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

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

There are 151411 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.

TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#130919 May 12, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I've answered one. The ball's in your court.
You didn't. as required.
I didn't ask you to refute my position.
I asked you to bring in empirical evidence for YOUR position.
empirical evidence is either by experiments or field observations by scientifically acknowledged experts on the matter, backed by source references.

31th reminder.

Duck doge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge .....

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#130920 May 12, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
if the sea level surrounding hawaii steadily rose at a rate of 2 foot per day for 30 days and then receded at a rate of 6 inches a day for 120 days you would not see vast erosion throughout all the land. the rate of rise and receding would not be fast moving running water out to the sea, it would be uniform flooding of the land. the water would be coming into the land, steadily rising thus covering the land then slowly receding back to the sea. erosion would be minimal throughout the land.
At 30 days, the water would only be 60 feet deep. You would have quite a ways to go to cover Mauna Kea at 13,803 feet let alone Mt Everest at 29,029 feet.

BTW, your receding numbers don't agree.
2 X 30 = 60
6 X 120 = 720
That would leave the place rather high and dry.
wondering

Morris, OK

#130921 May 12, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
I am sorry but there is no babble flood record because you didn't provide one.
The Pingualuit and Berringer craters have been discussed by others abundantly and in those post I didn't notice any any record provided by you.
A record is a set of data, accumulated by empirical research, either by experiments or field observations by scientifically acknowledged experts on the matter.
You didn't provide any of that for the Pingualuit and Berringer craters to be ANY record of a biblical flood WHATSOEVER. The only things you presented were: "if", "could be", "imagine". That is when you hypothesize and about the opposite of empirical evidence.
But, we all know how that comes: "for me the possibility is enough". RIGHT.
I wish to inform you that OUR position is build on empirical evidence, either by field observations or experiments, provided by highly scientifically trained and acknowledged experts on the matter, to be found in source references.
Your empirical evidence please.
28th reminder.
It is embarrassing and hardly to bear to behold how you keep up your appearances. I feel a misplaced sense of shame.
your argument of all that erosion that should be there is based on a world wide rain over land. water covers more earth than land so if the rain was 99 percent over water the water would rise upon the land from the sea, not run from the land to the sea. this can easily be seen in smaller scales such as lakes with islands in them that get covered during heavy rains when the lake water rises to cover the island and then slowly recedes the following weeks. there is very minimal erosion to the island. every continent is basically just an island setting in the earths waters.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#130922 May 12, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
You didn't. as required.
I didn't ask you to refute my position.
I asked you to bring in empirical evidence for YOUR position.
empirical evidence is either by experiments or field observations by scientifically acknowledged experts on the matter, backed by source references.
31th reminder.
Duck doge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck dodge duck .....
You should know by now that KAB is 99% duck and 11% dodge. He repels facts and evidence better than any superhydrophobic mallard God ever dreamed of. Actually, he could be easily replaced by a bot with 3 lines. "No it isn't" "That is a dataless assertion" and "I provided data."

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#130923 May 12, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You'll have to quote me on any or all of those assertions for any of them to be meaningful. We both know you won't (can't!).
It has been provided about three times and yet here you are claiming it wasn't provided. You won't (can't) respond meaningfully to that.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#130924 May 12, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I've answered one, and you haven't responded to resolve that issue.
You have evidence that you answered one? Was the answer meaningful or just more of your bullshit? I ask as a courtesy, since we all know that when you do answer it is bullshit. That is the possibility and the reality I am going with.
wondering

Morris, OK

#130925 May 12, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
At 30 days, the water would only be 60 feet deep. You would have quite a ways to go to cover Mauna Kea at 13,803 feet let alone Mt Everest at 29,029 feet.
BTW, your receding numbers don't agree.
2 X 30 = 60
6 X 120 = 720
That would leave the place rather high and dry.
lol and you claim to know science?
Math lesson for you
rain 2 foot per day x 30 days =up 60 feet
receding 6 inches per day for 120 days=down 60 feet (down one foot every 2 days)

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#130926 May 12, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
your argument of all that erosion that should be there is based on a world wide rain over land. water covers more earth than land so if the rain was 99 percent over water the water would rise upon the land from the sea, not run from the land to the sea. this can easily be seen in smaller scales such as lakes with islands in them that get covered during heavy rains when the lake water rises to cover the island and then slowly recedes the following weeks. there is very minimal erosion to the island. every continent is basically just an island setting in the earths waters.
30% of the earth is land, not 1%. You are even bothering to start from a factual basis. You have data to support your island hypothesis floating in a sea of reality?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#130927 May 12, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
if the sea level surrounding hawaii steadily rose at a rate of 2 foot per day for 30 days and then receded at a rate of 6 inches a day for 120 days you would not see vast erosion throughout all the land. the rate of rise and receding would not be fast moving running water out to the sea, it would be uniform flooding of the land. the water would be coming into the land, steadily rising thus covering the land then slowly receding back to the sea. erosion would be minimal throughout the land.
Oh, so this thing wouldn't be making Grand Canyons then, like what many fundies like to tell us.(shrug)

