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

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

There are 159275 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.

“Evolution is Variation”

Since: Nov 13

Dublin, Ireland

#122971 Nov 19, 2013
If you want evidence of V shaped cut valley's becoming U shaped valley's you can do that experiment in your back yard or field. Take a V shaped plow and cut a trench. Then irrigate it with water and see if it stays V shaped or gets U shaped just from the water running through it. But if you want a good experiment not only irrigate and run water through it also have sprinklers raining down on the sides of it. Your V shape will disappear rather quickly and become a U shape when you also have sediments falling in from the sides.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#122972 Nov 19, 2013
Thats a knee slapper wrote:
<quoted text>
Why don't you all in your lie shyt clique quit covering subs uneducated little asss. He whimpers and whines but he never barks. I know I am new here but for fcks sake. If someone makes a claim let them be the one to back it up. I see it takes about 6 of you to try to beat the urban cowboy down and you still haven't succeeded. He has good points as well as your group has good points. He has to focus on your group all firing at him while your group just has to focus on him. I have only made one or two comments in it for you all are just evolved in a pisssing contest more than a science debate. I have an idea. You all pick one person and take on the urban cowboy in a debate into a new thread and only the two have at it. Anything claimed of course has to be backed or it is not valid. This would get rid of a lot of the trolls and blow hard asssses here, and there are plenty of them.
Frankly I dont know why every conversation between you and SZ ends up in a slagfest and usually over irrelevant minutiae. But thats between you two. Just noted that what yiu demanded there was something you could look up yourself in 5 seconds.

Regarding the discussiion with UC its really only between UC, Poly and me. Yeah others chip in, and in this case they are not on the "evo" side but the science side period. You would have to look up Creager's original paper and digest it to know what we are really arguing about. Nobody is forcing you. As for UC being alone on this, even hard core Creos like HTS abandoned ship when they realised tbat both he and Creager are talking shyte.

Anyway, I have acknowledged plenty of your comments.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#122973 Nov 19, 2013
Thats a knee slapper wrote:
<quoted text>
Now with your links can you provide data that they were not originally cut out as V shaped and over time with water erosion they have slowly formed to be U shaped? Just because the valley is U shaped now does not mean that it was U shaped when it was cut out. Erosion from rain on those hills over time will wash sediments down from the sides and over time those sediments will settle and become a U shape.
I would guess that analysing the basin and learning whether the U is all carved from the bedrock vs sediment infill would tell you the answer. And I would also assume geologists have already done that in reaching their conclusions.

“Evolution is Variation”

Since: Nov 13

Dublin, Ireland

#122974 Nov 19, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Frankly I dont know why every conversation between you and SZ ends up in a slagfest and usually over irrelevant minutiae. But thats between you two. Just noted that what yiu demanded there was something you could look up yourself in 5 seconds.
Regarding the discussiion with UC its really only between UC, Poly and me. Yeah others chip in, and in this case they are not on the "evo" side but the science side period. You would have to look up Creager's original paper and digest it to know what we are really arguing about. Nobody is forcing you. As for UC being alone on this, even hard core Creos like HTS abandoned ship when they realised tbat both he and Creager are talking shyte.
Anyway, I have acknowledged plenty of your comments.
I would say because your all's little clique won't tell him when he is completely wrong, instead you all attack the one that has him on the ropes. Like when he said E coli is not a species, BS! Everyone knows E coli IS a species but you all patted his arse and went on instead of correcting him. Or when we were talking about thermodynamics he came up with the laws of entropy, which was completely BS wrong and again you all cover his arse, patted his arse and went on instead of correcting him. When you feed stupid it just thrives and grows more and more. And the more the stupid grows the more they think they are right.

“Evolution is Variation”

Since: Nov 13

Dublin, Ireland

#122975 Nov 19, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I would guess that analysing the basin and learning whether the U is all carved from the bedrock vs sediment infill would tell you the answer. And I would also assume geologists have already done that in reaching their conclusions.
Then lets also throw in does water cut bed rock? I do believe it does so again you won't get good confirmation there either.

“Evolution is Variation”

Since: Nov 13

Dublin, Ireland

#122976 Nov 19, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I would guess that analysing the basin and learning whether the U is all carved from the bedrock vs sediment infill would tell you the answer. And I would also assume geologists have already done that in reaching their conclusions.
Then lets also throw in does water cut bed rock? I do believe it does so again you won't get good confirmation there either.

