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

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

There are 141352 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.

MMLandJ

Wingate, NC

#135836 Jul 18, 2014
KAB wrote:
We have no precedent for an alien space craft.
We have no precedent for a global flood
KAB wrote:
My position regarding the global flood is the same as yours regarding evolution until there is data that confirms the flood did not happen.
Data has been presented throughout this forum which confirms your global flood never happened. The same cannot be said of evolution.
KAB wrote:
I don't assume an alien space craft would be like a human space craft because we have no precedent for an alien space craft.
I don't assume a local flood would be like a global flood because we have no precedent for a global flood.
MMLandJ

Wingate, NC

#135837 Jul 18, 2014
KAB wrote:
No physical data confirming the global flood didn't happen has been provided. For sure numerous attempts have been made.
Physical data confirming the global flood never happened has been provided. For sure you have made numerous attempts to misrepresent this data.
KAB wrote:
Restricting the meaning of Biblical words would be a form of going beyond what is written.
I know. So why are you doing it?
KAB wrote:
Also, there are no verses restricting the floodgates of the heavens to Mesopotamia.
I know. So why are you restricting the flood gates of the heavens from pouring rain over the entire earth at the same time?
KAB

United States

#135838 Jul 18, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
No you didn't.
It was not even evidence of a flood but according to the geological articles on the subject, evidence for well understood other features like ice cap sediments after at least 2 ice ages the crater experienced and earth quake land slides. the geological literature I read didn't even mention the word "flood".
Even IF there were evidence of a flood in Pingauluit crater of a flood, you still failed miserably to explain why this were to be evidence for a WORLDWIDE flood.
We have been going through this during several posts by several people and it is barely acceptable that you pop up with it again.
You are completely refuted and ruined on your Pingauluit tattles.
You should SHAME yourself after all those posts to even come up with this CRAP again.
It demonstrates your deplorable state of reasoning against all odds and sound debate.
Those "inapplicable morainic references" were the actual geological studies done by proper scientists on Pingauluit crater.
HOW TYPICAL for you to mention those studies "inapplicable morainic references".
While they actually are the scientific studies on the very subject.
No further responses are warranted until you acknowledge that ALL the glaciations were thousands of years before the sediment of interest was deposited. Why do you continue to return to this irrelevance? While you're at it you could also acknowledge you don't have a technical background. That would help explain why your responses on technical matters don't make technical sense and would make it easier to deal with you in an appropriately helpful way. Not everyone is required to be technically savvy, but to conduct oneself as if something he is not does a disservice to all involved.
KAB

United States

#135839 Jul 18, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't EMBARRASSINGLY show off your complete misunderstanding of buoyancy.
Buoyancy is NOT due to pressure of water creeping under the object submerged.
You have NO IDEA of what buoyancy is.
EMBARRASSING.
END of TATTLE.
Answer the question posed INSTEAD.
I don't answer this tattles about physics any more.
I ONLY answer the EVIDENCE you provide for your claims.
ALL OTHER tattles are IGNORED.
I AM FED UP with your endless tattles and evasive dodging.
PERIOD.
After 231 reminders you owe me ANSWERS.
Do you even realize that buoyancy is ENTIRELY a consequence of pressure in a fluid, and that the pressure in the cases we have been considering is in turn due to gravity? Therefore, a root cause elemental analysis of these buoyancy situations doesn't begin with Archimedes general summary statement. It begins with a force analysis of gravity's effect on a fluid and any objects in contact with that fluid.
KAB

United States

#135840 Jul 18, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
AGAIN, WE DO HAVE these data.
Not addressing the things provided.
Feigning they were no provided (gambling that the other person did not noticed that, so let's try it).
What a miserable way of debating.
We do not have Everest growth measurement data from 4500 ya?

