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

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

There are 170051 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.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#135867 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.

I think we can officially add this to the list of flood refutations so to bring the total to 14.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#135868 Jul 18, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
1, 2, 3, and 5. I have not asked if you would accept evidence of a local flood as support for a global flood.
4. I have stated that flood evidence long after the fact is primarily sediment. Wouldn't that be true for both local and global floods? So determining which sediment came from a local flood and which from a global flood may not be possible.

Incorrect. Technical savvy is completely foreign to you.

You are a sockpuppet for a false god.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#135869 Jul 18, 2014
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you even realize that our side has been saying this for 3 YEARS!?!?!?!?
Welcome to the party..... 3 years late.
Dumbass.
Yes he now blatantly comes up with his revelations about buoyancy.
NEVERTHELESS his post on this were contradicting this.

So I answered "tattle".
Because the very next post he will start over again with "without water underneath the ice, it will not float". Probably his next move will be to deny ever having said that because he used 4 doubled negations instead of 3. Or used the word "it" instead of "that". Something like that.
It is terribly annoying.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#135870 Jul 18, 2014

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#135871 Jul 18, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes he now blatantly comes up with his revelations about buoyancy.
NEVERTHELESS his post on this were contradicting this.
So I answered "tattle".
Because the very next post he will start over again with "without water underneath the ice, it will not float". Probably his next move will be to deny ever having said that because he used 4 doubled negations instead of 3. Or used the word "it" instead of "that". Something like that.
It is terribly annoying.

He is a piece of work. Just enjoy the show.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#135873 Jul 18, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>So when you don't have data, you just assume whatever speculation you favor is the answer. You realize that it isn't science or objective to consider your favorite flavor is the answer when you admit there is no evidence for it and clearly evidence against it.
I'm not assuming anything, including the same growth rate as at present.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#135874 Jul 18, 2014
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I have had clients that were very happy. But they were a more sustainable happy when on meds.
Do you want to be happy and insane? If so then all you need to do is be happy. But your pattern does not indicate true happiness but, rather, an eggshell thin ruse.
That is pretty funny. The concept of a mental illness that leaves one happy sounds like the tall disease or blondeosis. Not typically conditions that one normally sees as an illness. Now if torturing puppies makes you happy then, I can see considering it a result of mental illness.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#135875 Jul 18, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes he now blatantly comes up with his revelations about buoyancy.
NEVERTHELESS his post on this were contradicting this.
So I answered "tattle".
Because the very next post he will start over again with "without water underneath the ice, it will not float". Probably his next move will be to deny ever having said that because he used 4 doubled negations instead of 3. Or used the word "it" instead of "that". Something like that.
It is terribly annoying.
This is why he has to know where all the posts are or at least most of them. When communicate with lies and double talk, you have to know what your own lies are to sustain the nonsense.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#135876 Jul 18, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>This is why he has to know where all the posts are or at least most of them. When communicate with lies and double talk, you have to know what your own lies are to sustain the nonsense.
Ok, you don't, need to know where the posts are unless you are using them as evidence to lie to yourself. Which of course he is.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#135877 Jul 18, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I know you don't think they are lies, but that doesn't make them the truth. You seem them as the truth because your mental illness doesn't let you view them realistically.
I have to admit, because of your mental illness, a real discussion with you is impossible. You view your presupposed conclusions as objective when you admit you have no evidence and you never move from that spot. I am at a point when I must consider ignoring you because I am growing tired of the same responses no matter what is shown to you. If I leave direct discussion with you, I am sure you will view this as a victory, much as you do the leaving of Tangled Bank and LowellGuy.
Really, since you know everything with no reason, there is no discussion with you and ultimately the only thing to get here is what others post. I think I will just read that, comment as needed and move on. But take heart, I get bored here easily, my weakness, so I might come back to feed your delusion on occasion.
I've never thought of Tangled and the Guy as leaving the forum. I just figured they were no longer able to participate. They were emotionally strung pretty tight right near their end.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#135879 Jul 18, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>No, that is still a claim without data. Does MikeF even know what you are talking about.
See here is an example of the lies you don't think are lies. You are implying that MikeF lies, but in the form of a question. You are trying to place your burden of proof onto MikeF because you claim it is something he supplied that is your reference. You obviously don't have this reference or you would have supplied it. This is interesting as well since according to you, it forms an important part of the basis of your whole argument about glaciers. If it is that important of a source, then why don't you have it? It is either not that important or you aren't competent enough to have the forethought to have saved it. Either case throws doubt of your credibility in these discussions.
However, none of what I said means anything to you. This will never be taken in for evaluation and consideration. You will not have one of those moments that others have where they think, "You know, I have been doing that, I can do better". So, ultimately, there is no point to discuss with you. You don't learn and don't care about learning. Yes, I know you pay lip service to that point, but that is all. You came here with all your conclusions in place and when you leave, you will still have them.
Did you miss MF's acknowledgement that he did provide the reference? I notice you seem to have also missed my independent bottom buoyancy reference, even after my concentrated focus on getting in into a form you could access. In fact, there hasn't been a single comment from anyone on your side regarding the content of that reference. Why is that do you think?

