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

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

There are 157326 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

#122991 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.

Bafflegab..... I like that. Good description.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#122992 Nov 19, 2013
Thats a knee slapper wrote:
<quoted text>
Why don't you all in your little 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.
No one is covering my ass, you total moron.

I will point out some of KAB's obvious mistakes but I usually will not beat my head against the ground to defeat him.

KAB never backs up his claims and expects others to "prove him wrong". Since he has been proved wrong so many times his record speaks for himself. All I do with him most of the time is to point out his errors. That is all that is needed to take care of his nonsense. He can see if I am right or not.

Really, how hard should I have to work to prove that ice floats in water?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#122993 Nov 19, 2013
Thats a knee slapper wrote:
<quoted text>
Why don't you all in your little 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.

What are you babbling about? When has Urb ever had a good point? He digs his head in the sand and ignores whatever is told to him. Just like KAB on this thread. Urb is more emotion driven and KAB is more paranoid, but they are very similar.

You occasionally add good content. Why not stick with that?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#122994 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.
That is because I recognized slappee as a complete lying idiot in his first post here and called him out on it. He has been lying ever since.

He hates losing, I won't let the spoiled little brat win. So he hates me.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#122995 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.

Again Mr. Google know the answer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U-shaped_valley

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#122996 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.

E coli is not really a species. It is only loosely a family. There is a wide variety of "e-coli"

"Today, over 60 complete genomic sequences of Escherichia and Shigella species are available. Comparison of these sequences shows a remarkable amount of diversity; only about 20% of each genome represents sequences present in every one of the isolates, while approximately 80% of each genome can vary among isolates.[27] Each individual genome contains between 4,000 and 5,500 genes, but the total number of different genes among all of the sequenced E. coli strains (the pan-genome) exceeds 16,000. This very large variety of component genes has been interpreted to mean that two-thirds of the E. coli pangenome originated in other species and arrived through the process of horizontal gene transfer.[40]"

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

As far as the laws of entropy go, I presume he meant the laws of thermodynamics, as they all pertain to entropy to some degree (except for the Zeroth law of thermodynamics which seems to define temperature).

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#122997 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.

So?

I realize you don't seem to think you need to make arguments that are relevant though a technically savvy person would.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#122998 Nov 19, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
E coli is not really a species. It is only loosely a family. There is a wide variety of "e-coli"
"Today, over 60 complete genomic sequences of Escherichia and Shigella species are available. Comparison of these sequences shows a remarkable amount of diversity; only about 20% of each genome represents sequences present in every one of the isolates, while approximately 80% of each genome can vary among isolates.[27] Each individual genome contains between 4,000 and 5,500 genes, but the total number of different genes among all of the sequenced E. coli strains (the pan-genome) exceeds 16,000. This very large variety of component genes has been interpreted to mean that two-thirds of the E. coli pangenome originated in other species and arrived through the process of horizontal gene transfer.[40]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escherichia_coli...
As far as the laws of entropy go, I presume he meant the laws of thermodynamics, as they all pertain to entropy to some degree (except for the Zeroth law of thermodynamics which seems to define temperature).
That article won't do any good with slappee. I have quoted it to him several times over and he will purposefully misunderstand it. In fact a term that supported me he thought supported him, and this led to an even bigger failure of his. The term was "taxa is disguise" and here is the Wiki article on it:

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

I first quoted two simple sentences he ignored and eventually simplified it to one sentence. He still could not understand it:

"Escherichia coli is a badly classified species, since some strains share only 20% of their genome. Being so diverse it should be given a higher taxonomic ranking."

There is the longer two sentence version, but the last sentence says it all.

Yes, it is very late at night for me when we debate so sometimes I make minor faux pas such as saying the "laws of entropy" when I obviously meant thermodynamics. The fact is that I will have minor errors, yet my basic thought and meanings are correct, where he is sadly terribly wrong and will never admit it.

To put it as an analogy he would think that because I occasionally jaywalk that means it is not wrong for him to murder someone.