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#135841 Jul 18, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
No further responses are warranted until you acknowledge that ALL the glaciations were thousands of years before the sediment of interest was deposited. Why do you continue to return to this irrelevance? While you're at it you could also acknowledge you don't have a technical background. That would help explain why your responses on technical matters don't make technical sense and would make it easier to deal with you in an appropriately helpful way. Not everyone is required to be technically savvy, but to conduct oneself as if something he is not does a disservice to all involved.
Your stance of "all or nothing" is significant, since your "ALL" stance regarding the Bible IS amply demonstrated a NOTHING.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#135842 Jul 18, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you even realize that buoyancy is ENTIRELY a consequence of pressure in a fluid, and that the pressure in the cases we have been considering is in turn due to gravity? Therefore, a root cause elemental analysis of these buoyancy situations doesn't begin with Archimedes general summary statement. It begins with a force analysis of gravity's effect on a fluid and any objects in contact with that fluid.
Ignore it as you will, but glaciers are still not rubber flap valves glued to their bases.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#135843 Jul 18, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
We do not have Everest growth measurement data from 4500 ya?
You can't restrict your conniving to just the one tallest mountain on Earth.
A tremendous growth spurt of every mountain range on Earth over a couple thousand years would easily have passed unnoticed - only in your mind.

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#135844 Jul 18, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
No further responses are warranted until you acknowledge that ALL the glaciations were thousands of years before the sediment of interest was deposited. Why do you continue to return to this irrelevance? While you're at it you could also acknowledge you don't have a technical background. That would help explain why your responses on technical matters don't make technical sense and would make it easier to deal with you in an appropriately helpful way. Not everyone is required to be technically savvy, but to conduct oneself as if something he is not does a disservice to all involved.
Next time READ my posts, represent them PROPERLY, don't leave out 90% of what's been said and address it according to their content.

Dishonest SHIT.

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#135845 Jul 18, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
We do not have Everest growth measurement data from 4500 ya?
Irrelevant post, AGAIN NOT addressing what has been said.
Next time read the posts, address them according to their content.

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#135846 Jul 18, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you even realize that buoyancy is ENTIRELY a consequence of pressure in a fluid, and that the pressure in the cases we have been considering is in turn due to gravity? Therefore, a root cause elemental analysis of these buoyancy situations doesn't begin with Archimedes general summary statement. It begins with a force analysis of gravity's effect on a fluid and any objects in contact with that fluid.
TATTLE.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#135847 Jul 18, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Next time READ my posts, represent them PROPERLY, don't leave out 90% of what's been said and address it according to their content.
Dishonest SHIT.
He isn't going to address anything unless he construes some word or phase suits his agenda. Honesty, content and context are not his technically savvy area of expertise. He won't even address that the crater sediments and "the flood" only approximately chronologically correspond.
KAB

United States

#135848 Jul 18, 2014
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you would have to ask Yahweh that one.
Your smokescreen and dodge are noted.
I'm surprised a mental health professional has no answer for whether there are mental illnesses which result in the individual being happy.
KAB

United States

#135849 Jul 18, 2014
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
4500 Years ago humans lived all over the India/Pakistan/Indus Valley/Nepal/Burma area and writing was ongoing in the area.
Do we have any written evidence that the Himalayas were small or smaller...or the same?
Please provide some data/references.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#135850 Jul 18, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm surprised a mental health professional has no answer for whether there are mental illnesses which result in the individual being happy.
So you are defending your delusional mental illness on the grounds of the happiness of a religious lobotomy? Yep, I've not only heard it before, I've often remarked on it.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#135851 Jul 18, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
We do not have Everest growth measurement data from 4500 ya?
We know i wasn't flat, idiot

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#135852 Jul 18, 2014
IT!
KAB

United States

#135853 Jul 18, 2014
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Yup.
Just like the LACK of a flood over a period of time can ALSO be recorded.
http://www.intl-geology.geoscienceworld.org/c...
What's the resolution of that surface exposue dating method?

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#135854 Jul 18, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
What's the resolution of that surface exposue dating method?
Oh ye who is berift of technical savvy.....I am amused at your haughty ignorance.

http://www.landforms.eu/cairngorms/cosmo.htm

Unfortunately, I was unable to locate "Cosmogenic Exposure Dating For Dummies", so this will have to do.

