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

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

There are 151481 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

United States

#136175 Jul 21, 2014
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
While it is entirely possible the writers meant something different in each case, it does not make the mythology entirely possible. Far more likely, they were just adhering to dialectic sentence structure and syntax. Nothing Earth shaking about that. LITERALLY.
Demonstrably possible is sufficient.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#136176 Jul 21, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It seems the only thing you don't have is confirming data, but not to worry, that's only the most important part!
DON'T LIE.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#136177 Jul 21, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Provide a post with me misrepresenting you, or you will be considered incorrect, again.
I really don't give a crap whether a confirmed liar considers me correct or not.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#136178 Jul 21, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
what a jackass wagon. just because your family is full of idiots, whores and losers doesn't mean everyone's is. the point being parents have kids everyday, many knowing their kids will suffer from lifelong(or a short life) illnesses and/or problems. they have them anyways with the hope and belief they will get better or something will help them to get better.
Was that supposed to be directed at me?
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#136179 Jul 21, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It seems likely the alluvial fan buried the clock rather than reset it.
By this very tiny sentence you ONCE MORE demonstrate you don't have the SLIGHTEST understanding of science, in this case geology. ONCE MORE.
KAB

United States

#136180 Jul 21, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Genesis 6:6
"The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled."
You would have thought the dude would have seen this coming. Being all-knowing.
YHWH is only as knowing as the context of the entire Bible taken as a whole presents him.
I think the typical "all knowing" concept is a doctrine concocted by humans apart from the Bible, as is true of many cherished doctrines.
KAB

United States

#136181 Jul 21, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Aren't you the sharp one now.
So far I always have been. Buoyancy anyone? Why haven't you commented on the independent bottom buoyancy reference I provided?
KAB

United States

#136182 Jul 21, 2014
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
What is that post #, again? I'm vaguely almost interested in seeing exactly what you've intentionally misunderstood.
Ask MF. It was his post.
wondering

Morris, OK

#136183 Jul 21, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Provide a quote of me stating there is no physical evidence for a global flood.
2. I meant to state that I disagree that evolution is a fact, depending of what you mean by evolution. Specifically, I agree life varies over time. We have direct data observations for that.
4. I can reason that Everest was likely not flat 4500 ybp, but I don't know of any confirming data.
you saying on many occasions that you do not know of any physical evidence for a global flood is a good enough statement. you don't know of any which means there is none to be known or by hell and high water you would find it.

"I don't know of any physical evidence confirming a global flood"

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

Morris, OK

#136184 Jul 21, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Was that supposed to be directed at me?
was it a reply that was posted to you?

by the way this one is a reply and posted to you too!
KAB

United States

#136185 Jul 21, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Speaking of confirming data, where's yours? Oh, that;'s right. You don't have any, do you? Just a bunch of maybes, ifs, couldas and might bes. Must really, really suck to be so completely devoid of both data and analytical skills.
By the way, the supporting reference on Everest were given to you previously. I'd give them to you again but you just lie about in a week or so just as you are now.
Supporting Everest references for what? I doubt it's 4500 ybp height measurements.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#136186 Jul 21, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Supporting Everest references for what? I doubt it's 4500 ybp height measurements.
Addressing things not having been said and evading the things that have been said.
Dishonest AS ALWAYS.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#136187 Jul 21, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Ask MF. It was his post.
MF has answered on that.
Already forgotten.
WE DIDN'T.
Dishonest AGAIN.
Lying, cheating and DECEIT.
Notorious habit of creationism.
That comes automatically when you want to superimpose bronze age caboodle on 21st century reality.
That per definition ends up in lying and deceit.
And living in fa├žades. Of possible global floods that might could have be possible if the evidence could have been not on something else than the flood.

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#136188 Jul 21, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
"...need not be..."
"...could..."
Was it painful when you pulled this chunk of nonsense out of your ass?
You know I think airlines could save money by skipping those inspections of planes. It is possible that they will never have a problem.
KAB

