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

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

There are 154611 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

#135598 Jul 15, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you accept physical data which could have resulted from a global flood?
As you formulate your answer consider also do you accept physical data which could have resulted from evolution as evidence of evolution?
WHICH DATA?
WHERE provided?
I have seen NO DATA.
NOBODY here has seen your DATA.

YOUR DATA PLEASE.
223rd reminder.
TWO HUNDRED TWENTY THIRD reminder.
T W O H U N D R E D T W E N T Y T H I R D.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#135599 Jul 15, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I have more understanding of science than you, based on the aggregate of your science related posts so far. If you want detailed explanations, I will provide them in the interest of helping you to increase your understanding.
Yes we ALL recall your endless tattles on toilet valves.
KAB

United States

#135600 Jul 15, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
EVERYTHING in it is in conflict with modern geology.
The Bible indicates there was a period of time before life appeared on Earth (Genesis). What does modern geology indicate?
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#135601 Jul 15, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Further, I am content to leave the global flood unconfirmed by physical data.
We DON'T.
We answer scientific standards here.
Where is your evidence for a worldwide flood.
THE EVIDENCE please.

You are a terrible TATTLER.
Without any notions of the scientific standards.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#135602 Jul 15, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
After all this time you've again forgotten I'm not a YEC?
I have not forgotten. But you obviously didn't read the article as it concerns itself more with the mythical flood rather than YEC.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#135603 Jul 15, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I have more understanding of science than you, based on the aggregate of your science related posts so far. If you want detailed explanations, I will provide them in the interest of helping you to increase your understanding.
Really?

That's why you don't answer the questions, and leave all "difficult" posts unaddressed, isn't it?
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#135604 Jul 15, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It would probably be easier for MF just to acknowledge he provided the glaciers-freezing-to-base info.
Is a glacier or ice sheet which moves several meters a day attached to its bedrocks, KAB?
ANSWER.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#135605 Jul 15, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I have more understanding of science than you, based on the aggregate of your science related posts so far. If you want detailed explanations, I will provide them in the interest of helping you to increase your understanding.
Buoyancy is caused by the differences in density of the object submerged in a fluid and the fluid itself. To be precise: the fluid pushes the submerged object up with a force equal to the volume of fluid the object displaces. When the object weights less than the body of water is displaces, it will start to float. That is why a coin will not float in water but yet will when submerged in mercury. Buoyancy will occur whether there is fluid under the object or not. Buoyancy has NOTHING to do with the fluid being under the object. It is totally irrelevant.
I shall have to teach you the basics of buoyancy as I did earlier and which post you OF COURSE didn't answer. But I have patience just awaiting your endless, caboodle posts passing by until you make your inevitable mistakes.
Do the following experiment:
- take a glass
- put an ice cube in it
- notice that, as the ice cube is flat on each side, there is no water between the ice cube and the bottom of the glass (there is no water in the glass at all)
- pour water very gently into the glass until it submerges the ice cube just for 25%
Question: is there water between the ice cube and the bottom of the glass?
1) yes
2) no
We continue the experiment:
- we pour more water into the glass until the ice cube is totally submerged
- watch what happens: when the ice cube is submerged in the water. It will start to float.
I also still awaiting answers on some earlier questions which you are refusing to address.
KAB

United States

#135606 Jul 15, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
As noticed earlier, you have no understanding of buoyancy.
Buoyancy is caused by the differences in density of the object submerged in a fluid and the fluid itself. To be precise: the fluid pushes the submerged object up with a force equal to the volume of fluid the object displaces. When the object weights less than the body of water is displaces, it will start to float. That is why a coin will not float in water but yet will when submerged in mercury. Buoyancy will occur whether there is fluid under the object or not. Buoyancy has NOTHING to do with the fluid being under the object. It is totally irrelevant.
I shall have to teach you the basics of buoyancy as I did earlier and which post you OF COURSE didn't answer. But I have patience just awaiting your endless, caboodle posts passing by until you make your inevitable mistakes.
Do the following experiment:
- take a glass
- put an ice cube in it
- notice that, as the ice cube is flat on each side, there is no water between the ice cube and the bottom of the glass (there is no water in the glass at all)
- pour water very gently into the glass until it submerges the ice cube just for 25%
Question: is there water between the ice cube and the bottom of the glass?
1) yes
2) no
We continue the experiment:
- we pour more water into the glass until the ice cube is totally submerged
- watch what happens: when the ice cube is submerged in the water. It will start to float.
I also still awaiting answers on some earlier questions which you are refusing to address.
The answer to your question is yes, and I also answered your example when you posed it previously.
KAB

United States

#135607 Jul 15, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
I started this questions 2 months ago and counted more than 220 attempts.
I am STILL awaiting he answer.
MIND his weirs rendition of "evidence": "if there is no evidence against something, it must be true".
Read back his posts on this!
Really, there is no remedy against this stupidity.
The stupidity is in misrepresenting someone.
KAB

United States

#135608 Jul 15, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
When data/analysis (not conclusions) is provided which confirms that Bigfoot landing with his yellow spacecraft with green dots on the main square of Atlantis didn't occur I will change my understanding of that event.
Please provide me of those data and analysis, KAB.
You are very savvy, you should have no problems with this simple request.
It IS an outrageous claim, at least.
What is your present understanding of the Bigfoot Atlantis landing?
KAB

