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

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

There are 164681 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

#136328 Jul 23, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Now I have some questions for you:
1) how do you manage to bluntly ask all people here to provide a quote of you stating there is no physical evidence for a global flood, while we ALL know that you said the things Wondering took the effort to refer to;
2) how come that you say such things and later deny it having said;
3) how does that work, deceit? I want to know. I want to know the psychology behind it. Is it desperation? Is it "desperate needs lead to desperate deeds"? Is it your way to cope with cognitive dissonance? Or did you just forgot having said that? Entangled in your own clutter of endless tattles?
4) how do you manage to just let slip Wondering's post away as if nothing happened? After having asked several persons first?
I do not know if you realize it, but most people are constantly indicating that you are lying, using word weasels, word twisting etc. Doesn't that ring you a bell?
1) Wondering refered to me stating I know of no physical evidence for a global flood. I did not state such a thing.
2) I didn't state it.
3) I didn't state what was asserted.
4) What Wandering post have I let slip? I responded to the one I think you're referencing.

What I realize is that most (all?) of you have had your bells rung. Your post leading to this response is prime evidence.
KAB

United States

#136329 Jul 23, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
1) Quote 1:“So if we calculate the time that passed between the point where God shut the door of the Ark until God commanded them to leave it:= 1 Year 0 Months 10 Days”
2) Quote 2:“It then began to rain for 40 days and nights.”
3) Quote 3:“After it rained that 40 days and nights, the waters prevailed on the earth for another 150 days”
4) Quote 4:“The waters continued to recede for a little over 2 months more, until on the 1st day of the 10th month, the tops of the mountains were exposed.”
You do the counting.
Why did you ask?
What is its relevance?
Well, I grant you the full year.
Let's do the calculation again, assuming the water took a full year to recede.
The result is: 489,659 km3 EACH HOUR, That is 122,000 times more water displacement than all rivers in the world discharge in the oceans.
Thanks for the calculation demonstrating the importance of providing confirming data for assertions, in this case confirming yours was incorrect. Now it's time for a recalculation of the volume/depth of water involved.
KAB

United States

#136330 Jul 23, 2014
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Classic projection and a lie to one and all.
You have several times tried to provide step by step analysis of the simple buoyancy of a suction cup or an ice cube frozen to a glass. Those dynamics are well understood by all. You have always bailed in the face of taking the next step to admit it does not apply in the wholly dissimilar scale and conditions of glaciers and ice sheets.
The suction cup and ice-frozen-to-glass dynamics are not well understood by your side. You still think the full buoyant force is present but just being overcome by other factors. You are incorrect. If you will join me in completing the step-by-step point-by-point elemental force vector analysis, I will demonstrate your error to you with you in full agreement. How can you turn down such an offer?

BTW, have you read the independent bottom buoyancy analysis reference I provided?
KAB

United States

#136331 Jul 23, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
And how high were the mountains 4,500 years ago according to the geological evidence?
To prevent word weaselry.
Coupling the geological evidence with a uniformitarian assumption, 4500 ya the mountains would have been about the same height as they are now.
KAB

United States

#136332 Jul 23, 2014
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
The question of was there ever a global-flood has been settled science for ages....can we move on to the 'Exodus' or the 'Tower of Babel?'
Pretty please :o)
We can move to whatever you want. Doing so won't make the global flood question settled. Science, as practiced, has been known to be incorrect on occasion.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#136333 Jul 23, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The suction cup and ice-frozen-to-glass dynamics are not well understood by your side. You still think the full buoyant force is present but just being overcome by other factors. You are incorrect. If you will join me in completing the step-by-step point-by-point elemental force vector analysis, I will demonstrate your error to you with you in full agreement. How can you turn down such an offer?
BTW, have you read the independent bottom buoyancy analysis reference I provided?
Ummm.....wrong (again).

http://units.aps.org/units/fed/newsletters/sp...

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#136334 Jul 23, 2014
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
When was that? Provide the original post # that brought up the Pingualuit/Quebec/Chubb crater and the original post # that linked the paper. The reality is that you are still Mr. Dataless Assertion personified.

I don't doubt I was the first to list the paper, but I did not bring up the subject.

I think he 'misunderheard'* me.



* you can learn some great words from 12 year olds.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#136335 Jul 23, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
1) Wondering refered to me stating I know of no physical evidence for a global flood. I did not state such a thing.

You have stated such a thing. This looks like repression.

KAB wrote:
<quoted text>2) I didn't state it.
Incorrect. Either a repression or a lie.

KAB wrote:
<quoted text>3) I didn't state what was asserted.
Incorrect. See above.

KAB wrote:
<quoted text>4) What Wandering post have I let slip? I responded to the one I think you're referencing.
What I realize is that most (all?) of you have had your bells rung. Your post leading to this response is prime evidence.

This is either a lie or delusional.


As I have stated, I do not really think you are a liar, per say.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#136337 Jul 23, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for the calculation demonstrating the importance of providing confirming data for assertions, in this case confirming yours was incorrect. Now it's time for a recalculation of the volume/depth of water involved.

Translation: T.Boy trashed me with the facts and I have nothing; I therefore demand a recount.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#136338 Jul 23, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
We can move to whatever you want. Doing so won't make the global flood question settled. Science, as practiced, has been known to be incorrect on occasion.
As have you.

