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

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

There are 160916 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

Wilson, NC

#121944 Nov 2, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>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.
What would the global flood evidence be? Also, if you want to believe that Everest has always been about 5 miles high and/or risen at a constant rate for about the past 5000 years, go right ahead. If you want to prove it, that's a different matter.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#121946 Nov 2, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Most recent technical point explained for you, so you could comprehend your thinking was incorrect,

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

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#121947 Nov 2, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know what evidence of an upwelling flood would be.

As all river floods are of this nature it should be easy to find out. Generally you have a lots of mixed sediment, clumps of decaying organic material and erosion, just for a few evidences.

It does not take complex science to refute flood myths. Basic common sense will do it. However that capacity is generally lacking in mind control cult members.


“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#121948 Nov 2, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Well at least you broke ranks with Dr. D. That's encouraging.

Actually, he is in complete agreement with what I was saying.

But I realize it would take a modicum of technical savvy to discern that, so....
KAB

Wilson, NC

#121949 Nov 2, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>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.
I do owe you a bit of an apology. Apparently it was Chimney's recent reference to archaeology which predated mine. Thanks for drawing my attention to that, sort of.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#121950 Nov 2, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Smitty set the bounds of the challenge. I just complied with them.

You are such a known and confirmed liar that nothing you say has cache.

You have cried alien abduction one to many times.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#121951 Nov 2, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I think you will find he and I are in complete agreement. Your inability to understand the context of an answer is not our problem.

Absolutely.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#121952 Nov 2, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
What would the global flood evidence be? Also, if you want to believe that Everest has always been about 5 miles high and/or risen at a constant rate for about the past 5000 years, go right ahead. If you want to prove it, that's a different matter.

Geology,
geophysics
contential drift.
Radioisotope decay dating
....

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#121953 Nov 2, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Most recent technical point explained for you, so you could comprehend your thinking was incorrect,
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TFA...

But you are the only one making nonsensical claims.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#121954 Nov 2, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>It may be important to you, but without confirming data, your assertion is pointless. I provide all the data necessary to undermine your position. It is not my fault that you can't defend it. You don't seem very technically savvy. Perhaps there is another cult member you can turn to for help with the technical details.
Increasingly, when I come here I feel I'm entering a flock of parrots. Has Dr. D been messing with your minds?
KAB

Wilson, NC

#121955 Nov 2, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>You fail as always to provide data to back up your baseless assertion that flooding occurs from below. There is no observable reality where this has occurred. Floods occur largely from rainfall, but may be from melt water, earthquake or mass movement among others. This has been observed and is so well known it does not require further supporting data even for a drudge like you.
I know very well that virtually all floods are not like the Biblical global flood. That's why I keep trying to get your side to acknowledge that fact and recognize its significance. If you want to confirm the difference, you can read the account in the Bible book of Genesis, somewhere between chapters six and ten.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#121956 Nov 2, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Poor example. Basins don't fill from the bottom. Are you trying to say that you believe the earth is or was shaped like a basin? Where is the data for that. I see no supporting data. Nothing can be concluded because of your continued failure to provide data.
I know very well, and suspect you do too, that to this day what contains the world's oceans are referred to as basins. If you still need me to provide confirming data, I will.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#121957 Nov 2, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Most recent technical point explained for you, so you could comprehend your thinking was incorrect,
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TFA...
I will try and help you with the more difficult aspects of anything you can't understand. Don't be shy. Just let me know any or all of the points you don't understand.

Go on now. Speak up.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#121958 Nov 2, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Smitty set the bounds of the challenge. I just complied with them.
Ah, you are now using "the blame others" card. The depth of your intellect is staggering.

I personally am not aware that I have set bounds on anything, if the Smitty reference is to me.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#121959 Nov 2, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Increasingly, when I come here I feel I'm entering a flock of parrots. Has Dr. D been messing with your minds?
No. I think he has his hands full on here with just yours. From my understanding of your cult, he could be at it for years with little success in helping you.

Besides I can't fly and I can get my own crackers.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#121960 Nov 2, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I know very well, and suspect you do too, that to this day what contains the world's oceans are referred to as basins. If you still need me to provide confirming data, I will.
What is your data that confirms my knowledge? I can't do anything without confirming data.

What is your confirming data that there are wells in the depths of the ocean. I can't do anything without confirming data.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#121961 Nov 2, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I know very well that virtually all floods are not like the Biblical global flood. That's why I keep trying to get your side to acknowledge that fact and recognize its significance. If you want to confirm the difference, you can read the account in the Bible book of Genesis, somewhere between chapters six and ten.
I have read the allegorical tale of Noah. Evidence supporting such a flood has never been found and confirmed. There is no data to confirm the biblical flood account.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#121962 Nov 2, 2013
Cybele wrote:
Why are you people wasting your time debating pointless arguments? Evolution and Creationism is a moot point. You will never reconcile your differences in these threads. In fact, I will stay away from these threads from now on.
Why isn't there a debate about what drugs works best to treat disorders and diseases or how to cure cancer and what causes mental disorders and how to cure it. You all are insane!
Why would dataless debates about the topics you suggest be any better than dataless debates about Evolution and Creationism? What you should be seeking is a venue where confirming data is provided/required for positions taken, no matter the topic. Virtually all Topix threads I have observed lack this critical ingredient, in which case you would do well to avoid them.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#121963 Nov 2, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I think you will find he and I are in complete agreement. Your inability to understand the context of an answer is not our problem.
Here's Dr. D's post admitting he thinks some flood evidence is not local.

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

Wilson, NC

#121964 Nov 2, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, that is not how it works. You cannot get the answer you "want" by changing the mutation rate. There is only one correct answer, whatever that happens to be.
As I said, parts that do not mutate at all woyld give no answer and parts that mutate too fast would give no pattern. You have to find part that do give a pattern....THEN find out their mutatuon rate by looking at how much they vary from mother to daughter today, THEN extrapolaate that back to a timescale determined by the rate found.
Now, if it was discovered that the parts found to give a pattern that works were mutating much faster than originally estimatedTHEN You would scale down your age estimate accordingly.
What do you mean by "a pattern that works" and "mutating too fast to give a pattern"?

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) 3 min Eagle 12 28,567
Why Are There No Transitional Animals Today? (Mar '09) 34 min King Carrot 910
One species or three 1 hr pshun2404 276
Is the Peer Reviewed Journal argument sound? 1 hr pshun2404 49
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Aura Mytha 67,023
Stacking the Deck and Intellectual Integrity 3 hr pshun2404 22
Why isn't intelligent design really science? 3 hr pshun2404 58
What does the theory of evolution state? 3 hr pshun2404 163
News Defending the Faith: Intelligent design vs. 'Go... 5 hr Subduction Zone 224
More from around the web