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

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

There are 166371 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.

KAB

Wilson, NC

#134749 Jul 5, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
I will pose questions as I like or prefer.
I especially do not need YOUR renditions of the "ongoing context".
I do not need to refer to M&M since you are using the arguments too.
If I feel some need to consult M&M, don't worry, I will.
As YOU are using the arguments too, I ask YOU.
ALWAYS do we need to keep you on track of PROPER debate.
So as you don't seem to agree with M&M that there was no water climbing the Pingualuit crater's outer slope, there could be no flood because a flood entering the crater's area will cause flood water climbing the outer slopes, isn't it?
Hence, once more: no global flood.
That comes when you hide away behind others.
Of course the ice ages were prior to the basin-scale slide, because the land slide, according to the relevant geological studies I provided and which you didn't read, is caused by glacio-isostatic rebound. And a rebound is, as the words already indicates, always AFTERWARDS.
Now could you AT LEAST and after all these oblivious post, tell us at long last WHAT relevant evidence you have of a WORLDWIDE flood at the Pingualuit crater.
I haven't seen ANYTHING YET.
I'm not here for proper debate. I'm here to provide and join in analysis of info.

For how long after de-glaciation could tremors be attributed to rebound?
wondering

Morris, OK

#134750 Jul 5, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, we have.
You don't get to define "observing". That is the job of scientists. You have a very narrow and incorrect concept of what constitutes observing.
you don't get to define kind or clade. that is a job for scientists. i guess that throws your weak synonym of clade/kind out the window huh?
wondering

Morris, OK

#134751 Jul 5, 2014
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't even do a valid analogy.
Loser.
don't feel bad because you look foolish, again!. by my observations you should be used to it.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#134752 Jul 5, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>So you say.
If what I stated isn't true, the evidence to prove that is in this forum record. Go for it.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#134753 Jul 5, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
you don't get to define kind or clade. that is a job for scientists. i guess that throws your weak synonym of clade/kind out the window huh?
I didn't define clade, I linked the definition. Or did you forget that fact already? You challenged me to define "kind' and I succeeded at that. I found a use of "kind" that follows your foolish Bible yet it is factually correct.

You, like most chickenshit creationists, did not even try to define the word that you abuse so badly.
wondering

Morris, OK

#134754 Jul 5, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't define clade, I linked the definition. Or did you forget that fact already? You challenged me to define "kind' and I succeeded at that. I found a use of "kind" that follows your foolish Bible yet it is factually correct.
You, like most chickenshit creationists, did not even try to define the word that you abuse so badly.
you failed tremendously. even showing your idiocy saying clade is a synonym for kind.
we are talking science. kind does not exist in science in the sense we are speaking of. which is why i did not define kind, you are slow to catch on aren't you.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#134755 Jul 5, 2014
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Complete ignorance of science.
I am giving up on this moron.
Agreed. I never saw him as worth the time really. Any attempts I have made to interact have been batted aside.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#134756 Jul 5, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
If what I stated isn't true, the evidence to prove that is in this forum record. Go for it.
The forum shoes you to be dishonest. I am not going to track down posts were this has previously been established. You know they are there as well as I do. You will continue to make things up so there will be many more pieces of evidence to come. One can go back through the posts over the last three years and find numerous examples that you have lied and that it has been pointed out. Your challenge is meaningless and a lie in itself.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#134757 Jul 5, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
If you acknowledge I answered the questions, why did you subsequently demand I answer the questions?
You didn't answer the questions. Are you now saying you answered the questions? That would be a lie. You may have answered one of the many questions put to you, but that isn't anything to brag about.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#134758 Jul 5, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
you failed tremendously. even showing your idiocy saying clade is a synonym for kind.
we are talking science. kind does not exist in science in the sense we are speaking of. which is why i did not define kind, you are slow to catch on aren't you.
One more time you complete and utter moron, you wanted a working definition of "kind". I gave you one. I succeeded since my definition works.

And you are the idiot that first used the word. That is why I challenge your idiocy.

How hard to you need to beaten with your own stupidity before you see your error?

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#134759 Jul 5, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
When did the Arctic Char make its debut in the Pingualuit crater lake?
Also, thanks for more faulty reasoning on the killing all life on Earth point. It appears you will never take statements in context.
You can squirm all you like. I am taking the statement of all life on earth being killed straight from the Bible. I realize it is a weak spot in your weak argument to admit that with what Bible says, you can't explain why we have plants, fish, whales, earthworms, etc., but that is not my problem it is yours. Manipulating the facts to try and convince yourself the Bibles says something it doesn't is also your problem.
wondering

Morris, OK

#134760 Jul 5, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
One more time you complete and utter moron, you wanted a working definition of "kind". I gave you one. I succeeded since my definition works.
And you are the idiot that first used the word. That is why I challenge your idiocy.
How hard to you need to beaten with your own stupidity before you see your error?
one more time you moron. show me that science agrees with you and uses clade as a synonym for kind. until you show me that you failed. you not only failed you keep on looking more of an idiot than you already are. you tried to define a word -"kind" - that isn't used, does not exists in science in the sense we are talking.

if it is not about science and only about opinion i could say "kind' is simply just "different"
a motorcycle and a truck are different but both are kinds of transportation.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#134761 Jul 5, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
one more time you moron. show me that science agrees with you and uses clade as a synonym for kind. until you show me that you failed. you not only failed you keep on looking more of an idiot than you already are. you tried to define a word -"kind" - that isn't used, does not exists in science in the sense we are talking.
if it is not about science and only about opinion i could say "kind' is simply just "different"
a motorcycle and a truck are different but both are kinds of transportation.
MAFAO!!!