Finally, your tone has become strikingly reminiscent of Tangled and the Guy shortly before their disappearance. Does this mean something?
KAB

Wilson, NC

#135880 Jul 18, 2014
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Not one location but at the forward face of virtually all glaciers.
Does water flowing out from under the forward face of virtually all glaciers prove glaciers never freeze to the underlying rock anywhere?
KAB

Wilson, NC

#135882 Jul 18, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>It wasn't just 4" inches an hour and it wouldn't rise uniformly, because the land isn't uniform. I have been in a storm that dropped 4.75 inches in 45 minutes. It was awesome and it wasn't uniform. The low areas filled up fast and then next lowest areas. Flash flooding in such a case was very quick and devastating. You have some idealized version in your head and have concluded that is how it would be without benefit of evidence to support it. The evidence doesn't.
Good luck to you and your delusion.
Someone from your side introduced the 4 inches an hour. What evidence do you have for what the Biblical global flood would have done?
KAB

Wilson, NC

#135883 Jul 18, 2014
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
You would and you are the one who is alleging MF says that glaciers are frozen to their bases.
Provide the original post #.
I'm not alleging what you're alleging I'm alleging. Go back and reread carefully.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#135885 Jul 19, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not assuming anything, including the same growth rate as at present.

Science, of which you are technically ignorant, has already established the growth rate through multiple dating methods. It is not for your plebeian little mind to worry about.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#135886 Jul 19, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>That is pretty funny. The concept of a mental illness that leaves one happy sounds like the tall disease or blondeosis. Not typically conditions that one normally sees as an illness. Now if torturing puppies makes you happy then, I can see considering it a result of mental illness.

Even worse things have been done in the name of pleasure.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#135887 Jul 19, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I've never thought of Tangled and the Guy as leaving the forum. I just figured they were no longer able to participate. They were emotionally strung pretty tight right near their end.

If by "strung pretty tight" you mean they tired of your insipid delusions, then perhaps so.

It is more torturous to be sane and to be confronted by frank insanity than the other way around.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#135888 Jul 19, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you miss MF's acknowledgement that he did provide the reference? I notice you seem to have also missed my independent bottom buoyancy reference, even after my concentrated focus on getting in into a form you could access. In fact, there hasn't been a single comment from anyone on your side regarding the content of that reference. Why is that do you think?
Finally, your tone has become strikingly reminiscent of Tangled and the Guy shortly before their disappearance. Does this mean something?

Did you miss the fact that you lost this discussion at the very beginning? You recently acknowledged what we have been stating from the start re: buoyancy.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#135889 Jul 19, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Does water flowing out from under the forward face of virtually all glaciers prove glaciers never freeze to the underlying rock anywhere?

Does the question "Does water flowing out from under the forward face of virtually all glaciers prove glaciers never freeze to the underlying rock anywhere?" address the greater issue of you being proven wrong by your own, deceptive, admission?

I didn't think so, either.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#135890 Jul 19, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Someone from your side introduced the 4 inches an hour. What evidence do you have for what the Biblical global flood would have done?

The Biblical myth + scientific knowledge of floods.

Are you TRYING to make your viewpoint look as nonsensical as it is?

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
Souls have weight .. 21 grams Experiment 30 min Elganned 15
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) 31 min THOUGHTS 1,863
SEX did not EVOLVE (Nov '17) 33 min Simon 267
Can the universe be God's brain? (Jun '07) 2 hr Simon 115
Beauty is the Lord's Golden Section 2 hr Davidjayjordan 15
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr Regolith Based Li... 95,409
List what words of Jesus (the Creator) you evol... Jun 20 Rose_NoHo 106