Essentially, As long as the surface area tested is exposed to the atmosphere, and NOT DISTURBED....by for instance, water-borne erosion, it will CONTINUOUSLY be bombarded by cosmic rays at a known and constant rate.

The "resolution" you ask for is CONTINUOUS, as long as the area is not disturbed.

If you read the scientific article referenced:

http://www.intl-geology.geoscienceworld.org/c...

Had the following key pieces of data:

(1) "Here we assess the age of cessation of erosion, as a consequence of aridification, on *EROSION-SENSITIVE LANDFORMS* in the Coastal Cordillera."

(2)[results of tests] "The majority of the ages are older than 19 Ma (n = 9) with clusters at 20 Ma (n = 3) and 25 Ma (n = 5)(Fig. 4). One clast yielded an exposure age of ca. 37 Ma. Few clasts are younger: one age is ca. 9 Ma, and two identical ages are ca. 14 Ma. "

The one that got MY attention was the test site that was situated on an alluvial fan. An alluvial fan in geological terms is a 'fan or cone-shaped deposit of water-transported material'. Look it up.

"and the alluvial fan (E) both give ages ca. 120 ka." .

So even what little water the Atacama Desert DID experience left a recognized erosional remnant, which is dated at 120 THOUSAND years ago.

You're Noachian Flood story is * A_G_A_I_N * put to rest.

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#135855 Jul 18, 2014
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh ye who is berift of technical savvy.....I am amused at your haughty ignorance.
http://www.landforms.eu/cairngorms/cosmo.htm
Unfortunately, I was unable to locate "Cosmogenic Exposure Dating For Dummies", so this will have to do.
Essentially, As long as the surface area tested is exposed to the atmosphere, and NOT DISTURBED....by for instance, water-borne erosion, it will CONTINUOUSLY be bombarded by cosmic rays at a known and constant rate.
The "resolution" you ask for is CONTINUOUS, as long as the area is not disturbed.
If you read the scientific article referenced:
http://www.intl-geology.geoscienceworld.org/c...
Had the following key pieces of data:
(1) "Here we assess the age of cessation of erosion, as a consequence of aridification, on *EROSION-SENSITIVE LANDFORMS* in the Coastal Cordillera."
(2)[results of tests] "The majority of the ages are older than 19 Ma (n = 9) with clusters at 20 Ma (n = 3) and 25 Ma (n = 5)(Fig. 4). One clast yielded an exposure age of ca. 37 Ma. Few clasts are younger: one age is ca. 9 Ma, and two identical ages are ca. 14 Ma. "
The one that got MY attention was the test site that was situated on an alluvial fan. An alluvial fan in geological terms is a 'fan or cone-shaped deposit of water-transported material'. Look it up.
"and the alluvial fan (E) both give ages ca. 120 ka." .
So even what little water the Atacama Desert DID experience left a recognized erosional remnant, which is dated at 120 THOUSAND years ago.
You're Noachian Flood story is * A_G_A_I_N * put to rest.
The MORE details in information you provide him, the MORE opportunities for the very next of stupid ignorant questions and tattle.

Advise: ask HIM questions.
After 1 trillion posts he will come up with this final result:
1) "I have no physical evidence for a global flood"
2) "But there was a global flood because the bible says so"

The only thing he is aiming at is to refute evidence against the flood.
He thinks that if he succeeds in that, the flood was there. Hence all his questions.

You don't believe that?
Read his posts.

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
When is Quote Mining Justified? 3 min Zog Has-fallen 25
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 4 min FREE SERVANT 164,403
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 1 hr Ooogah Boogah 178,618
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr Chimney1 19,071
How can we prove God exists, or does not? 10 hr GTID62 86
Poll Do you believe the universe is granular? (Aug '11) 11 hr cpshrivastava 31
has science finally debunked the 'god' myth? 11 hr Zog Has-fallen 11
More from around the web