United States

#135609 Jul 15, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
The rain thing I already addressed two months ago.
Such rains are impossible due to limitations in the atmosphere.
You then shift the goal posts to the "fountains of the deep".
That has been refuted too.
Now you are shifting back to the rain.
The rain is still impossible, also after 2 months.
do you have EVIDENCE of the flood, KAB?
222nd reminder.
EVERYBODY is asking for EVIDENCE KAB.
Where is the EVIDENCE, KAB.
Do you accept data which could have resulted from a global flood?
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#135610 Jul 15, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The Bible indicates there was a period of time before life appeared on Earth (Genesis). What does modern geology indicate?
Bible: a few days.
Modern geology: about 500 million years.
Bible: first there was the earth, than god created the light.
Modern cosmology: between the first light emitted and the forming of the earth covers about 9 BILLION of years.
Bible: " And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day."
There is no day and night without the sun. The sun appears in Genesis on the 3rd day.
Modern science: FIRST there was the sun, THEN the planets.
Bible: "So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it."
Modern physics: there is no water vault above us and neve rhas been. It defies Newton's gravity laws.
Bible:“Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds."
Science: this supposedly was on the 2nd day, when the sun still was to appear. Plant can't live without sunlight.
Bible: on the third day god created the "lesser light that governs the night".
Science: the moon is not a light. It only deflects sunlight to te earth.
Bible: on the 4th day,“Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.”
Science: the fish species were before the bird species. We kn ow this because in the lower earth layers we do find fish fossils but no bird fossils at all. Birds were later species.
The same with the crap of the land creatures being created on the 5th day AFTER the birds.

to mention only a FEW problems.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#135611 Jul 15, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you accept data which could have resulted from a global flood?
I only accept empirical evidence of a worldwide flood 4,500 years ago, either by field observations clearly and unmistakably pointing to such a flood or experiments that underpin such observations, concordant to the scientific methodology and backed by source references.

Did I need to write this down for the 224th time?
Yes I did.

According to scientific standards we do not demand evidence that "could" result from a phenomenon. We demand evidence FOR a phenomenon.

You SHOULD KNOW THIS as someone who pretends to know more about science than others here on this forum.

Your scientific ignorance is stunning.

Good luck we still have people who actually KNOW those scientific standards.
KAB

United States

#135612 Jul 15, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Am i going to have the answers on my questions, KAB?
Now, in addition to the existing unfulfilled requirements, you're not getting those answers until you acknowledge the things for which I have provided answers and for which you state I have not provided answers, like flood rain. You not accepting an answer doesn't count as an answer not being provided. This is a consequence of you giving no indication you will accept any answer I provide. It's OK to reason against an answer, but "caboodle" or similar alone doesn't cut it.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#135613 Jul 15, 2014
The world according to KAB.

"We may assume that a phenomenon exists if we have data that could have resulted from it".

Let's apply this.

Judge: "you are found guilty of having committed the murder because we have evidence that could result from you having committed it".

Stargazer: "we found that Bigfoot landed on the main square in Atlantis 4,500 years ago with his purple spacecraft with green dots on it because we have data that could have resulted from it".

Pharmacist: "this substance is a good remedy against cancer because we have data that indicate that some cases of cancer recovery could have resulted from using that drug".

Good heavens HOW LUCKY you Americans are you managed to keep this caboodle out of the school class.
KAB

United States

#135614 Jul 15, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
The flood is YOUR assertion, you idiot! When are you going to get that through that incredibly thick skull of yours?
Have I stated the flood is not my assertion?
KAB

United States

#135615 Jul 15, 2014
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
It isn't MF's responsibility to provide your data and I don't care what is easier for you. I want to see the specific post YOU referenced in full context.
Here's MF's answer,

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TFA...

If you don't trust him I'll provide one of the posts.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#135616 Jul 15, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Does the movement specified apply to the top surface, bottom surface, or some other point in the ice sheet or to something else?
The WHOLE ice sheet is moving.
YOU DIDN'T KNOW THAT?
The only difference between the underside and top a the glacier is that the movement along the underside of a glacier is slower than movement at the top due to the friction created as it slides along the ground's surface, and in some cases where the base of the glacier is very cold, the movement at the bottom can be a tiny fraction of the speed of flow at the surface. In ALL cases, the underside of the glacier also moves, EVEN when it is very cold there.

I thought you had a better understanding of science than me.

ANSWER THE BLOODY F*CKING QUESTION.
AGAIN:
- if ice sheets are moving 20-30 meters each DAY, are they fixed to the underlaying bedrock?
1) yes
2) no.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#135617 Jul 15, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Now, in addition to the existing unfulfilled requirements, you're not getting those answers until you acknowledge the things for which I have provided answers and for which you state I have not provided answers, like flood rain. You not accepting an answer doesn't count as an answer not being provided. This is a consequence of you giving no indication you will accept any answer I provide. It's OK to reason against an answer, but "caboodle" or similar alone doesn't cut it.
WHERE is your evidence for the worldwide flood?
You did produce a lot of posts but there was not a SINGLE ONE with proper - SCIENTIFIC - evidence for a worldwide flood. There was not even EVIDENCE that fit ANY criterion normally associated with the word "evidence".

For the rest, your posts merely were just caboodle with gross misunderstanding of very basic principles like buoyancy or endless tattles about toilet valves which even would astonish plumbers.

Besides there are several questions not even ADDRESSED, let alone answered properly (=scientifically).

ANSWER THE QUESTIONS please.

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
Might life have spontaneously have started mill... 5 min In Six Days 629
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 20 min One way or another 48,384
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr It aint necessari... 216,602
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 9 hr Porkncheese 179,706
Richard Dawkins tells the truth 9 hr Porkncheese 6
Science News (Sep '13) Fri _Susan_ 3,980
News Does Mike Pence Believe in Evolution? Thu scientia potentia... 9
More from around the web