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

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

There are 150974 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

#126106 Jan 28, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't believe it rained for 60 days and nights.

Try 40.

[QUOTE who="KAB"]<quoted text> Fossil creation is a rather specialized process.

Actually a number of processes can lead to fossilization (so not that special). Still very rare.

[QUOTE who="KAB"]<quoted text> I don't know that Noah was required to travel the earth to collect/return all the necessary species. Remember God was sponsoring the project.

Indeed, the Bible states they came to him. But that is a bigger problem still. How did they all get there? The Bible was written before the fact that there are continents separated by HUGE bodies of water became known. For example how did Tortoises from America get to the middle east? While their cousins the turtle swim (many species swim very well) a Tortoise sinks like a rock.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#126107 Jan 28, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Which is easier and therefore most rational to provide, all the data supporting something, or one example of data which confirms it to be incorrect? The rational ball is in your court.

Again, your ignorance of the scientific method is glaring, even painful.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#126108 Jan 28, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I acknowledged that my post was your intended example, and highlighted how it fell short of demonstrating what you asserted. You have failed to provide a confirmed example. I have provided and will continue to provide, when available, confirming data for every point for which you request it.

Double stupid talk.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#126109 Jan 28, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed, your problem is your own delusions.

projection.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#126110 Jan 28, 2014
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course.
Take the high ground, KAB. Even if you're eyebrow deep in your delusion.
"Opinion"?!?! I GAVE evidence of massive methane production by flooding of lands in the Three Gorges Dam reservoir scenario.
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090929/full/n...
It's simple. Plants and animals die upon being drowned. Plants *DO* drown in floods of any duration. Dead plants and animals decompose. Decomposing plants and animals emit methane (among other gases).
HOW would a Noachian flood be any different (aside from the fact that the Noachian Flood never happened in the first place)?

Because other floods are not the result of magic poofing.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#126111 Jan 28, 2014
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
This is your standard lie. Unfortunately for you we all know you.
Of course, it's a lie. It's KAB.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#126112 Jan 28, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sure methane was produced. Now you just have to do the analysis and calculations to draw some confirmed conclusions about the result, or you could continue on the MUCH easier road of speculation as you are prone to do.

Oh, again you forget who has the burdon of proof. We offer refutations of that which no support for has ever been found. Untill you support the flood we are just getting freebies in.

Oh, and unless you can dispute menthane it goes on the list as refutation #11.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#126113 Jan 28, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
From what I have seen, I'm the only one on MY SIDE in this forum. Is that the side you had in mind?
Divert, deflect ignore repeat. Riddle me this, Batshytecrazy Man...How does a verse from Isaiah validate a story from Genesis?...It doesn't. Do Guy and Tangled have anything to do with Luci on the Sly with Diamondbacks? Nope.
Isn't it "your side" that the bibble is a demonstrated reliable source? You are doing a pretty p-poor job of defending it. At best, all you seem willing or capable of is asking clumsy questions and then ignoring inconvenient answers.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#126114 Jan 28, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sure methane was produced. Now you just have to do the analysis and calculations to draw some confirmed conclusions about the result, or you could continue on the MUCH easier road of speculation as you are prone to do.
Alright...Just beginning, but I have this so far:

"Apart from bacteria, the total global biomass has been estimated at about 560 billion tonnes C.[1] Most of this biomass is found on land, with only 5 to 10 billion tonnes C found in the oceans.[1] On land, there is about 1,000 times more plant biomass (phytomass) than animal biomass (zoomass).

http://conlatio.wordpress.com/tag/ecology/

(Terresteral Biomass = 550 Billion tonnes)

==========

...and this:

The atmospheric concentration of methane is thought to have increased by a factor of 2.5 since pre-industrial times, reaching 1745 ppb in 1998. This rate of increase far exceeds that of carbon dioxide, concentrations of which are only 30% higher than in pre-industrial times. In fact, information is sufficient for the IPCC to assert that the current methane concentration has not been exceeded in the last 420,000 years.

http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/research/energy/downl...

...note the last line?

"...the current methane concentration has not been exceeded in the last 420,000 years."