Let me add to this. It is not abnormal for water in a river to completely cut a new route for the river, rerouting it from the old bed it used to follow to a new bed it follows.
sallytal

Donora, PA

#122977 Nov 19, 2013
youtube.com/watch... ……
Death vs Birth how does it live??

“Evolution is Variation”

Since: Nov 13

Dublin, Ireland

#122978 Nov 19, 2013
sallytal wrote:
youtube.com/watch?v=Ygy0eLVMlG g ……
Death vs Birth how does it live??
We come into this world pissssing and shyting all over ourselves, having to have some do everything for us. We leave this world in the same way if we live long enough. What about that confuses you?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#122979 Nov 19, 2013
Thats a knee slapper wrote:
<quoted text>
I would say because your all's little clique won't tell him when he is completely wrong, instead you all attack the one that has him on the ropes. Like when he said E coli is not a species, BS! Everyone knows E coli IS a species but you all patted his arse and went on instead of correcting him. Or when we were talking about thermodynamics he came up with the laws of entropy, which was completely BS wrong and again you all cover his arse, patted his arse and went on instead of correcting him. When you feed stupid it just thrives and grows more and more. And the more the stupid grows the more they think they are right.
Ive corrected people on "my" side when I think they have made an error and they've corrected me. I didnt even notice SZ alleged claims about the laws of entropy.

And I have made my point about E coli and its neither agrees with you or SZ. I dont know why you BOTH fixate on a definition.

You made an interesting point that two bacteria with a 13% difference in their genome were found to be merging. That is interesting to me and its real information, real knowledge. Not arguments about category especially when categorical lines are blurry anyway.

My understanding was that technically a species consisted of a population that did or could share a common gene pool. Its blurry at the extremes but pretty solid in most cases. However it does not sit well with the reality that most bacteria reproduce by simple splitting and so dont share a gene pool the way most animals and plants do. Call them species or strains or whatever. Does it make any real difference?

I am not backing SZ over you on this point. I am asking you both whats the point?

Perhaps here is a real question. Does the evident blurriness between species lines fit better with the notion of evolution or biblical creationism?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#122980 Nov 19, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Glacier flowing is not in dispute. What is is whether they freeze to underlying rock. Your references did not address that. Now you have the work you wanted to do. You needn't thank me for the assistance.
While it is possible for the base of the glacier to freeze to the underlying surface, the glacier itself it not frozen to the rock. and moves by plastic flow. So, no, the glacier is not frozen to the underlying surface. If it were - as a unit - it would not be be a glacier but an ice pack.

At higher temperatures, it may not be frozen to the rock at all and moves by basal sliding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_sheet_dynami...

You needn't thank me for the assistance.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#122981 Nov 19, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I just follow the data step-by-step so as not to fall/jump off the path to the truth. You start with your conclusion and just keep asserting it with disjointed declarations. I grant you that your conclusion is what is overwhelmingly popularly believed, but then people, in general, are overwhelmingly not technically oriented/savvy. Please try getting to your conclusion scientifically. It might be helpful to enlist an expert as a guide. It doesn't seem that anyone among you and your comrades qualifies.
Yet again, we see you are dishonest. You start with a premise that a global flood could have happened in not very remote history. When shown there are 1)several reasons it could not have and 2) overwhelming evidence that it did not, you return to the conclusion that it could have happened and proceed to question the same answers all over again - just as if they had never been dealt with time and again.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#122982 Nov 19, 2013
Thats a knee slapper wrote:
<quoted text>
Then lets also throw in does water cut bed rock? I do believe it does so again you won't get good confirmation there either.
What you "I do believe" versus what is actual is the entire problem with creatards.
Just as with an abrasive water jet, grit (sediments and debris, in the case of rivers) in the water does the major cutting, not the water by itself. A river canyon does not form a u shape because gravity is largely responsible for the slope, and water flows in the lowest channel available, therefor it forms a v.
KAB