Perhaps that is a bit extreme, but it is in the right vein.
KAB

United States

#122999 Nov 19, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Let's see if I have your understanding correct. The glacier is not frozen to the underlying surface, only its base, which of course, is not part of the glacier, is. At least it's good to know that, when its base is not spending its time frozen to the underlying surface, it may be sliding on it. BTW, thanks for the assistance and reference.
KAB

United States

#123000 Nov 19, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
The factor you overlook is that all the reasons are of the form "seems to indicate", whereas none of them are of the form "confirms". I have kept focus on that reality for every reason offered. The same answers will continue to get questioned until confirmed. When confirming data is provided, I will be on your side.

BTW, do you start with the premise that a global flood could not have happened in the not very remote past?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#123001 Nov 19, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's see if I have your understanding correct. The glacier is not frozen to the underlying surface, only its base, which of course, is not part of the glacier, is. At least it's good to know that, when its base is not spending its time frozen to the underlying surface, it may be sliding on it. BTW, thanks for the assistance and reference.
I think his point is that small bodies, ice packs, can be frozen to its base. Ice packs are quite small compared to a glacier and tiny compared to an ice sheet. Once a depth of ice of over 30 meters it will start to flow. That is it takes at least 100 feet of ice to from a glacier. It flows and is not considered to be "frozen to its base".

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123002 Nov 19, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
That article won't do any good with slappee. I have quoted it to him several times over and he will purposefully misunderstand it. In fact a term that supported me he thought supported him, and this led to an even bigger failure of his. The term was "taxa is disguise" and here is the Wiki article on it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxa_in_disguise
I first quoted two simple sentences he ignored and eventually simplified it to one sentence. He still could not understand it:
"Escherichia coli is a badly classified species, since some strains share only 20% of their genome. Being so diverse it should be given a higher taxonomic ranking."

I think this is pretty obvious to those of us who have gotten more familiar with e-coli than perhaps we would like. e-coli is a generic name for more of a range of organisms than for an individual "species".
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text> There is the longer two sentence version, but the last sentence says it all.
Yes, it is very late at night for me when we debate so sometimes I make minor faux pas such as saying the "laws of entropy" when I obviously meant thermodynamics. The fact is that I will have minor errors, yet my basic thought and meanings are correct, where he is sadly terribly wrong and will never admit it.

I have no issues with your occasional, minor, miswordings as you have taken no issue with mine.
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text> To put it as an analogy he would think that because I occasionally jaywalk that means it is not wrong for him to murder someone.
Perhaps that is a bit extreme, but it is in the right vein.

It is, at least in part, a matter of intellectual honesty. Make an error and admit it is just fine. But make an error and try to cover it up with endless distractions, like our friend KAB, is not.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123003 Nov 19, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's see if I have your understanding correct. The glacier is not frozen to the underlying surface, only its base, which of course, is not part of the glacier, is. At least it's good to know that, when its base is not spending its time frozen to the underlying surface, it may be sliding on it. BTW, thanks for the assistance and reference.

Not that you will listen to factual information.

You tend to ignore facts in favor of your personal dementia. Not very technically savvy of you.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123004 Nov 19, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The factor you overlook is that all the reasons are of the form "seems to indicate", whereas none of them are of the form "confirms". I have kept focus on that reality for every reason offered. The same answers will continue to get questioned until confirmed. When confirming data is provided, I will be on your side.

This is a lie. Confirmation has been supplied in abundance. Perhaps by "confirmation" you mean "proof". But that would be a non savvy word choice.
KAB wrote:
<quoted text> BTW, do you start with the premise that a global flood could not have happened in the not very remote past?

My bot asked better questions than you! More intellectually honest ones as well.





“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#123005 Nov 19, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The factor you overlook is that all the reasons are of the form "seems to indicate", whereas none of them are of the form "confirms". I have kept focus on that reality for every reason offered. The same answers will continue to get questioned until confirmed. When confirming data is provided, I will be on your side.
BTW, do you start with the premise that a global flood could not have happened in the not very remote past?
Nope. Every single phrase in your little paragraph is a transparent and erroneous ploy cumulatively amounting to just another of your gooey lumps of moral turpitude.