Since: Jan 14

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#126115 Jan 28, 2014
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Alright...Just beginning, but I have this so far:
"Apart from bacteria, the total global biomass has been estimated at about 560 billion tonnes C.[1] Most of this biomass is found on land, with only 5 to 10 billion tonnes C found in the oceans.[1] On land, there is about 1,000 times more plant biomass (phytomass) than animal biomass (zoomass).
http://conlatio.wordpress.com/tag/ecology/
(Terresteral Biomass = 550 Billion tonnes)
==========
...and this:
The atmospheric concentration of methane is thought to have increased by a factor of 2.5 since pre-industrial times, reaching 1745 ppb in 1998. This rate of increase far exceeds that of carbon dioxide, concentrations of which are only 30% higher than in pre-industrial times. In fact, information is sufficient for the IPCC to assert that the current methane concentration has not been exceeded in the last 420,000 years.
http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/research/energy/downl...
...note the last line?
"...the current methane concentration has not been exceeded in the last 420,000 years."
If it's of any interest, there are about 1.5x10^8 square kilometres of land on the planet. If you assume that methane will be released from this land at the rate of half that measured at the Three Gorges Reservoir (3.35 mg/m^2/hour) then the amount of methane produced would be over 1x10^10 kg per day (over 18 trillion litres per day).

The Earth has the natural capacity to remove the methane that is produced naturally. Human influence has caused a net increase of about 20 teragrams per year (a teragram is 1000 billion, a trillion) and scientists are worried about this. However, if the amount of methane above was produced over the land surface of the Earth for an entire year, the net gain would be 200 times greater: over 4000 teragrams.

I have no idea what this would do to the climate, but I know it wouldn't smell very nice.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#126116 Jan 28, 2014
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Divert, deflect ignore repeat. Riddle me this, Batshytecrazy Man...How does a verse from Isaiah validate a story from Genesis?...It doesn't. Do Guy and Tangled have anything to do with Luci on the Sly with Diamondbacks? Nope.
Isn't it "your side" that the bibble is a demonstrated reliable source? You are doing a pretty p-poor job of defending it. At best, all you seem willing or capable of is asking clumsy questions and then ignoring inconvenient answers.
Isaiah was only referenced because you doubted that Lucifer talked, and Isaiah 14 is the only place the Bible invokes that name. I thought you might want/need to know that to keep from making a further fool of yourself with references drawn from ignorance.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#126117 Jan 28, 2014
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Alright...Just beginning, but I have this so far:
"Apart from bacteria, the total global biomass has been estimated at about 560 billion tonnes C.[1] Most of this biomass is found on land, with only 5 to 10 billion tonnes C found in the oceans.[1] On land, there is about 1,000 times more plant biomass (phytomass) than animal biomass (zoomass).
http://conlatio.wordpress.com/tag/ecology/
(Terresteral Biomass = 550 Billion tonnes)
==========
...and this:
The atmospheric concentration of methane is thought to have increased by a factor of 2.5 since pre-industrial times, reaching 1745 ppb in 1998. This rate of increase far exceeds that of carbon dioxide, concentrations of which are only 30% higher than in pre-industrial times. In fact, information is sufficient for the IPCC to assert that the current methane concentration has not been exceeded in the last 420,000 years.
http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/research/energy/downl...
...note the last line?
"...the current methane concentration has not been exceeded in the last 420,000 years."
Note the last line of your quote is a dataless assertion (i.e., data not provided), so it can't be examined for confirmation. Perhaps someday you will learn not to accept things unquestioningly (Acts 17:11).

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#126118 Jan 28, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I acknowledged that my post was your intended example, and highlighted how it fell short of demonstrating what you asserted. You have failed to provide a confirmed example. I have provided and will continue to provide, when available, confirming data for every point for which you request it.
I did not request it in this case, but when I have you have failed to provided confirming data or anything resembling data.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#126119 Jan 28, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Isaiah was only referenced because you doubted that Lucifer talked, and Isaiah 14 is the only place the Bible invokes that name. I thought you might want/need to know that to keep from making a further fool of yourself with references drawn from ignorance.