United States

#136189 Jul 21, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's have a look, shall we?
Here's Kong_'s post again, I shall address it sentence by sentence:
<quoted text>
Without doubt plainly correct, Wkipedia: "Surface exposure dating is a collection of geochronological techniques for estimating the length of time that a rock has been exposed at or near Earth's surface." Surface exposure dating is a synonym of Cosmogenic Exposure Dating.
<quoted text>
There are three assertions here:
1) The samples tested were from "EROSION-SENSITIVE LANDFORMS"
2) a world-wide flood would absolutely cause MASSIVE erosion, and:
3) the exposure dating would have read '4500 ybp', instead of the MILLIONS of years that the tests actually showed.
As follows:
1) the referring to erosion-sensitive landforms is even in the title of the article: http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/33/4/321.f... . Hence this seems to me a correct reference.
2) ANY flood will cause considerable erosion. Not a single flood ever has been observed which doesn't cause erosion. When 4,289,411,299 km3 (needed to inundate the whole earth) is draining away in just 185 days, each HOUR 966,000 km3 water drains away. All that water will stream to the lowest points, ever concentrating. To put it in perspective: the total water transported by ALL rivers worldwide to the sea is 35,000 km3 PER YEAR. The flood causes a water transport of about 10,075 times the total water transfer to the sea by all worldwide rivers. Now river cause A LOT of erosion. The rives worldwide alone produce 15 to 20 billion tons of sediments each year (see http://cmbc.ucsd.edu/content/1/docs/Milliman_... ).
In existing deserts water erosion (after precipitation) causes all kinds of stream channels, gullies, carved hillsides and tall spires.
Hence, everything correct here.
3) seems to be correct too. A worldwide flood will show a run off of water frm the Andes nearby slopes, covering at least a considerable part of the desert by sediments and leaving erosion marks (see 2). On many spots the soil then should have been an age of 4,500 years. But there is NO spot in the desert where such ages are measured, apart from the:
4) alluvial fans. These are indeed "... fan- or cone-shaped deposits of sediment crossed and built up by streams". "Alluvial fans are often found in desert areas subject to periodic flash floods from nearby thunderstorms in local hills." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alluvial_fan
These fans in Atacama are dated to be 12,000 years old though and proven to be created by flash floods by thunderstorms in the Andes slopes.
Everything correct here.
Did any of the floods considered involve water at the same level everywhere with no place to flow? Where did you get the 4,289,411,299 km3 inundating the whole Earth and the 185 days of draining? After you clarify/confirm these points we'll see if everything is correct here.

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#136190 Jul 21, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
So far I always have been. Buoyancy anyone? Why haven't you commented on the independent bottom buoyancy reference I provided?
You don't understand buoyancy. You believe you do. You don't.

You are lying about the reference. You posted a link three or four times that goes no where.

It is possible that you are wrong about the flood. So therefore, there was no flood.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#136191 Jul 21, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Did any of the floods considered involve water at the same level everywhere with no place to flow? Where did you get the 4,289,411,299 km3 inundating the whole Earth and the 185 days of draining? After you clarify/confirm these points we'll see if everything is correct here.
1) irrelevant question evading the elementary flood dynamics. Learn geology. Evading also the point I made. I was (deliberately) talking of the water receding in the aftermath of the flood. So for arguing convenience I left away the onset of the flood, which also will cause massive water displacements.
2) the bible (exceeding all mountains with some cubits) and the rest is 4/3*Pi^2*r calculation, taking the current radius r1 at ocean level (=current water level) and the radius r2 when the earth is inundated with flood water exceeding the highest mountain, calculate both volumes and subtract the volume with r=r2 from the volume with r=r1.
3) the bible: http://beyondflannelgraph.wordpress.com/the-f... .

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#136192 Jul 21, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Given their present mind-set, if I had Dogen's and Dan's backing, I couldn't live like that!
We have tried to help you live like a normal, objective, reasonable, rational thinking person. It is clear you can't live like that and you agree.

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#136193 Jul 21, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Did any of the floods considered involve water at the same level everywhere with no place to flow? Where did you get the 4,289,411,299 km3 inundating the whole Earth and the 185 days of draining? After you clarify/confirm these points we'll see if everything is correct here.
You had better clarify your position, you could be wrong.

Get back to us when you have clarified your position.

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#136194 Jul 21, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
So far I always have been. Buoyancy anyone? Why haven't you commented on the independent bottom buoyancy reference I provided?
You should probably review the data. You will find the answers that show you are wrong. Failure to provide data doesn't leave us with any way to conclude you are correct. We always review data even that supplied by others.

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) 4 min ChromiuMan 204,971
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 14 min It aint necessari... 18,553
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 20 min Chimney1 43,208
Carbon and isotopic dating are a lie 50 min One way or another 6
Questions about first life 51 min MIDutch 2
evolution is correct. prove me wrong (Jul '15) 1 hr FallenGeologist 35
Current Education And Its Huge Flaws 10 hr One way or another 2
More from around the web