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

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

There are 160311 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

#115489 May 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
At least one other exception on that list is Earth not being cubic.

Wrong.

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/scale_sup...

Prove positive, eh!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115490 May 14, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
According to your twisted logic, any observed complexity can be rationalized away by the "sharpshooter fallacy". Rather than confront the obstacles to evolution that cannot be explained by science, you simply pull out the "sharpshooter" card. Your perverse logic is unfortunately common among intellectuals. They wilfully refuse to confront the many impossibilities to evolution.

Clearly you lack comprehension.

Since evolution happens it is not impossible.

"Nothing unreal exists" Kiri-kin-tha

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115491 May 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
What caused the erosion in the riverbeds? A massive amount of water sitting statically on the surface and then slowly decreasing?

no.
KAB

United States

#115492 May 14, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
The Bible is not a 'record'. It is an assertation. Nothing more.
We have been discussing just one such piece of evidence....the Atacama & records from trained/qualified Geologists providing evidence of HYPERARIDITY of the Atacama Desert for hundreds of thousands to tens of millions of years.
Your pitiful attempts at bending logic to pretend that the Noachian flood still has a rats ass of a chance is profoundly sad.
Beyond the Atacama there's:
ACTUAL records of Civilizations living and thriving before/during and after your supposed flood period (Chinese dynasties and Egyptian Kingdoms come immediately to mind).
Non-written evidence of continuity of culture from civilizations around the world during Noachian periods.
World haplotype diversification not possible within 4500 years from Noah and family.
Which members of Noah's family/crew represented each of the (now) distinct racial divisions found all over the earth?
The LACK of genetic bottlenecks at 4500 years ago for Humans & EVERY OTHER SPECIES OF ORGANISM ON EARTH.
Enough for now.
Hyperaridity means very dry over the long haul. It does not mean no water during the period. You have no data confirming anything you assert, just as you are now seeing you have no such data for the Atacama. Please don't let this discourage you from trying another of your topics.
Enough for now.
KAB

United States

#115493 May 14, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh yea. You sloshed water around in a bucket and POOF.... flood confirmed.
Nice job. Of lying.
I've never stated that the water in the bucket confirms the flood, have I? So who does that make the liar?
KAB

United States

#115494 May 14, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Please explain how you arrived at "10k years for a beneficial change to take hold".
YEC allows about 10,000 years of human existence, and your point 5 states that existence of beneficial mutations falsifies YEC. If they occurred in less than 10,000 years it wouldn't falsify.
KAB

United States

#115495 May 14, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong.
http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/scale_sup...
Prove positive, eh!
That is representative of the confirmation you require for that which you favor.
KAB

United States

#115496 May 14, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
no.
I agree.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#115497 May 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Hyperaridity means very dry over the long haul. It does not mean no water during the period. You have no data confirming anything you assert, just as you are now seeing you have no such data for the Atacama. Please don't let this discourage you from trying another of your topics.
Enough for now.
Yet the paper I have been repeatedly referencing http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/33/4/321.f...

DOES have data that offers NO scenario where a MASSIVE amount of water innundated the region, and instead offers (again) the following conclusion:

"Only exceptional global climatic disturbances have occasionally permitted humidity transfer across the Andes into the driest regions of this coastal desert since ca. 25 Ma."

....and no, "HUMIDITY" does in no way suggest a miles-deep flood.

No wiggle room here. There was no flood in the Atacama region since it was raised out of the Atlantic Ocean about 30MYA.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#115498 May 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Would the ass be the one willing and wanting to run the numbers or the one avoiding it?
Got spanked on Tyre, so now... Really? NOW you want to run the numbers on a global flood that topped the mountains under the entire heavens by 15 cubits? You realize that the calculations haven't changed any in at least a couple dozen posts. Numbers and data are like that. Maybe they don't like you KAB? It's glaringly transparent that you don't like them. Math must be a tool of Satan?

