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

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

There are 168885 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.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#122594 Nov 13, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
In a given context,'everything' can mean everything in the categories listed.
Except that it is clearly meaning all living things. This includes plants, fish, aquatic insects, microbes. The whole mud ball.

It doesn't say that the waters will not harm the plants, or fish or insects or anything else. It says that God will wipe out everything. Just because he lists some specific life as an example to drive home the point. He wraps it up by making it all clear that he will only save that which is on the ark.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#122595 Nov 13, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand exactly WHY things float. You and your non-technical comrades only seem to understand THAT they do, and you know some words that relate to the phenomenon. I am trying to lead you to the correct understanding in steps you can follow, but you know what they say. You can attempt to lead the stupid to the correct answer, but you can't make them stay on course.
You do? I must say you have done an outstanding job of hiding that knowledge. Well done. No one will ever suspect you have any knowledge at all.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#122596 Nov 13, 2013
mrksman11 wrote:
Thought I'd drop in a look around. Still no observation showing human from non-human evolution. Still no test confirming human from non-human evolution. Still no scientific reason to accept punctuated equilibria. Fossils continue to show only that something once lived, died and left an image that it once existed, not it's heritage. Creationism still takes no less faith to accept than human from non-human evolution. Human from non-human evolution is still not science, but a humanistic philosophy. Science still has no idea on the origin of life, and life is so complex, to think that that naturalism can produce it is ridiculous. No disrespect, but human from non-human evolution is for losers.
Whatever rocks your boat Marksman. You write BS as always but all the best.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#122597 Nov 13, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
The exact same thing that keeps battleships from floating away into space.
Wrong thread. You need to find a Scientologist to discuss that with.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#122598 Nov 13, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
No, and the terminology used by your side referred to the displacement of ice, which is not wrong BTW. Ice can be displaced (i.e., moved). I was just responding to that post. You'd know all of this if you paid close enough attention.
Word Weasel strikes again.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#122599 Nov 13, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Why doesn't that work with solid items of different density standing next to each other? Why doesn't gravity push up on the less dense object?
You cannot be serious?

Can you?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#122600 Nov 13, 2013
mrksman11 wrote:
Thought I'd drop in a look around. Still no observation showing human from non-human evolution. Still no test confirming human from non-human evolution. Still no scientific reason to accept punctuated equilibria. Fossils continue to show only that something once lived, died and left an image that it once existed, not it's heritage. Creationism still takes no less faith to accept than human from non-human evolution. Human from non-human evolution is still not science, but a humanistic philosophy. Science still has no idea on the origin of life, and life is so complex, to think that that naturalism can produce it is ridiculous. No disrespect, but human from non-human evolution is for losers.
Hey, MArky. How's it going?

Thanks for the update on the status of creationism. Always useful. BTW, you spelled your name wrong.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#122601 Nov 13, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand exactly WHY things float. You and your non-technical comrades only seem to understand THAT they do, and you know some words that relate to the phenomenon. I am trying to lead you to the correct understanding in steps you can follow, but you know what they say. You can attempt to lead the stupid to the correct answer, but you can't make them stay on course.
I rather doubt your actually understand anything. You constantly make grade school errors and ask some of the stupidest questions possible. It seems more likely that your are fishing for information to ry to tfill in the gaps in your own education.

Buoyancy is well understood. You're not educating anyone. You're just making a fool of yourself. Again.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#122602 Nov 13, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Word Weasel strikes again.
And failed. Again. Ships are described by displacement and nobody who is 1) in their right mind 2) educated or 3) honest would propose that means ships are built of water.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#122603 Nov 13, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
You cannot be serious?
Can you?
Maybe he's thinking of how the moon's gravity pushes up on water to make tides? 0.o

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#122604 Nov 13, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand exactly WHY things float. You and your non-technical comrades only seem to understand THAT they do, and you know some words that relate to the phenomenon. I am trying to lead you to the correct understanding in steps you can follow, but you know what they say. You can attempt to lead the stupid to the correct answer, but you can't make them stay on course.
Pray tell. How does the Watchtower describe the phenomenon of buoyancy this year? Glaciers won't float because they have little faith and feet of clay?
KAB

United States

#122605 Nov 13, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I have answered the question.
You have lost.
You can't even tip toe out of this one.
If you've answered the question, you could provide or cite the post, but you won't because, in keeping with your stellar demonstrated record, you can't, AGAIN!, since it doesn't exist. I always provide when so requested, but you virtually never do. Why is that? Do you think?
KAB

United States

#122606 Nov 13, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
If we ar to take the bible literally then that would be true as that is what it says. Yes, the story is rabidly inconsistent in the details but it says what it says.
BTW, did whales all die or did the Bible lie
They breath. Or did Noah have a pair of them on the ark?
Wait! They would be clean creature so he had 7 of each whale species. I would like to see how Noah got them on the ark.
Whales do not breathe on the surface of the ground (Gen. 6:7).
KAB

United States

#122607 Nov 13, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
TWO unsupported assumptions ("The Flood" AND "sitting watertight against a frozen rigid bottom") on your part deserves no further explanation on my part.
It appears you may be seeing the correct answer emerging and don't like what you see, so it's abandon ship along with Dr. D. I hope you have room in the lie boat as I expect you may have a lot of company soon.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#122608 Nov 13, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
If you've answered the question, you could provide or cite the post, but you won't because, in keeping with your stellar demonstrated record, you can't, AGAIN!, since it doesn't exist. I always provide when so requested, but you virtually never do. Why is that? Do you think?
Dogen is a demonstrated reliable source.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#122609 Nov 13, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
If you've answered the question, you could provide or cite the post, but you won't because, in keeping with your stellar demonstrated record, you can't, AGAIN!, since it doesn't exist. I always provide when so requested, but you virtually never do. Why is that? Do you think?
What was the question, again?
KAB

United States

#122610 Nov 13, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Really?
R E A L L Y ?
If you have no explanation or won't share it then we can make no further progress in the bottom buoyancy arena.
KAB

United States

#122611 Nov 13, 2013
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
If this doesn't make the Hall of Fame...
If you have no explanation or won't share it then we can make no further progress in the bottom buoyancy arena.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#122612 Nov 13, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It appears you may be seeing the correct answer emerging and don't like what you see, so it's abandon ship along with Dr. D. I hope you have room in the lie boat as I expect you may have a lot of company soon.
Really, KAB..."lie boat"? ROFL! You'd try to sell a used match and call it a cutting torch.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#122613 Nov 13, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It appears you may be seeing the correct answer emerging and don't like what you see, so it's abandon ship along with Dr. D. I hope you have room in the lie boat as I expect you may have a lot of company soon.
No, the "LIE boat" is all yours, oh Captain and First Mate of the "S.S. Freudian Slip".

The fact that you are trying to weasel out of the very basic physics of buoyancy is astounding.

.

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
Evolution gives us robot soldiers and soul-less... 16 min Davidjayjordan 2
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 27 min candlesmell 94,457
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 4 hr Eagle 12 - 6,004
Thank God, Evolutionists dont reproduce 11 hr Davidjayjordan 1
Altruistic Behaviour negates the theory of Evol... 12 hr Davidjayjordan 30
Evolutionists are now labeled..'Chicken People' 12 hr Davidjayjordan 5
Beauty is the Lord's Golden Section Sat Rose_NoHo 7