United States

#122983 Nov 19, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You can harp on about this forever but the fact is, indundation would provide evidence of a Flood whether the ice sheet brake apart and floated up, or remained anchored and was overlain with salty dirty water. And it would show evidence even if that layer was "washed away", because liquid water washing that layer away would leave its own disruption in the ice cores.
In other words, you can bafflegab around whatever details you like, but there is no trace of any disruption in the ice cores 4500 years ago out of the ordinary and that is not possible after such a complete inundation.
A flood is water. The ice is water. A melt layer is water. Frozen water from flood covered ice is water. You have provided no (zero) data showing no melt layers in the 4500 ybp region on the ice cores.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#122984 Nov 19, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
A flood is water. The ice is water. A melt layer is water. Frozen water from flood covered ice is water. You have provided no (zero) data showing no melt layers in the 4500 ybp region on the ice cores.
The pattern of deposition for fallen snow gradually packing as more snow fallls above it versus a melt layer freezing on the layers below will be different and obvious. It will also show anomalies in pollens, gas isotopes, dust, and whatevee 59 other rhings the experts measure. You csn be sure that if a single one of these factors showed a single characteristic that creationists could possibly claim as ecidence of a flood, they would be shouting it from the rooftops.

Silence. There is no evidence consistent with a flood. Just relative climatic stability 6, 5, 4, 3, 000 years ago and everything between.

No flood, as usual.

Ps on thehaplotype issue, your source was deliberately mismatching known areas of hypervariability against the actual lower rate areas of the mtDNA that are used in building the hap tree. The findings are intact, and in the order of 170k years not 6.5k years.

No n=3 at 4500 years and no flood. As usual.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#122985 Nov 19, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
A flood is water. The ice is water. A melt layer is water. Frozen water from flood covered ice is water. You have provided no (zero) data showing no melt layers in the 4500 ybp region on the ice cores.
If there were massive melt evidence, bot the AGW deniers and the clowns at AiG and DI would be all over it. Unfortunately for you (and them), the only evidence of greatly increased melt is from the Minoan warming period, which is a thousand years too late.

But you could have found that yourself, if you had any interest in looking for data outside of Genesis. So we are still waiting for your extraordinary evidence. "What if" and "could have" are unacceptable.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#122986 Nov 19, 2013
Thats a knee slapper wrote:
<quoted text>
Then lets also throw in does water cut bed rock? I do believe it does so again you won't get good confirmation there either.
It can, under high pressure and velocity. The problem is for KAB is that it is totally different erosion in form than glacial erosion. Since individual rocks do get frozen into the bottom of the glaciers, the bottom of the glaciers do not freeze to their beds as he imagines, they will leave striations in surface rocks. Water erosion will lacks striations, but often has the effects of eddies and whirlpools. There will be circular depressions in the eroded rock that are very smoothly polished. Sometimes these depressions can be amazingly deep. I wish I could remember the outcrop where I have observed them.

Glacial striations:

http://www.google.com/imgres...

Erosion caused by water:

http://serc.carleton.edu/images/introgeo/inte...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#122987 Nov 19, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
A flood is water. The ice is water. A melt layer is water. Frozen water from flood covered ice is water. You have provided no (zero) data showing no melt layers in the 4500 ybp region on the ice cores.
He cannot provide data of a layer that does not exist.

Once again it is your claim, you have to show the positive evidence that supports you.

KAB is like a science denier I have seen in a totally unrelated subject. He hats the main guy that he is arguing with, not me by the way, and he has at times demanded that he find a post that "proves" the others claim that he never said what the kook said that he said. I suppose he could quote every single post that he ever made, but I don't think the system could handle it.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#122988 Nov 19, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
When it's cantilevered over the water, as in "meets" the water, there is no base. As sea level rose, there would not always be a cantilevered edge. The main body is over earth, not water. The edge would not float unless it lifted the whole ice sheet (try the science on that possibility) or broke free from the main body.

LOL.

This is dead. You can't provide the science and we have.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#122989 Nov 19, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You haven't provided even one settled science statement from a settled glacial ice scientist regarding such ice freezing to rock. I've apparently forgotten that glaciers can't freeze to U-shaped valleys, only V, right? Right at the moment I only want to upset you, although I'd rather educate you, but you won't allow that.

You are impotent at both.

If you had anything you would have provided it.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#122990 Nov 19, 2013
Thats a knee slapper wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes I want to see a "U" shaped valley cut out by glaciers. Not cut out by water and erosion but cut out by glaciers. Provide data and links and pictures if you can.

Using Google is apparently a lost art.

https://www.google.com/search...

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) 4 min IB DaMann 58,050
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 1 hr Hedonist Heretic 1,849
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 9 hr Subduction Zone 27,261
News Intelligent Design Education Day Sun replaytime 2
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) Sun replaytime 219,597
News Betsy DeVos' Code Words for Creationism Offshoo... Feb 16 scientia potentia... 1
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) Feb 15 bofo 1,756
More from around the web