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

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

There are 151410 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.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#135860 Jul 18, 2014
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
I wouldn't want to besmirch his parents, but perhaps there is a familial history of schizophrenia? Perhaps the discussion of genetics and inherited traits is more personally relevant than he realizes.
Or I suppose he was hit in the head too often as a lad and/or frequented one too many acid parties in his wild and rebellious youth...?

As illegal drugs go I think LSD is probably the safest think you can take.... if supervised an on a low floor.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#135861 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.

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.

Way too easy.

Anyone still not accept the projection interpretation?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#135862 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.

Do you even realize that our side has been saying this for 3 YEARS!?!?!?!?

Welcome to the party..... 3 years late.

Dumbass.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#135863 Jul 18, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
We do not have Everest growth measurement data from 4500 ya?

You are not technically savvy?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#135864 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.

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.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#135865 Jul 18, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Please provide some data/references.

This answer is only a google search away. One wonders why you are afraid to look into it yourself.

I know why. Do you?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#135866 Jul 18, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
What's the resolution of that surface exposue dating method?

Even if it is 10,000 years it still refutes the flood. Are you technically savvy enought to discern why?

I bet not.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#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.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#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.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#135870 Jul 18, 2014

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#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.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#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.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#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.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#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?

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 Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 2 min THE LONE WORKER 200,944
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr replaytime 40,135
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 2 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
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) Jul 18 UneducatedBlacks69 1,748
More from around the web