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

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

There are 141352 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.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#122545 Nov 12, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
first you have to generate the tons of upward force.
No, first YOU have to prove that every single glacier on Earth that is over 5,000 years old was "adhered to the ground." The buoyancy comes as soon as you add your inundation of water.
KAB

United States

#122546 Nov 12, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Water is displaced no matter where the ice is in the water.
Ice that is out of the water does not displace it.
I tire of you playing stupid. Which is not to say that you are not very good at it.
But seriously, a good remedial book on physics would help you massively.
The discussion was about displacing the ice, not the water. I never tire of watching you fail to pay attention and/or comprehend.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#122547 Nov 12, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
{FACE/PALM}
Is gravity also affecting the MORE DENSE *water* that the iceberg is suspended in?
Gravity is also affecting the column of air above the body of water, so you have a head start of >22,000 lbs/m2 at sea level.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#122548 Nov 12, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The discussion was about displacing the ice, not the water. I never tire of watching you fail to pay attention and/or comprehend.
Do you think that aircraft carriers float by displacing steel and airplanes?
You don't want to comprehend displacement of water because...?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#122549 Nov 12, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you think that aircraft carriers float by displacing steel and airplanes?
You don't want to comprehend displacement of water because...?
Hilarious! Well done!

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#122550 Nov 12, 2013
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
C'mon, KAB. I'm just messing with you. I'd no more attempt a serious discussion with a Witness than I would with a fire hydrant or a bucket of paint.
Hmm.. Roughly 1" of rain = 10" of snow. That means that the amount of snow falling near the poles during KAB's Glib-al rain event would be on the order of an >absolute minimum< of 10 feet per hour for 960 hours. It's either that or a near complete thaw of the permafrost... which was it, KAB? Don't be skeert to link yer data.
KAB

United States

#122551 Nov 12, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
No. Basic math error again.
You are looking at the adhesive surface area. That expands in a liner fashion. Volume increases geometrically.
You are trying to dodge your way out of another basic science error. What you are saying is true, but it is not what is being discussed in context.
As you note, what I stated is true, unlike what you stated.
KAB

United States

#122552 Nov 12, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, you tried.. and you got it half right. I did word it poorly and I posted before I caught it. Volume does not scale up 1:1, so the mass within that volume does not scale up 1:1. This is elementary and has been explained to you.
Volume and mass are not synonymous. Water ice and water liquid are the same thing, but equal masses do not occupy the same volume, especially when the ice contains air pockets. That means they have different displacements and the ice is buoyant. The larger the ice mass, the more buoyancy it has. And this has all been explained to you, as well.
I get the impression that you are probably a southerner and that all you know about ice could fit in a soda glass.
Depending on what you intend some of your phrases to mean, you may have gotten this one right except for the southerner part.
KAB

United States

#122553 Nov 12, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Genesis 6:7 (ESV)
7 So the Lord said,I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.
Genesis 6:17 (ESV)
17 For behold, I will bring a flood of waters upon the earth to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life under heaven. Everything that is on the earth shall die.
Yes, yes....I understand now.
That makes it much clearer. Instead of killing every Man, woman, child on earth as well as all the animals, He kills every Man, woman, child on earth as well as all the animals.....
...wait, WHAT?
It appeared earlier that someone was trying to throw in the aquatic creatures and plants.

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#122554 Nov 12, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you think that aircraft carriers float by displacing steel and airplanes?
You don't want to comprehend displacement of water because...?
His entire argument is under it.

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#122555 Nov 12, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It appeared earlier that someone was trying to throw in the aquatic creatures and plants.
Because they aren't on the earth or of it. I see now.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#122556 Nov 12, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Now, how does gravity which pulls down on the ice column produce the upward force on that ice column?
KAB, there's a reason I rarely respond to your lunacy.

That was it.

See, the water is denser than the ice, so the gravity is more effective on the water.

So the net effect on the ice is upwards.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#122557 Nov 12, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It appeared earlier that someone was trying to throw in the aquatic creatures and plants.
That makes sense. Even if they happen to be located near a coast for millenia, many plants and fishes couldn't survive the inevitable intrusion of brackish water - and since ice didn't float in those days because gravity pulls down on it, there wouldn't be any floes for the polar bears and penguins to rest on.
KAB

United States

#122558 Nov 12, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Yes. I see. If we disregard what the Bible says in favor of what the Bible says, it all becomes clear.
Every living thing seems pretty clear to me though. I just don't seem to have your ability to disregard facts that are counter my position.
I believe you did. I will look for it, since that claim of yours is there. Another lie.
I can't imagine how strong your position must be that you have to lie in order to maintain it. Staggering in its power, strength and stability. Please feel free to receive all the sarcasm that is intended by this.
It's mostly a matter of considering all the data and then drawing conclusions which harmonize with the amalgamation of that data.
KAB

United States

#122559 Nov 12, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
6:17 I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish.
The last sentence is the most telling and conclusive statement.
BTW, have we ever mentioned that this much water does not exist on earth?
If you want to take that sentence out of context, you certainly are free to do so.
KAB

United States

#122560 Nov 12, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
No. It is omnidirectional. But the net force is up as the water will seek to displace whatever it there and will be successful if the object is less dense.
But don't worry, as dense as you are you would go straight to the bottom.
Is that why icebergs always pop completely out of the ocean?
KAB

United States

#122561 Nov 12, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
It is always the case that you have been shown to be the confused one.
I have explained it to you.
I have shown you the math.
You can't deal with the facts.
You are forced to rationalize and quibble.
You know you can't win so you don't even try. Your game is to try to give the appearance of not-losing. But you fail at that as well. So in desperation you take up the gauntlet of at least not admitting defeat in an endless round of dodging, ignoring, playing stupid (bravo on that one), denial and word games.
Anyone here not see through KABs little haze?
Anyone?
Anyone?
Having gotten that off your chest, AGAIN, what's the answer to the question?

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#122562 Nov 12, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It's mostly a matter of considering all the data and then drawing conclusions which harmonize with the amalgamation of that data.
So you bullshit your way through this. We all know that.

Let me clue you in. When it says everything on earth is going to die, that means everything. Not everything, but...

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#122563 Nov 12, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Having gotten that off your chest, AGAIN, what's the answer to the question?
The answer is that everyone here sees through your little haze.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#122564 Nov 12, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
He's using Jim Ryan as a consultant.

He usually tries to hide his scientific illiteracy. I wonder why he came out of the closet today?

I can't believe an adult who claims to be "technically savvy" would not know such basic science.

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 Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 31 min DanFromSmithville 164,294
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr karl44 19,059
How can we prove God exists, or does not? Tue Gillette 84
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) May 25 UncommonSense2015 178,616
has science finally debunked the 'god' myth? May 24 UncommonSense2015 10
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) May 24 Chimney1 1,871
News British Ban Teaching Creationism As Science, Sh... (Jul '14) May 23 Swedenforever 159
More from around the web