I don't think your ignorance is going down without a fight.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#126120 Jan 28, 2014
HillStart wrote:
<quoted text>If it's of any interest, there are about 1.5x10^8 square kilometres of land on the planet. If you assume that methane will be released from this land at the rate of half that measured at the Three Gorges Reservoir (3.35 mg/m^2/hour) then the amount of methane produced would be over 1x10^10 kg per day (over 18 trillion litres per day).

The Earth has the natural capacity to remove the methane that is produced naturally. Human influence has caused a net increase of about 20 teragrams per year (a teragram is 1000 billion, a trillion) and scientists are worried about this. However, if the amount of methane above was produced over the land surface of the Earth for an entire year, the net gain would be 200 times greater: over 4000 teragrams.

I have no idea what this would do to the climate, but I know it wouldn't smell very nice.
To say the least! I would also imagine that it would be rather warm on the surface as well.

Thanks!

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#126121 Jan 28, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed, your problem is your own delusions.
My only delusion seems to be that I regard talking to you further as fruitful.

I have given you the reasons why n=3 4500 years ago is not possible. You have offered nothing valid in response. You keep saying you have, and I keep telling you why your last response is not a possibility and the evidence refutes it (eg conservation of cytochrome-c).

You do not refute my argument. You just pretend its never been made.

As you do with the ice cores. You just pretend that the complete lack of evidence for a massive global flood 4500 years ago in the ice cores is not noteworthy.

You know these things cannot be true. Or at least some tiny corner of your mind, the last vestige of honesty, knows. But the dogmatic cultist beats it down every time. I feel sorry for you.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#126122 Jan 29, 2014
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
To say the least! I would also imagine that it would be rather warm on the surface as well.
Thanks!
While the subject is about methane,,, kind of funny but yet not

German cows cause methane blast in Rasdorf.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-259225...

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#126123 Jan 29, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Note the last line of your quote is a dataless assertion (i.e., data not provided), so it can't be examined for confirmation. Perhaps someday you will learn not to accept things unquestioningly (Acts 17:11).
Not quite. The full last line in Kong's quote said:

"In fact, information is sufficient for the IPCC to assert that the current methane concentration has not been exceeded in the last 420,000 years."

Meaning that the assertion is not dataless even though they have not laboriously stated the source in this particular essay. I would guess it is the ice core samples which give atmospheric gas concentrations going back hundreds of thousands of years (yes, the same ice cores that show no evidence whatsoever for a global flood 4500 years ago).

The IPCC would assume that the informed reader knows that and they would not be dumb enough to make a claim like that if they could not back it up.

And I am sure you could look it up at the IPCC website too, if you want to challenge their statement.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#126124 Jan 29, 2014
Truth - everyone here is a fisherman so to speak.
Lie - thinking your a better fisherman than everyone else.

Truth - we will all catch fish.
Lie - thinking you will always catch the biggest fish.

Truth - we all still need to keep fishing.
Lie - thinking you have caught the biggest fish catchable.

When you see that point and reason then you will understand why nothing is set in stone.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#126125 Jan 29, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
My only delusion seems to be that I regard talking to you further as fruitful.
I have given you the reasons why n=3 4500 years ago is not possible. You have offered nothing valid in response. You keep saying you have, and I keep telling you why your last response is not a possibility and the evidence refutes it (eg conservation of cytochrome-c).
You do not refute my argument. You just pretend its never been made.
As you do with the ice cores. You just pretend that the complete lack of evidence for a massive global flood 4500 years ago in the ice cores is not noteworthy.
You know these things cannot be true. Or at least some tiny corner of your mind, the last vestige of honesty, knows. But the dogmatic cultist beats it down every time. I feel sorry for you.
It's unfortunate you see it that way, incorrectly that is, but you're always entitled to your opinion. I intend to standby to provide data to expose any error you may asseert or any critical part of a situation you may fail to present if it doesn't support you.

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) 1 min Don Barros Serrano 197,377
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Regolith Based Li... 13,292
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 8 hr renee 31,281
Evolution in action 11 hr MIDutch 1
News RANT: Is "global warming" today's version of th... May 25 bearings 2
Another "gap" gets closed May 24 MIDutch 1
Christianity and why its wrong + evolution debates May 21 Zog Has-fallen 15
More from around the web