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

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

There are 166368 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

#115373 May 13, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I don't care about the promises. I care about the truth.
Are you going to provide a purported Bible error for objective examination, or not? Man up!
KAB

United States

#115374 May 13, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it is not.
Then provide the data based explanation/reasoning which confirms your assertion.
KAB

United States

#115375 May 13, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would such things keep me busy? I write the programs to run those and just wait for the results to be displayed.
Of course the programs are timeless and all that will ever be needed have already been written, so I appreciate that you actually have nothing to do.
LowellGuy

United States

#115376 May 13, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
If I'm fooling anyone it's quite an accomplishment. I'm not even trying!
All that matters is that you fool yourself.
KAB

United States

#115377 May 13, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
You're entitled to your opinion. I'll stick with the data.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#115378 May 13, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Keep those creative (not digestive) juices flowing, only try chanelling them in believable directions.
You first.
LowellGuy

United States

#115379 May 13, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Whales can't burp?
KAB

United States

#115380 May 13, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I am off on holiday for the next 2 weeks so will not have time to examine the haplotype data with you. Perhaps when I get back.
In the meantime, I am confident that the analysis performed by the experts under peer review and considerable interest by competing camps regarding the Out of Arica vs the multi-regional hypothesis, etc, will have provided enough rigour that NOBODY could seriously contemplate that a 4500 year starting point is remotely possible.
There is, as you say, serious and heated debate about the conclusions from data. But you fail to realise that your hypothesis is not even on the fringe of the possible, but is completely off the charts. You are in the same camp as those who claim that its still POSSIBLE that the Earth is cubic. Though technically true, its not a realistic possibility to anyone sane who has the data. Just as in law, there is the concept of "beyond reasonable doubt" and that is as far as science can go. There is not "proof" at the same level as you can have in a mathematical theorem.
I think this is an aspect of LG's point that has gone right past you. Believing a WW Flood is possible in the last 4500 years or so is on par with believing the world just might be cubic and we just interpreted the data wrongly.
It's absolute. Earth is not cubic, and you accept that. You just don't know what the data is which confirms it.
LowellGuy

United States

#115381 May 13, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I know an old whale who swallowed a spider, that wriggled and jiggled and tickled inside her.

KAB thinks that children's song is a biological treatise.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#115382 May 13, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Then provide the data based explanation/reasoning which confirms your assertion.
The need for a one year resolution was YOUR assertion. YOU provide the data based explanation/reasoning which confirms YOUR assertion. Stop shirking your responsibility and 'man up'.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#115383 May 13, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
So ... magic. Thus, your story cannot be scientifically feasible, and thus it is mythology. That was easy, next myth to bust?
Demonstrate the scientific feasability of evolution creating migratory instincts in whales.

You have nothing but "evolutiondidit". So you have a mythology of your own.

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Level 3

Since: Feb 08

Planet Earth

#115384 May 13, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
The need for a one year resolution was YOUR assertion. YOU provide the data based explanation/reasoning which confirms YOUR assertion. Stop shirking your responsibility and 'man up'.
What's going on my friend. You can check out my business web-site at www.natureinforce.org I only lack one thing on the home page tab and that called "Digital Subscrition." I only have that hyper-link on the home page until the 12 of next month.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#115385 May 13, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
What's going on my friend.
Hey, Curtis. Nothing much. I was up to NC a week or so ago for my son's wedding. The weather sucked.
Infinite Force wrote:
You can check out my business web-site at www.natureinforce.org I only lack one thing on the home page tab and that called "Digital Subscrition." I only have that hyper-link on the home page until the 12 of next month.
I'll check it out.
KAB

United States

#115386 May 13, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
You did nothing but assert that a one year resolution is necessary. You have provided no references to back up your assertion. No explanation as to why it is necessary. Like most of your crap, you throw out this not 'technically savvy' charge when backed into a corner. "You're stupid. You don't understand." Whine, whine, whine.
So how about your support your one year resolution with, let's say, some real data.
<quoted text>
Uh-huh. Sure you do.
See if you can discern from this reference how a one year interruption in 21Ne production would go undetected in a cosmogenic nuclide measurement showing tens of millions of years exposure. If you have difficulty just let me know, and I can explain further.

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~peter/Resources...
KAB

United States

#115387 May 13, 2013
MikeF wrote:
Yes, it's 21Ne. So a Be/Al based statement such as you quoted doesn't necessarily relate directly does it? However, assuming there is some applicability, how does this relate to whether there was any interruption in the exposure history? Just let me know when you realize you're in over your head, and I will be happy to explain it to you piece-by-piece.
KAB

United States

#115388 May 13, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
You first.
I've already proposed man inside sufficiently large (which exist) sea creature with air pocket inside (which exist). Creature beaches (which occurs) after 3 days. Man is "spasmodically(?)" (which occurs) ejected. Scenario comprised of all observed phenomena (i.e., believable), but before you object, this does not prove that's what happened.
KAB

United States

#115389 May 13, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
The need for a one year resolution was YOUR assertion. YOU provide the data based explanation/reasoning which confirms YOUR assertion. Stop shirking your responsibility and 'man up'.
Consider it done, and continue following my posts.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#115390 May 13, 2013
KAB wrote:
...and I can explain further.
KAB wrote:
...I will be happy to explain it to you piece-by-piece.
By you never do, do you? You expect everyone else to do your homework for you. If you have something to say, say it and quit beating around the bush.

I'll read your reference as time permits.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#115391 May 13, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, it's 21Ne. So a Be/Al based statement such as you quoted doesn't necessarily relate directly does it? However, assuming there is some applicability, how does this relate to whether there was any interruption in the exposure history? Just let me know when you realize you're in over your head, and I will be happy to explain it to you piece-by-piece.
You're forgetting that the area in question, the tested sites at the Atacama desert is composed of loose SEDIMENTARY surface areas.

In fact, per the article http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/33/4/321.f...

"Therefore, in contrast to site A, sites B and C ARE VERY SENSITIVE TO EROSION AND/OR DEPOSITION BY RUNOFF FROM HIGHER AREAS." (emphasis mine)

The results of this paper indicate NO DISTURBANCE by precipitation deposition or erosion for A minimum of HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS, to a maximum TENS OF MILLIONS of years.

Had there been a violent, world-wide cataclysmic flood a mere 4500 years ago, the combination of would have SCOURED the region of loose sediment.

At BEST, you would have loose sediment showing 4500 year old cosmogenic exposure dates. At WORST, and more likely, you would have solid rock surface where the sedimentary surface is present today.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#115392 May 13, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I've already proposed man inside sufficiently large (which exist) sea creature with air pocket inside (which exist). Creature beaches (which occurs) after 3 days. Man is "spasmodically(?)" (which occurs) ejected. Scenario comprised of all observed phenomena (i.e., believable), but before you object, this does not prove that's what happened.
Gee there doesn't seem to be any data supporting this scenario.

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 Eagle 12 - 87,493
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 14 min Eagle 12 - 5,833
What's your religion? 22 hr 15th Dalai Lama 772
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) Wed Tom Honda 1,825
Scientific Method Feb 15 stinky 20
Evolving A Maze Solving Robot Feb 6 Untangler 2
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) Feb 1 Rose_NoHo 223,358
More from around the web