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

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

There are 165389 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.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#121909 Nov 2, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
My flood references have been based on direct observation of evidence which is still there.
If you agree that Earth once had much less than the present 13 mile elevation differential between its highest mountain and deepest ocean trench, then you may realize that there is sufficient water on Earth now to have entirely flooded it at some time in the past. You just haven't been inclined to think about it.
And the evidence for the upwelling flood? What happened to that? Did you forget all about it, loony?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#121910 Nov 2, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm willing to learn. Here's your post,
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TFA...
What more intelligent response comes to mind?
From you? None. If that was the best you could do then it's the best you could do. We're used to your limitations. No apology nece3ssary.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#121911 Nov 2, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Please give an example of flood evidence which is not local.
Ah, Word Weasel strikes again. All flood evidence is local to its location. Funny that you seem to think this is a significant point.

Duh!

Duh!

Duh!

You really don't need to rack up any more stupid points, you already got tons.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#121912 Nov 2, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
There's no need to hate what isn't provided.
Atheists and agnostics make the same point about god.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#121913 Nov 2, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I wasn't the first to invoke archaeology, was I? You know your rules. You're up!
You are SUCH a POS. You been given historical evidence up the ying-yang. You have yet to disprove it except for your requirement for a copy of the newspaper from every day since the beginning of time.

Not our rules, THE rules. So stop pretending you refuted anything and get busy. Or change the subject like you usually do.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#121914 Nov 2, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't want to ignore any evidence.
Lie. Whopper.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#121915 Nov 2, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>You were the first to invoke in the last week as far as I know. Dancing around again I see little puppet. I understand that you don't have anything and are standing around with your crock in your hands.
Again, you don't seem to know very far. Here's your post initiating the invocation of archaeology in the last week,

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

This demonstrates why your comments, lacking confirming data, must be assumed incorrect.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#121916 Nov 2, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>To date, the scientific evidence refutes your claims, I am curious where you will run to next. What dataless claims are you setting on now? What lies will you spin? What fencing will you do? What triviality will you focus on?
Come on scrote, throw down.
This brings an important question to mind. Are you striving to be like dataless Dr. D?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#121917 Nov 2, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Your examples were not global upwelling floods, were they? In the case of such there would not be water rushing from point to point, rather just rising steadily and uniformly everywhere.
No evidence of a massive upwelling flood. None. Zero. Zip. Nada.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#121918 Nov 2, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, you don't seem to know very far. Here's your post initiating the invocation of archaeology in the last week,
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TFA...
This demonstrates why your comments, lacking confirming data, must be assumed incorrect.
This is exactly why you are a confirmed liar. Dan may have mentioned it but you know damn right well it's been part of the discussion form the beginning. Liars are such despicable turds.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#121919 Nov 2, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. I can't comment further because there is no data to examine. I can only comment on data.
What the oceans would do as they rose slowly and steadily everywhere at once and then subsided slowly is not an opinion. It is physical fact. Of course, one may express any opinion about what happens, but that won't change the observable reality.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#121920 Nov 2, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Why do you need someone else to explain your references to you? Don't you understand them? You are not very intelligent are you. I really can't help you since you clearly need intensive general education. Have you considered getting your GED?
I will have to explore ways to dumb my responses down even further. Sorry they are too much for you.
Which of the technical points mentioned do you want me to explain next?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#121921 Nov 2, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
What the oceans would do as they rose slowly and steadily everywhere at once and then subsided slowly is not an opinion. It is physical fact. Of course, one may express any opinion about what happens, but that won't change the observable reality.
Five miles of rise and fall over the short period of roughly one year would leave massive evidence.

Where is your massive evidence?

We have already gone over why it would take over 5 miles of water so let's not play that game again.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#121922 Nov 2, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
You can go with "Obviously." or "You got that right."
Either one would work.
Your suggestions wouldn't work for me. I have an aversion to lying.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#121923 Nov 2, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly.
It's encouraging that one of his comrades is willing to acknowledge that Dr. D is wrong about there being some flood evidence which is not local.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#121924 Nov 2, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Dataless assertion.
Try filling a basin on Earth slowly and steadily from the bottom.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#121925 Nov 2, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
If you agree that there is direct observation of magicians buying hats in magic shops, you can agree that there could be a Frosty the Snowman.
A 13 mile topological differential over 4,000 years would be imperceptible? You have no room to tell anyone to "think about it", cultist.
What would be evidence of the topological shift?
KAB

Wilson, NC

#121926 Nov 2, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
A rock slide in Canada vs thousands of countering evidences. BFD. I hope you won't mind if I take the analysis of professional geologists over that of a smug little prick who thinks he's an expert on everything.
<quoted text>
Certainly mot in a 4,500 year ago time frame. Not even close.
<quoted text>
Not in a 4,500 year ago time frame, loony.
<quoted text>
Oh, I've given it plenty of thought. I've come to two inescapable conclusions:
1) There was no global flood.
2) You're brain damaged.
Not surprisingly, you managed all that without a single shred of data!

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#121927 Nov 2, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Which of the technical points mentioned do you want me to explain next?
You haven't explained any. I have shown that you don't comprehend material in references that you provide, but then you lie to cover up when your ignorance is exposed.

You have the skills of a second rate con artist and you don't even use those very well. The weakness of the cult you belong to is the very thing it requires of its member victims. Stupidity.

While you are entitled to your opinion that you explain technical points, there is no data to show that you have done so. I can only work with data and you avoid providing data.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#121928 Nov 2, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, you don't seem to know very far. Here's your post initiating the invocation of archaeology in the last week,
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TFA...
This demonstrates why your comments, lacking confirming data, must be assumed incorrect.
Yes, I see the confirming data of your post initiating reference to archaeology. A rare offering of data from you. Thank you for confirming that.

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 Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 9 min superwilly 4,810
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Dogen 85,520
What's your religion? Mon Paul Porter1 5
Experiment In Evolution, Genetic Algorithms and... Mon was auch immer 8
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) Mon Dogen 33,127
God hates Tennessee Jan 14 Rev Jackson 2
Genetic Algorithms - Episode 2: The Next Genera... Jan 14 danlovy 1
More from around the web