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

Full story: Asheville Citizen-Times

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 ...
Comments
120,301 - 120,320 of 134,506 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#122473
Nov 11, 2013
 
KAB wrote:
Gravity pulls down on the ice column, doesn't it?
Pulls down harder on the water due to its greater density. The water displaces the ice and the ice floats.

Put two ice cubes in a glass of water and stare at them for an hour or so. See if anything comes to mind.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#122474
Nov 11, 2013
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Neither was what Chrome stated correct, was it? You stated it was. Someone technically astute would not have made that mistake.
I'll even make it easier for you.

"No. It has already been explained to you at length that the volume and the mass do not increase 1:1. As you increase volume you increase the buoyancy by a greater ratio. As well, glacial ice is not of uniform density. It inherently has fractures, crevasses and hollows
and it is not "attached" to dirt in the first place. Stop predicating your insinuations and suppositions with lies."

Point to my error. It's a matter of displacement.
Oh, and try this - if a 1/4" ant can lift 20 times it's body weight, how much would an ant the size of a quarter horse lift if the ant weighs 2.5 milligrams and the horse-ant weighs 500 kilos?
It's just a matter of volume, mass and scale. Go for it.
KAB

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#122475
Nov 11, 2013
 
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
What is your definition of evidence and confirming evidence?
I am aware of the scientific definitions but yours differ.
Evidence is anything which has a bearing on whether an assertion is viewed as possibly correct or not. Confirming evidence confirms the correctness or incorrectness of an assertion and obviates presentation of any further evidence.
KAB

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#122476
Nov 11, 2013
 
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>No survivors. No seed. All life was destroyed if it wasn't on the ark.
What's the basis for your assertion that everything not on the ark died?
KAB

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#122477
Nov 11, 2013
 
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>You haven't satisfied that claim. You haven't explained where other explanations fail. Certainly you can do that. It isn't rocket science.
Since none of the data is conclusive, there can be multiple plausible, even contradictory, possible explanations.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#122478
Nov 11, 2013
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
What's the basis for your assertion that everything not on the ark died?
According to YOUR story, The Bible.

Genesis 7:4

New International Version (NIV)

4 "Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#122479
Nov 11, 2013
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
What's the basis for your assertion that everything not on the ark died?
I refer you to a verified, reliable source. I verified it.
KAB

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#122480
Nov 11, 2013
 
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Close enough. You're the only one who refuses to admit that a glacier submerged beneath miles of water would pop to the surface like so many pieces of cork.
Here's something to help you improve your understanding of buoyancy.

http://www.ehow.com/info_12210591_pond-liner-...

The technical aspects are rather subtle, so you may have difficulty comprehending it. Try focusing on key words like "water' and "underneath".

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#122481
Nov 11, 2013
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
What's the basis for your assertion that everything not on the ark died?
Genesis 7:4
For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; AND EVERY LIVING SUBSTANCE that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.

Genesis 7:23
AND EVERY LIVING SUBSTANCE WAS DESTROYED WHICH WAS UPON THE FACE OF THE GROUND, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

Yes, I know a dove is supposed to have returned with a leaf, but that would no doubt be plant debris floating around or washed up on some exposed land.

Keep in mind that you have made claims that the flood carved up mountains like Everest, yet you also want to claim that it would have been as delicate on plant life as a babes breath.

This is your verified, unreliable source for history and science. It does come in handy on occasion.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#122482
Nov 11, 2013
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Since none of the data is conclusive, there can be multiple plausible, even contradictory, possible explanations.
In other words, it isn't very useful as evidence of a flood. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary data. So you have failed again.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#122483
Nov 11, 2013
 
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
According to YOUR story, The Bible.
Genesis 7:4
New International Version (NIV)
4 "Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made.
Sorry Kong. I missed your answer here. I gave the same from the KJV.