By the way, just to let you know, 2 feet per day is a DRASTICALLY smaller number than what's provided in the Bible.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#130928 May 12, 2014
wondering wrote:
what are the steps and causes of mammals, reptiles, birds, fish, amphibians, and invertebrates? all classes did have to come from one ancestor.
simply saying evolution caused the changes overtime along with survival needs is no different than saying god is real because the bible says so.
Except we observe the mechanisms in action (such as natural selection, mutation, differential reproduction, genetic drift, horizontal gene transfer) and make scientific predictions based on observable phenomena, such as thus:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...
wondering wrote:
so scientifically explain how all the classes immerged, what caused them to immerge.
You are using the incorrect word here. If you can't use the wrong definitions correctly there is little hope you will be able to use the correct definitions correctly. Refute the information at the linky provided and perhaps you may have a valid objection, otherwise know that until then your objections are mooted by reality.
wondering

Morris, OK

#130929 May 12, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>30% of the earth is land, not 1%. You are even bothering to start from a factual basis. You have data to support your island hypothesis floating in a sea of reality?
I did not say only 1% of earth is land. I said if 99% of the rain was centered over water.
wondering

Morris, OK

#130930 May 12, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, so this thing wouldn't be making Grand Canyons then, like what many fundies like to tell us.(shrug)
By the way, just to let you know, 2 feet per day is a DRASTICALLY smaller number than what's provided in the Bible.
I provided a workable smaller size scale of that happening. which none of you believe is possible.
wondering

Morris, OK

#130931 May 12, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Except we observe the mechanisms in action (such as natural selection, mutation, differential reproduction, genetic drift, horizontal gene transfer) and make scientific predictions based on observable phenomena, such as thus:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...
<quoted text>
You are using the incorrect word here. If you can't use the wrong definitions correctly there is little hope you will be able to use the correct definitions correctly. Refute the information at the linky provided and perhaps you may have a valid objection, otherwise know that until then your objections are mooted by reality.
first off where am I trying to object or refute anything? I simply asked a question.

using the incorrect word? explain!

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#130932 May 12, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
lol and you claim to know science?
Math lesson for you
rain 2 foot per day x 30 days =up 60 feet
receding 6 inches per day for 120 days=down 60 feet (down one foot every 2 days)
I stand corrected. However, it still isn't enough water to cover the mountains as told in Genesis.

Everest at 29,029 feet / 40 days (and nights, of course)= 725.725 feet per day. Slightly over 30 feet of rain per hour or 6" per minute. Still think there wouldn't be any erosion?

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#130933 May 12, 2014
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
You should know by now that KAB is 99% duck and 11% dodge. He repels facts and evidence better than any superhydrophobic mallard God ever dreamed of. Actually, he could be easily replaced by a bot with 3 lines. "No it isn't" "That is a dataless assertion" and "I provided data."
A bot might have more personality.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#130934 May 12, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Why didn't you provide any confirmation that at no point along the way was intelligence involved in bringing about the progression?
We don't need to provide data for your claims. Your claim simply lacks data. His didn't.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#130935 May 12, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
I provided a workable smaller size scale of that happening. which none of you believe is possible.
You did? My stars and garters! I must have missed it.
wondering

Morris, OK

#130936 May 12, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, so this thing wouldn't be making Grand Canyons then, like what many fundies like to tell us.(shrug)
By the way, just to let you know, 2 feet per day is a DRASTICALLY smaller number than what's provided in the Bible.
to think only water and erosion cut the grand canyon you would be a fool and we would have grand canyons in multiples throughout the lands if that were the case.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#130937 May 12, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
I did not say only 1% of earth is land. I said if 99% of the rain was centered over water.
Then you are still making statements not supported by facts. The Bible doesn't say anything about it only raining over the oceans. Besides even if that were true, it wouldn't mean there was no erosion when the continents were flooded. There would be massive erosion under such outrageous and improbably circumstances. The continents aren't flat.
wondering

Morris, OK

#130938 May 12, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
I stand corrected. However, it still isn't enough water to cover the mountains as told in Genesis.
Everest at 29,029 feet / 40 days (and nights, of course)= 725.725 feet per day. Slightly over 30 feet of rain per hour or 6" per minute. Still think there wouldn't be any erosion?
where did I say the flood happened or even talk about the bible of the bible? i just stated that land can flood from rising sea level upon the land and then slowly receding back off the land and not case massive erosion.

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
The conscious God or the inanimate nature 1 min THE LONE WORKER 7
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 min The northener 40,151
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr THE LONE WORKER 200,953
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 6 hr DanFromSmithville 15,722
Scientists create vast 3-D map of universe, val... Thu One way or another 4
Proof that all of Christianity is a lie Thu THE LONE WORKER 41
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) Wed Bob of Quantum-Faith 82
More from around the web