It doesn't you idiot. You challenged me to come up with a working definition of "kind".

I did. I succeeded. Your complaint shows that you are an imbecile.

My definition works. You were too afraid to even try.
wondering

Morris, OK

#134762 Jul 5, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
One more time you complete and utter moron, you wanted a working definition of "kind". I gave you one. I succeeded since my definition works.
And you are the idiot that first used the word. That is why I challenge your idiocy.
How hard to you need to beaten with your own stupidity before you see your error?
again you are a lying jack wagon. i did not use that word and still haven't.

I replied to your post of ""Evolution says that kind gives rise to the the same kind. They have a working definition of kind. Creationists don't."
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...

You were responding to free servant with that post.

“Don't Like Bumping Your Butt?”

Since: Jul 14

Stop Hopping Down The Trail!

#134763 Jul 5, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
MAFAO!!!
It doesn't you idiot. You challenged me to come up with a working definition of "kind".
I did. I succeeded. Your complaint shows that you are an imbecile.
My definition works. You were too afraid to even try.
I won't try to put a word or define a word that does not belong in science and that science does not use. You on the other hand are too much of an idiot to understand that.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#134764 Jul 5, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't define clade, I linked the definition. Or did you forget that fact already? You challenged me to define "kind' and I succeeded at that. I found a use of "kind" that follows your foolish Bible yet it is factually correct.
You, like most chickenshit creationists, did not even try to define the word that you abuse so badly.
I don't think he understands. He doesn't get that "kind" can be defined to mean something, but that colloquial use and the Bible do not define what is meant by "kind". No one knows so quoting the Bible has no meaning. You are almost holding his hand and yet, nothing.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#134765 Jul 5, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
again you are a lying jack wagon. i did not use that word and still haven't.
I replied to your post of ""Evolution says that kind gives rise to the the same kind. They have a working definition of kind. Creationists don't."
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...
You were responding to free servant with that post.
Not lying you idiot, I was mistaken. Okay it was Free Servant that first misused "kind" in this debate. But then you stuck your nose in this business and I am willing to bet that you have used the "kind reproduces kind" argument many times yourself. By sticking your nose into someone else's business you took up Free Servant's mantle. I succeeded at your challenge and you were unable to reciprocate. That shows that you are not only an idiot, but a dishonest one at that.
wondering

Morris, OK

#134766 Jul 5, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
MAFAO!!!
It doesn't you idiot. You challenged me to come up with a working definition of "kind".
I did. I succeeded. Your complaint shows that you are an imbecile.
My definition works. You were too afraid to even try.
why would i try to define a word that science does not use. i guess i could just make up crap like clade and kind are synonyms like you did but i prefer the approach of science doesn't use it so there is not a scientific definition of kind, working or non-working. don't be sore for looking foolish. you did it to yourself.
wondering

Morris, OK

#134767 Jul 5, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Not lying you idiot, I was mistaken. Okay it was Free Servant that first misused "kind" in this debate. But then you stuck your nose in this business and I am willing to bet that you have used the "kind reproduces kind" argument many times yourself. By sticking your nose into someone else's business you took up Free Servant's mantle. I succeeded at your challenge and you were unable to reciprocate. That shows that you are not only an idiot, but a dishonest one at that.
it is a public forum isn't i can jump in where ever i want.
i am still waiting for you to show me evidence where science uses clade and kind as synonyms. oh that is right science doesn't do that. only imbecile idiots as yourself do.
wondering

Morris, OK

#134768 Jul 5, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I don't think he understands. He doesn't get that "kind" can be defined to mean something, but that colloquial use and the Bible do not define what is meant by "kind". No one knows so quoting the Bible has no meaning. You are almost holding his hand and yet, nothing.
i am guessing you did not define kind in science terms because you knew in the sense we were speaking of that the word "kind" does not exists for that and is not used in science in that way. you are smarter than your pal.

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) 9 min positronium 87,532
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 2 hr Dogen 5,838
What's your religion? Thu 15th Dalai Lama 772
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) Wed Tom Honda 1,825
Scientific Method Feb 15 stinky 20
Evolving A Maze Solving Robot Feb 6 Untangler 2
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) Feb 1 Rose_NoHo 223,358
More from around the web