Wouldn't you suppose that the ass would be the one who has been avoiding and ignoring those numbers as "dataless assertions?"
Do you think that the world hasn't caught on that you are going to continue to incorrigibly avoid and ignore that which CONCLUSIVELY disproves your dataless ASSertion that "the Bible is a demonstrably reliable source?"

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#115499 May 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Would the ass be the one willing and wanting to run the numbers or the one avoiding it?
I am not sure what you are willing to do?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#115500 May 14, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you read the link you posted?
The 99.9% was simply stated by an atheist stooge... it was not referenced.
It's interesting how professed "authorities" don't even bother to qualify any of their asinine statements.
In order for such a statistic to be valid, you must first define "evolution", and then define "scientist".
99.9% of those with degrees in scientific fields believe in microevolution. How was the survey worded?
You don't know.
Do 99.9% of physicists believe in molecules-to-man evolution?
Yes, I read it. I didn't spend hours researching it, I simply gave you a source. Sorry you are not my first priority.

And I'd be more careful who you're calling a stooge, stooge.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#115501 May 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
That's the way the record describes the flood.
So? That carries no weight here. You demand data, so provide same for your 'fountains' or STFU about it.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#115502 May 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's see. 5,000 ft. over about 300 days is roughly 20 ft/day or 1 ft/hr. Yeah, that's pretty slow. Try covering a sloping sandy surface with water then draining it at the rate of about 1 vertical ft/hr, and see what happens to the sand. Isn't data wonderful? Do you see why I relentlessly drive for data? You should adopt the same discipline.
Never been to the beach, huh? Putz.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#115503 May 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The flood record documents gradulal inundation and subsidence.
There is no flood record.
KAB wrote:
Aside from that, just provide one sample of data confirming the flood did/could not occur.
You've been buried in the data, nutcase.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#115504 May 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
To label as myth that which does not present itself as myth and has not been proven as such has a clear ring of prejudice. An objective statement is here is what that record states.
Want objective? BS!

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#115505 May 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Hyperaridity means very dry over the long haul. It does not mean no water during the period. You have no data confirming anything you assert, just as you are now seeing you have no such data for the Atacama. Please don't let this discourage you from trying another of your topics.
Enough for now.
I posted the study. You have the data, liar.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#115506 May 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I've never stated that the water in the bucket confirms the flood, have I? So who does that make the liar?
I'm willing to bet that you posted in the form of a question so you can weasel out of it later.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115507 May 14, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
What I do is provide data supplied by geologists.

You mean like dirt and garden hose research. You are a cartoon!

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#115508 May 14, 2013
According to flood supporters the Grand Canyon is the result of the noachian flood. Sediment from the flood was laid down and the Colorado River carved the canyon over the last few thousand years. The walls of the canyon are composed of different layers of gneis at the bottom with sandstones, shales, and limestones swapping back and forth as you ascend. These formations are well known and named, but I won't go into that. The interesting thing is that if the sandstones were cut by the river prior to forming stone, the canyon would look very different than it does. Loose sand, wet or dry could not hold the sheer vertical faces that exist today. Further, there are sandstone formations that were not formed under water and these lie between layers that were solution formed rock. Further, if the whole of these strata were formed under water, they would not have the same layering effect that is apparent today.

Finally, another comment about KAB's inerrent source of information. Joshua stopped the sun in Joshua 10: 12-13. He stopped the moon too. Another of those pesky contradictions found within the good book. Conditions that would have allowed Joshua at least the dream of stopping the sun and moon could only exist if the Earth were the center of the solar system and the sun and moon along with everything else revolved around us. Since those conditions have been shown to be false, stopping the sun wouldn't have amounted to anything which...sorry I just stopped the sun. Did you see it. Me neither.

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 Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 11 min Regolith Based Li... 28,321
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 29 min Dogen 61,382
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 32 min Horn Dog 220,673
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 12 hr Dogen 2,687
Curious dilemma about DNA 19 hr Subduction Zone 2
News Book aims to prove existence of God (Nov '09) Mar 23 Regolith Based Li... 99
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) Mar 16 Dogen 180,394
More from around the web