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

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

There are 151320 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.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#122667 Nov 13, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I cannot explain why the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets could not remain submerged.

So you are too stupid to learn.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#122668 Nov 13, 2013
Dogen wrote:
The main advantage here is you don't have to get off your lazy duff and go door knocking, and you can turn in the time on your reports and your leaders are too dim to know you are only driving people away from your silly cult.
You can't PROVE that people aren't attracted to pig-headed ignorance.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#122669 Nov 13, 2013
KAB wrote:
We have mutual acceptance then that gravity only pulls on objects, the force varying with the mass. Now we just need something to push up on the ice. HINT: I think it was Dr. D who astutely noted that the force at any point in a fluid is omnidirectional (i.e., pressure). See if you can take it the next step with the ice sitting on the bottom in a body of water.
You could put a little water in the bottom of a glass, then put the glass in the freezer until the water had turned to ice and frozen to the bottom, then add some water and see what happens.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#122670 Nov 13, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I cannot believe you still don't get this.
Imagine a helium filled balloon sitting airtight against a frozen rigid bottom. If you let go if it would it fly away? Of course.
Now, say the balloon is glued to the surface. If the balloon is small it will stay. The glue is stronger than the upward pressure.
But imagine the balloon is extremely elastic and you continue to add helium. One foot round.... 10 feet,.... 100 feet... at some point the buoyancy is greater than the glues ability to hold it and the balloon will pull away (or more likely rip open) and break the glues bond.
Now imagine a balloon 2 miles wide. We are getting to the scale of the ice that would be under the water.
Again, this is grade school science.
As described, it appears the "round" is extending laterally beyond the airtight footprint. That would create buoancy. Do you know why?
KAB

Wilson, NC

#122671 Nov 13, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I cannot believe I am wasting time arguing with someone who is this stupid.
If you have no answer or won't share it then we can make no further progress in the bottom buoyancy arena.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#122672 Nov 13, 2013
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
Regardless of anyone's input, you will make no progress as long as you merely grasp at inanities to support your delusions.
If you have no explanation or won't share it then we can make no further progress in the bottom buoyancy arena.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#122673 Nov 13, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
We have mutual acceptance then that gravity only pulls on objects, the force varying with the mass. Now we just need something to push up on the ice. HINT: I think it was Dr. D who astutely noted that the force at any point in a fluid is omnidirectional (i.e., pressure). See if you can take it the next step with the ice sitting on the bottom in a body of water.

You don't understand. We get that.

You have been very convincing in your demonstration of your ignorance of science.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#122674 Nov 13, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
As described, it appears the "round" is extending laterally beyond the airtight footprint. That would create buoancy. Do you know why?

Use a square balloon. Still goes up.

Do you know why?

[Hint: I have explained it to you]
KAB

Wilson, NC

#122675 Nov 13, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
I call bullshit. If our nameless author really was a naval architect and marine engineer, he would have been aware of the problems inherent in extremely large wooden vessels.
"Pitching also puts heavy stresses on a vessel. The structure must be strong enough to resist the tendency to sag in the middle when large waves lift both ends of the vessel at the same time. Yet, when a large wave lifts the vessel at its midpoint, with nothing to support its ends, the bow and stern may bend downward. God told Noah to use a length-to-depth ratio of 10 to 1. Later shipbuilders would learn only by hard experience that such a ratio can accommodate these stresses."
Total crap. Later shipbuilders learned by hard experience that a purely wooden boat of this size could NOT be made to handle the stress. They flexed and leaked like sieves.
If you provided some data you might eventually get some traction with that line of reasoning.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#122676 Nov 13, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
If you have no answer or won't share it then we can make no further progress in the bottom buoyancy arena.

If you have no answer or won't share it then we can make no further progress in the bottom buoyancy arena.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#122677 Nov 13, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Then why did you say that gravity pushes things?
It pains me to say, but it's the price of honesty.(Look it up when you get the chance. It's okay, I won't rat you out to the GB.) The term you are looking for to support your bottom buoyancy arena is bottom suction. It really doesn't matter much to your stance, since glaciers often have fractures, rivers, crevasses, holes, caves, moulins and pockets that would negate that suction, anyway.
If I stated that gravity pushes, you'll provide the post to confirm it. Otherwise, like your other dataless assertions, it can (will) be ignored.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#122678 Nov 13, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
We covered this.
Yes, we all know that gravity pulls down on both the helium balloon and the air, albeit with greater force on the air. All that remains is to determine what pushes up on the balloon. Do you think it's the air on the sides or top of the balloon?
I know it's the air pressing on the downward facing parts of the balloon's surface.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#122679 Nov 13, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I have already demonstrated your lack of understanding. Either learn or sit in the corner.
If you have no explanation or won't share it then we can make no further progress in the bottom buoyancy arena.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#122680 Nov 13, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
The main advantage here is you don't have to get off your lazy duff and go door knocking, and you can turn in the time on your reports and your leaders are too dim to know you are only driving people away from your silly cult.
This is in addition to door knocking (off-hours).
KAB

Wilson, NC

#122681 Nov 13, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I included the context.
Then just provide the verses again.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#122682 Nov 13, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I know it's the air pressing on the downward facing parts of the balloon's surface.

If you have no explanation or won't share it then we can make no further progress in the bottom buoyancy arena.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#122683 Nov 13, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
If you have no explanation or won't share it then we can make no further progress in the bottom buoyancy arena.

If you have no explanation or won't share it then we can make no further progress in the bottom buoyancy arena.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#122684 Nov 13, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
This is in addition to door knocking (off-hours).

Riiiiight.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#122685 Nov 13, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Then just provide the verses again.

As you like to distort the truth it would be a gesture of good faith on your part to provide the verses.

Just provide them from a decent translation.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#122686 Nov 13, 2013
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
You could put a little water in the bottom of a glass, then put the glass in the freezer until the water had turned to ice and frozen to the bottom, then add some water and see what happens.
I've done that, and know what happens. Apparently, you haven't and don't.

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 min Regolith Based Li... 34,983
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 4 min syamsu 199,329
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 3 hr Thinking 14,934
News ID Isn't Science, But That's the Least Of Its P... 14 hr FREE SERVANT 35
Ribose can be produced in space 18 hr JanusBifrons 6
A Simple Simulation 20 hr JanusBifrons 1
My Story Part 2 21 hr JanusBifrons 1
More from around the web