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

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

There are 151494 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.

KAB

United States

#115346 May 13, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>In their stomachs? Are you claiming that?
Initially I'll settle for a lung or similar, although gulping air into a stomach under unusual/traumatic circumstances is not out of the question.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#115347 May 13, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The topic being considered here is cosmogenic exposure measurement results and whether those measurements are capable of detecting if the samples had spent approximately one year underwater during the overall exposure time. The answer is no. It's similar to accumulated exposure of photographic film. The measurement does not reveal if there were interruptions in the exposure process.
Bullshit. You can continue to live in La-La-Land but the fact is that a world wide catastrophic flood would leave a scar on history so obvious that even the brain-washed couldn't fail to see it.(Present cult member excepted)

BTW, you don't know much about photographic emulsions either.

There's noting there. It never happened.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#115348 May 13, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I asked a question. I didn't assert the account was true. I leave such to your side since you're all so good at dataless assertion.
You really think you're fooling folks, don't you? Guess what? About the only one here who hasn't caught on to your game is you.
KAB

United States

#115349 May 13, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Not the first time you've displayed a abysmal lack of knowledge of biology. And the use of Google.
Wiki:
"Gastric acid is produced by cells lining the stomach, which are coupled to systems to increase acid production when needed. Other cells in the stomach produce bicarbonate, a base, to buffer the fluid, ensuring that it does not become too acidic. These cells also produce mucus, which forms a viscous physical barrier to prevent gastric acid from damaging the stomach."
Thanks for the data. Is the acid too weak to fatally damage an intact human, keeping in mind that the systems for increasing acid production could shut down as well under the unusual circumstances?

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#115350 May 13, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The topic being considered here is cosmogenic exposure measurement results and whether those measurements are capable of detecting if the samples had spent approximately one year underwater during the overall exposure time. The answer is no. It's similar to accumulated exposure of photographic film. The measurement does not reveal if there were interruptions in the exposure process.
You're being dishonest.

That is NOT how cosmogenic surface exposure works, and I suspect you're aware of it.

"An age determined by measurement of the amount of each nuclide would be an estimate of the minimum time that the particular surface had been exposed, but would not date the maximum age of the surface exposure, that is, the surface could have been exposed for much longer than the minimum calculated age."

http://www.landforms.eu/cairngorms/cosmo.htm

Cosmogenic exposure mesurments are definitely NOT similar to photographic film.
KAB

United States

#115351 May 13, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Your "additional tutoral" would be appreciated. But only for entertainment value -- at your expense.
No, the study does NOT need to show a 1-year resolution.
This research shows that the surfaces sampled had not been disturbed in hundreds of thousands of years in some areas, and tens of millions of years in other areas.
ANY precipitation falling on, or eroding off of the test sites would have shown cosmogenic surface exposure dates of 4500+/- years ago, were the Noachian flood to be factual.
You are so not technically savvy. I see you don't understand cosmogenic exposure parametrics and apparently don't want to learn. It's not a one year resolution phenomenon, and one year resolution is necessary to detect a one year break in the exposure process.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#115352 May 13, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for the data. Is the acid too weak to fatally damage an intact human, keeping in mind that the systems for increasing acid production could shut down as well under the unusual circumstances?
Go back and look at your posts about this story, really look at them. You are twisting and playing contortionist with pretty much the entire thing, you have already altered it enough that it no longer fits the assertion. You are jumping facts to avoid addressing all the problems. Here's the thing, it is IMPOSSIBLE for a living human to survive in the stomach of any animal for more than a few minutes, that's all you have. The culmination of asphyxiation, crushing, acids, and bacteria is death. That is how the stomach works, that is what it does, that is why we can eat other animals.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#115353 May 13, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for the data. Is the acid too weak to fatally damage an intact human, keeping in mind that the systems for increasing acid production could shut down as well under the unusual circumstances?
I'm sure you're on to something. The stomach acid in the fish turned to vanilla pudding so Jonah wouldn't get hungry (or digested) plus the air pocket so he could breathe and, of course, some Febreze so it didn't stink too much.

Do you ever read what you write?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#115354 May 13, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I have not accepted the Bible and then examined it. At the outset, I was agnostic, bordering on atheist, and the Bible was just a book to me. From that starting point I have examined the Bible, Quran, and others each from the same skeptical starting point. Only the Bible has withstood the challenging but objective scrutiny.
How can you profess objectivity and not allow for objectively legitimate possibilities demonstrable by data? Data is objective and the same for all.
You are now free to offer a purported Bible error to be objectively scrutinized for confirmation.
This may all be true but its equally evident that the hope you saw in the Bible swayed your objectivity to the point where we see an irrational train wreck where there might have once been a sharp mind.