The global flood is settled science to all but the delusionals.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#136339 Jul 23, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The suction cup and ice-frozen-to-glass dynamics are not well understood by your side. You still think the full buoyant force is present but just being overcome by other factors. You are incorrect. If you will join me in completing the step-by-step point-by-point elemental force vector analysis, I will demonstrate your error to you with you in full agreement. How can you turn down such an offer?
BTW, have you read the independent bottom buoyancy analysis reference I provided?

Incorrect.
Incorrect.
Already done. You lost. Remember, I gave the math.
You can't or you already would have.
I did the experiment.

BTW, If you put a buoyant straw (capped at both ends) vertical at the bottom of a tub of water and release it, which end gets to the surface first? The bottom of the straw or the top?

Why is that?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#136340 Jul 23, 2014
Dogen wrote:
You have stated such a thing. This looks like repression.
I believe he word weaseled in the word "confirming" which - to fruitloop alone - is significant.
Dogen wrote:
This is either a lie or delusional.
Or both.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#136341 Jul 23, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Coupling the geological evidence with a uniformitarian assumption, 4500 ya the mountains would have been about the same height as they are now.

How long before you deny saying this.

Catastrophism, the alternate assumption to the uniformitarian view, has been widely discredited.
For example the refutation of the global flood in the 1800's.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#136342 Jul 23, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
We can move to whatever you want. Doing so won't make the global flood question settled. Science, as practiced, has been known to be incorrect on occasion.

Science seldom moves backward. New ideas win out over older ideas which, in turn, won out over still older ideas. It does not move backward.

The global flood quesion is settled. Remember: I have 14 independent refutations which you have been unable to seriously dispute. 1 refutation is all that is needed. I have accumulated (just from this forum and your arguments) 14 seperate refutations.

There is not a chance that the global flood actually happened.
KAB

United States

#136343 Jul 23, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
FOR GOD'S OR ANYONE'S SAKE HERE, stop tattling and READ about it.
STOP talking and tattling about things you have no understanding of.
Now, HOW MANY persons already have said this on your flea fucking rubbish about the cosmogenic clock. TRINGELINGELING. The bell is ringing. DO SOMETHING with those hints.
And just don't continue to march to the next embarrassment.
Regarding embarrassment, I see you apparently can't address the content of the reference. That's understandable since you don't have a technical background. I do understand the reference, and one year of quartz immersion in water would not dissolve enough of the surface to reset a tens of millions of years cosmogenic clock reading to virtually zero. Isn't it great how data can confirm things?!!! Well, maybe it's not working so well for your side.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#136344 Jul 23, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>Regarding embarrassment, I see you apparently can't address the content of the reference. That's understandable since you don't have a technical background. I do understand the reference, and one year of quartz immersion in water would not dissolve enough of the surface to reset a tens of millions of years cosmogenic clock reading to virtually zero. Isn't it great how data can confirm things?!!! Well, maybe it's not working so well for your side.
{head/desk}

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#136345 Jul 23, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The suction cup and ice-frozen-to-glass dynamics are not well understood by your side. You still think the full buoyant force is present but just being overcome by other factors. You are incorrect. If you will join me in completing the step-by-step point-by-point elemental force vector analysis, I will demonstrate your error to you with you in full agreement. How can you turn down such an offer?
BTW, have you read the independent bottom buoyancy analysis reference I provided?
They and it are perfectly well understood by "my side." You just refuse to face all of the other overwhelming factors because it would shatter your position like an icicle striking pavement from a 10 story building. Not very honest of you, but it's been made frequently and abundantly clear nobody expects you to be honest and forthright. Even other Christians have occasionally remarked on it, so it isn't about "sides". Do you ever wonder why this is the widely held opinion of you?

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#136346 Jul 23, 2014
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't doubt I was the first to list the paper, but I did not bring up the subject.
I think he 'misunderheard'* me.
* you can learn some great words from 12 year olds.
Note that I asked for two post numbers. One that brought up the crater and the other for the subsequent documentation about it. "Misunderheard" or "misunderread" denotes accidental happenstance with an erratic outcome. KAB's brain filter >always< tries to do so in a fortuitous and deliberate manner benefiting his agenda.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#136347 Jul 23, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Regarding embarrassment, I see you apparently can't address the content of the reference. That's understandable since you don't have a technical background. I do understand the reference, and one year of quartz immersion in water would not dissolve enough of the surface to reset a tens of millions of years cosmogenic clock reading to virtually zero. Isn't it great how data can confirm things?!!! Well, maybe it's not working so well for your side.

OMG. You are so stupid. Read a book.

Not even relevant!

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#136348 Jul 23, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The suction cup and ice-frozen-to-glass dynamics are not well understood by your side. You still think the full buoyant force is present but just being overcome by other factors. You are incorrect. If you will join me in completing the step-by-step point-by-point elemental force vector analysis, I will demonstrate your error to you with you in full agreement. How can you turn down such an offer?
BTW, have you read the independent bottom buoyancy analysis reference I provided?
Don't do it Turkana. Its a trap.

You mean that link that goes no where. How does one read a link that goes no where?

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 7 min MADRONE 83,094
Post your Bible Science Verses that show Evolut... 2 hr Eagle 12 - 83
Golden Section in our DNA again proves DESIGN 3 hr Regolith Based Li... 25
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 8 hr Science 2,565
Bible 'Science' Verses opposing the Evolution R... 11 hr Science 120
Evolution is boring as Hell 11 hr Science 4
The worst enemies of Creationism are "religioni... 11 hr Science 22
More from around the web