It is a guaranteed, reliable source after all. I guarantee it.
KAB

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#122484
Nov 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Aww... where has the "could have, might have, isn't it possible, you can't prove it didn't" KAB gone?
The tsunami from a meteoric impact of that magnitude could wash hundreds of feet up hillsides and could explain the "fonts of the deep". If a trader had a boat with livestock already aboard it could explain the animals 2 by 2.
The amount of water thrown upwards both in liquid and vapor would result in record downpours, particularly in summer months with weather pushing from the south. One can and should expect the tale to gain exaggeration over time.
and here's the kicker - NO GOD NEED APPLY.
As I stated, no basis for relating mountains being covered, or planning for or enduring a year long flood.
KAB

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#122485
Nov 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
You have stated more than once that you will only answer one question per post. Now you say you didn't set that limit as you don the cloak of Jesus.
What does that say about you?
It says incorrect info about me.
KAB

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#122486
Nov 11, 2013
 
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Specify - what did I say that was incorrect?
With regard to ice, you stated that volume and mass do not increase 1:1. I'll give you a chance to reconsider and redeem yourself.
KAB

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#122487
Nov 11, 2013
 
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
Pulls down harder on the water due to its greater density. The water displaces the ice and the ice floats.
Put two ice cubes in a glass of water and stare at them for an hour or so. See if anything comes to mind.
Water on the side and top surfaces of the ice does not displace it, does it? What comes to mind about the ice cubes is that there is water underneath them.
KAB

Oxford, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#122488
Nov 11, 2013
 
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll even make it easier for you.
"No. It has already been explained to you at length that the volume and the mass do not increase 1:1. As you increase volume you increase the buoyancy by a greater ratio. As well, glacial ice is not of uniform density. It inherently has fractures, crevasses and hollows
and it is not "attached" to dirt in the first place. Stop predicating your insinuations and suppositions with lies."
Point to my error. It's a matter of displacement.
Oh, and try this - if a 1/4" ant can lift 20 times it's body weight, how much would an ant the size of a quarter horse lift if the ant weighs 2.5 milligrams and the horse-ant weighs 500 kilos?
It's just a matter of volume, mass and scale. Go for it.
You're absolutely right! It's a matter of volume, mass, and scale. That's why the volume and mass DO scale 1:1.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#122489
Nov 11, 2013
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You're absolutely right! It's a matter of volume, mass, and scale. That's why the volume and mass DO scale 1:1.
Except that it isn't.

"
Why does ice float?
(Lansing State Journal, October 12, 1994)

----------

Generally, solids are denser than liquids of the same substance. Solid lead, for instance, is denser than liquid lead. Because it is denser, it sinks.
This is not the case for water, however. Ice is less dense than water, therefore it floats.

Ice is less dense than water because of a special type of chemical bonding called hydrogen bonding. A hydrogen bond is a weak bond between a hydrogen atom and an unbonded pair of electrons from another atom.

We can think of a water molecule as being in the shape of an "X" twisted so that the top half is perpendicular to the botton half. In the center of the "X" is an oxygen atom, at the bottom tips of the "X" are two hydrogen atoms, and at the top tips of the "X" are two unbonded electron pairs from oxygen.

As you can see, water molecules are prime candidates for hydrogen bonding between each other.

At warm temperatures, water molecules have a lot of energy and are able to move past and mix with each other despite the attractions between the hydrogen atoms and unbonded electron pairs.

As water is cooled down, however, the molecules have less energy and hydrogen bonding takes over. The molecules form a ordered crystal through hydrogen bonding that spaces the molecules farther apart than when they were in a liquid. This makes ice less dense than water allowing it to float."

http://www.pa.msu.edu/sciencet/ask_st/101294....

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#122490
Nov 11, 2013
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Water on the side and top surfaces of the ice does not displace it, does it? What comes to mind about the ice cubes is that there is water underneath them.
Have you never seen water flowing out from beneath a glacier?

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#122491
Nov 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KAB wrote:
Water on the side and top surfaces of the ice does not displace it, does it? What comes to mind about the ice cubes is that there is water underneath them.
Oh yeah. It's like when you push a helium balloon against the floor and it just stays there because air can't get under it.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#122492
Nov 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Try increasing the size while keeping the height constant. Ice sheets are not necessarily ice cubes.
hahah reality is actually harder on you than I was.

As an ice sheet grows, it does so vertically more than horizontally, as snow accumulates on top. Spreading in Antarctica is limited by the ocean, and chunks break off there. But in the land locked continent, the ice sheet is up to 4.5km thick and averages 2km

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/MaySy.sht...

Thus the footprint (attachment area) is not growing, but the upward force that will apply will be greater, the thicker the ice sheet gets.

So, massive upwards force once submerged, meaning it should have been uplifted and distrupted. If not, the layer of dirty salty water would be showing in the ice cores anyway. In case you didn;t know it, the ice sheets are not salty - they are an accumulation of fresh water snow precipitation. A salty sludge layer at 4500 years would stand out a mile.

No Flood.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••