There are plenty of people who accept the message of hope in the Bible without being silly enough to try and justify Genesis literally.
KAB

United States

#115355 May 13, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Objectivity demands the acceptance of the most reasonable explanation. Not the goofiest.
<quoted text>
That's a given.
<quoted text>
I say you haven't the faintest idea when you're being made a fool of.
<quoted text>
Oh, really? When did he say that?
<quoted text>
Bible quotes! How impressive.(not)
<quoted text>
The day comes that you are objective will be the day hell freezes over - so to speak.
Here you go,

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TFA...

Do you think this heresy will get him shunned by his comrades?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#115356 May 13, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sure you're on to something. The stomach acid in the fish turned to vanilla pudding so Jonah wouldn't get hungry (or digested) plus the air pocket so he could breathe and, of course, some Febreze so it didn't stink too much.
Do you ever read what you write?
Don't forget a port-a-potty.

I don't think he even thinks before he responds.
KAB

United States

#115357 May 13, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
So now you think all animals are made entirely of stomach lining.
Seriously, you are just posting stupid crap without even thinking about it now, at least when you were outright lying you were thinking about something.
I could never hope to match you in posting stupid crap without even thinking about it. I'm sure your high level math exercises/calculations keep you far to busy to think.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#115358 May 13, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I have not accepted the Bible and then examined it. At the outset, I was agnostic, bordering on atheist, and the Bible was just a book to me. From that starting point I have examined the Bible, Quran, and others each from the same skeptical starting point. Only the Bible has withstood the challenging but objective scrutiny.
How can you profess objectivity and not allow for objectively legitimate possibilities demonstrable by data? Data is objective and the same for all.
You are now free to offer a purported Bible error to be objectively scrutinized for confirmation.
Where to start?

Thats right. We cannot even get past the Flood because you are immune to rational discourse. So we won't even get to the 2 conflicting Genesis accounts which BOTH happen to disagree with the order apparent from observation of the physical evidence.

Nah, look it up. Google "errors in the Bible" and then you can spend the entire year coming up with the goofy justifications literalists try to offer for each one.

Why can you not see the obvious? You can when you look at the Quran. But you lose your mind over the Bible, so enraptured you are by the promises it makes. And you FEAR...that if something, anything, is wrong in the Bible, those promises might not be true.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#115359 May 13, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You are so not technically savvy. I see you don't understand cosmogenic exposure parametrics and apparently don't want to learn. It's not a one year resolution phenomenon, and one year resolution is necessary to detect a one year break in the exposure process.
No, it is not.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#115360 May 13, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Here you go,
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TFA...
Do you think this heresy will get him shunned by his comrades?
As I said, you seem blissfully unaware when you are being made a fool of. Not that you need any help in that regard.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#115361 May 13, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I could never hope to match you in posting stupid crap without even thinking about it.
Trust me, you are the hands down winner in that category.
KAB

United States

#115362 May 13, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Bullshit. You can continue to live in La-La-Land but the fact is that a world wide catastrophic flood would leave a scar on history so obvious that even the brain-washed couldn't fail to see it.(Present cult member excepted)
BTW, you don't know much about photographic emulsions either.
There's noting there. It never happened.
I'm not surprised you don't engage in a consideration of cosmogenic exposure. Conclusions from a related document is apparently as close as you are comfortable getting, being so not techically savvy.

BTW, I know more about photographic emulsions than you explained!

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#115363 May 13, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I could never hope to match you in posting stupid crap without even thinking about it. I'm sure your high level math exercises/calculations keep you far to busy to think.
Why would such things keep me busy? I write the programs to run those and just wait for the results to be displayed.
KAB

United States

#115364 May 13, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
You really think you're fooling folks, don't you? Guess what? About the only one here who hasn't caught on to your game is you.
If I'm fooling anyone it's quite an accomplishment. I'm not even trying!

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#115365 May 13, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not surprised you don't engage in a consideration of cosmogenic exposure. Conclusions from a related document is apparently as close as you are comfortable getting, being so not techically savvy.
BTW, I know more about photographic emulsions than you explained!
You have not provided any possible case or point in history which your world wide flood could occur. You fail, it's a myth, go it?

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
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 9 min It aint necessari... 979
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 13 min Into The Night 43,471
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 29 min THE LONE WORKER 205,611
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 3 hr scientia potentia... 18,732
evolution is correct. prove me wrong (Jul '15) Tue Chazofsaints 37
Questions about first life Aug 28 Upright Scientist 18
Carbon and isotopic dating are a lie Aug 27 One way or another 16
More from around the web