BTW, Maybe when I was five years old, but not much after that. Any average child can see through the lie, provided they aren't as indoctrinated into the faith as an egg is into a cake.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#123006 Nov 19, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The factor you overlook is that all the reasons are of the form "seems to indicate", whereas none of them are of the form "confirms". I have kept focus on that reality for every reason offered. The same answers will continue to get questioned until confirmed. When confirming data is provided, I will be on your side.
Lie. You will never take up our side.
KAB wrote:
BTW, do you start with the premise that a global flood could not have happened in the not very remote past?
What does that matter? For myself, raised as a not-a-true-Christian Catholic, I bought it all when I was young. Until I got old enough and educated enough to realize it was no more that a moralistic story.

You are apparently still to young and naive to accept the truth of the reality your alleged god left for us to discover.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#123007 Nov 19, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Consider the sections in this reference, and let me know what part of the mtDNA genome you discern has actually been used to build the hap tree.

http://www.phylotree.org/
KAB

Wilson, NC

#123008 Nov 19, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Considering the following reference, I can see why you feel it necessary to specify "massive" melt.

"That hasn’t happened — not once — in the entire satellite record (see Jason Box’s excellent blog, meltfactor.org for more on this, and Marco Tedesco's paper.). In fact, examination of melt layer records from ice cores at Summit shows that a melt layer like the one that formed in 2012 was the most significant Greenland melt event since at least the late 19th century. If you drill about 100 m down into the ice and recover an ice core, you invariably find that layer, shown in the photo below (the bright line at which the person’s thumb is pointing).
.Greenland ice core from ~80 m depth. E. Steig photo.

According to a recent paper on the 2012 melt by Nghiem et al., in Geophysical Research Letters, the 19th century event dates to 1889. One has to go back about 700 years to find the next such event, and overall, these are about once-in-250 year events over the last 4000 years. Prior to that, they occur more frequently — about once per century during the mid Holocene “climatic optimum”, when it was on average much warmer than present in Greenland in summer, due to the peak in Northern Hemisphere insolation due to changes in the earth’s orbit (Milankovitch forcing). Even during the mid-Holocene, though, there is no evidence from the ice cores that there was sufficient melting to create such strong anomalies in the air content and trace gas concentrations in the ice, as was observed in the Eemian in the NEEM ice. Thus, it was even warmer during Eemian than during the mid Holocene."

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives...

Have you forgotten that water is rather runny? It doesn't tend to stack like snow, so the whole notion of a "massive" melt layer doesn't even make sense and is not even mentioned by the experts. Other than that, there are melt layers throughout the global flood timeframe, as you can see.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#123009 Nov 19, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
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 only ask your side to provide what it asserts does exist, and you don't do so anyway. Simply, that's because it doesn't exist. That's why I ask for it.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#123010 Nov 19, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No one is covering my ass, you total moron.
I will point out some of KAB's obvious mistakes but I usually will not beat my head against the ground to defeat him.
KAB never backs up his claims and expects others to "prove him wrong". Since he has been proved wrong so many times his record speaks for himself. All I do with him most of the time is to point out his errors. That is all that is needed to take care of his nonsense. He can see if I am right or not.
Really, how hard should I have to work to prove that ice floats in water?
You are correct. I can see that you are not right. The issue is not whether ice floats in water or not. It is how the water causes the ice to float. Please explain step-by-step so that everyone, especially me, remains in agreement with you all the way to the end. I assure you I will not bail like EVERYONE on your side has when I've tried the explanation.

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 Into The Night 51,336
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 37 min Regolith Based Li... 24,639
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 41 min Regolith Based Li... 218,714
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 1 hr ChromiuMan 1,117
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 7 hr Dogen 460
How did reproduction start for any living thing? 7 hr Dogen 90
The Fossil Record Does Not Support The Theory O... 7 hr Dogen 45
More from around the web