRIGHT LIE for you to act like this is the first time you have heard of such a statement about the Atacama.
And, of course, it isn't. The usual fundy M.O. Pretend that they've never been given the information then whine because no one is all that interested in providing the boring troll the the same information over again and again.

The sad part is he sees himself as honest. Naturally, the delusional are often too delusional to realize they *are* delusional.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#115220 May 11, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't seem to be seriously trying to ascertain how it could be done. Your confirmation bias appears to be affecting your attitude toward the exercise.
Of course I'm not seriously trying to ascertain how it could be done. How friggin astute of you.

It's a story, doofus. It never happened. It can't happen. Only morons and little children would buy into this being factual.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#115221 May 11, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Since we have provided this data before why don't you look it up yourself?
It gets tiresome having to endlessly repeat the lesson for the slow learners.
He's not slow. He know exactly what he's doing. The funny part is he actually thinks no one can see through him.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#115222 May 11, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm certainly relieved I'm not the one reduced to substituting a steady flow of name-calling for data.
Sez the loony reduced to spewing a steady flow of lies.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#115223 May 11, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
If it was not submerged in millions of years, no global flood could have happened during that entire time.
He kinda walked right into that one, huh? Hilarious.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#115224 May 11, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I see you got the point. Since flood evidence exists, how do you use that data to conclude there was no global flood? Does your confirmation bias help?
I conclude there was no global flood based on scientific observations that there are many places on this planet that show no hint of a global flood.

You, accusing me of confirmation bias, is absolutely ridiculous. You have any mirrors in the cave you live in?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#115225 May 11, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, it's in the record of this forum.
Nah.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#115226 May 11, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I missed this post by How's That for Stupid.
Here is one study:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/...
And another paper:
http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/evolution...
Radiometric dating is sound since the mathematics are correct. We know that without contamination the dates given by it should be correct. When an anomalous date appears it is time to see what went wrong.
As an analogy if we drop something it should accelerate at roughly 9.8 m/sec^2.
There are many exceptions to this "rule". For example a tall enough height could mean that air resistances becomes a factor. The object dropped could be a magnet in a conducting tube and it will slow due to eddy currents. The object could be dropped from an extreme height where the Galilean simplification could no longer be used. The list goes on and on.
The same applies to dating rocks. Radiometric dating is so well accepted that operator error is assumed if a "wrong" answer is received. As I said, there were several things Austin could have done wrong. By telling a place to simply date a sample he was the operator and he was wrong. If the sample had xenocrysts or phenocrysts he was wrong since he did not tell the testing site. If he did not keep his sample pure he was wrong with his handling and again wrong by not telling the testing site. The first thing done if you get an anomalous date is to date again. Stevarino did not do that now, did he? Austin is not a complete idiot. He probably knew that his sample could have failed. Like most creatards he probably is not honest.
Yet another load of BS posted by SZ.
I asked you for a study documenting the accuracy and reproducibility of radiometric dating on lava flows of known dates.
I surmise from your response that you do not have any such data at your disposal.
You have nothing but conjectures.
If you want to prove the accuracy of radiometric dating, you must blindly test samples of historically known dates.
You apparently know nothing about science.
The spirit of a true scientist is to QUESTION dogma...
You seem content to go-with-the-flow.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#115227 May 11, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet another load of BS posted by SZ.
I asked you for a study documenting the accuracy and reproducibility of radiometric dating on lava flows of known dates.
I surmise from your response that you do not have any such data at your disposal.
You have nothing but conjectures.
If you want to prove the accuracy of radiometric dating, you must blindly test samples of historically known dates.
You apparently know nothing about science.
The spirit of a true scientist is to QUESTION dogma...
You seem content to go-with-the-flow.
You ignored the second paper that dealt with that.

But I will find another one for you. You do realize that all of this has been dealt with before.

And How's That for Stupid, you should not use words that you do not know the definition of.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#115228 May 11, 2013
I need a bit more information from HST. Precisely what lava flows are you complaining about? Links would be helpful.

A word of warning, you do know that there is a reason that we laugh at creatard sites when they try to do science, right?
KAB

Wilson, NC

#115229 May 11, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Good thing for her it wasn't a fish or she'd have died in under 3 minutes.
Not without data confirming that end result. Do you know how long it takes without oxygen to become brain dead?
KAB

Wilson, NC

#115230 May 11, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
To any reasonable, rational adult, ALL of the evidence we have presented against the possibility of a global flood withstands scrutiny.
Unfortunately, you're much too dishonest to consider this.
The fact that you bring up outlandish "What ifs..." regarding each and every piece of evidence submitted is laughable.
**IF**
"If dingleberries were diamonds I could open a Kay Jewelers in my pants." (Credit: John Stewart, "The Daily Show" - 5/8/13)
You are clearly a serious student of science. Do you think "data, all the data, and nothing but the data" could serve as your motto?

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#115231 May 11, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
I need a bit more information from HST. Precisely what lava flows are you complaining about? Links would be helpful.
A word of warning, you do know that there is a reason that we laugh at creatard sites when they try to do science, right?
'Cos they's funny!!
KAB

Wilson, NC

#115232 May 11, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>You've never heard of the Hindu Kush before, have you?
Never mind. Here's your data.
http://www.assess-hkh.at/mains/geology.php
Before I waste my time, is this data better than what you provided for the Ararat Massif? Think and examine your offering carefully yourself before you answer. This could be your last chance to get my attention if you prove to be an unreliable source of pertinent data.

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) 3 min 15th Dalai Lama 83,930
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 20 min 15th Dalai Lama 3,284
No Evidence for Creation, a Global Flood, Tower... 32 min 15th Dalai Lama 44
Time 2 hr Beagle 3
Ten Reason Why Evolution Is a Lie (Jul '09) Wed MIDutch 1,996
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) Tue Regolith Based Li... 223,191
Evolution exposed Dec 8 Dogen 6
More from around the web