Why do Darwinists spend time debating with Creationists and believers in Intelligent Design?

[alang1216]

More evidence that you are WACKO. Why don't you check it out for yourself? The problem is that it is too SOPHISTICATED for you so you FAIL.

Anyway, I'll use it for the time being against those who think they know evolution such as abu afak, Fort Fun Indiana, alang1216, zaangalewa and more.

I'll tell you what Hollie. If it mentions a flat Earth or hell, then you'll be the first to know lmao.

What website?

 

[Ivan88]

BEST MOST PERFECT EXPLANATION OF HOW THINGS HAVE DEVELOPED OVER THE LAST MILLION YEARS OR SO.

 

[james bond]

What website?

It's UC Berkeley's website where I learned evolution in the late 70s -- Understanding Evolution - Your one-stop source for information on evolution. Where did you learn it?

Here's what it says about mountains we were discussing:

"Mountains were built in catastrophic instants, and in the process whole groups of animals became extinct and were replaced by new species."

It does not recognize the global flood, but gets it mixed up with uniformitarianism.

 

[alang1216]

It's UC Berkeley's website where I learned evolution in the late 70s -- Understanding Evolution - Your one-stop source for information on evolution. Where did you learn it?

Here's what it says about mountains we were discussing:

"Mountains were built in catastrophic instants, and in the process whole groups of animals became extinct and were replaced by new species."

It does not recognize the global flood, but gets it mixed up with uniformitarianism.

I don't think it says what your quotes seems to indicate so it doesn't really support your views. Just sayn'

 

[james bond]

I don't think it says what your quotes seems to indicate so it doesn't really support your views. Just sayn'

No, it doesn't. It's an evolution website and at least it recognizes that mountains were caused by catastrophism.

What the cause was is the global flood catastrophe. What else could cause all the mountains to form at once?

 

[Grumblenuts]

It's UC Berkeley's website where I learned evolution in the late 70s

That's sad. I learned about it at home and in grade school, mid 60s. It's often difficult to imagine just how backward so much of this country remains. Actually, small wonder you're such a mess.

In American schools, the Genesis creation narrative was generally taught as the origin of the universe and of life until Darwin's scientific theories became widely accepted. While there was some immediate backlash, organized opposition did not get underway until the Fundamentalist–Modernist Controversy broke out following World War I

 

[Grumblenuts]

Why Darwinists spend time debating Creationists and believers in Intelligent Design:​

So if evolution is as established in the scientific community as the theory of gravity, why are people still arguing about it more than century and a half after Darwin proposed it? The answer lies, in large part, in the theological implications of evolutionary thinking. For many religious people, the Darwinian view of life – a panorama of brutal struggle and constant change – conflicts with both the biblical creation story and the Judeo-Christian concept of an active, loving God who intervenes in human events.

Darwin in America

Almost 160 years after Charles Darwin publicized his groundbreaking theory on the development of life, Americans are still arguing about evolution. In spite of the fact that evolutionary theory is accepted by all but a small number of scientists, it continues to be rejected by many Americans.

www.pewforum.org

 

[Hollie]

It's UC Berkeley's website where I learned evolution in the late 70s -- Understanding Evolution - Your one-stop source for information on evolution. Where did you learn it?

Here's what it says about mountains we were discussing:

"Mountains were built in catastrophic instants, and in the process whole groups of animals became extinct and were replaced by new species."

It does not recognize the global flood, but gets it mixed up with uniformitarianism.

Does the site go on to recognize their getting mixed up about uniformitarianism?

During the few thousand years after the flood, where did these new animals come from that replaced those whole groups that became extinct?

Why would the gods arbitrarily wipeout entire species during their mountain excursions only to replace them with new species? Were the old ones of faulty design?

​

 

[Hollie]

No, it doesn't. It's an evolution website and at least it recognizes that mountains were caused by catastrophism.

What the cause was is the global flood catastrophe. What else could cause all the mountains to form at once?

Why would floods cause mountains?

 

[alang1216]

No, it doesn't. It's an evolution website and at least it recognizes that mountains were caused by catastrophism.

What the cause was is the global flood catastrophe. What else could cause all the mountains to form at once?

I still don't understand why you think all the mountain formed at once? The Appalachians and Rockies are very different ages.

 

[james bond]

I still don't understand why you think all the mountain formed at once? The Appalachians and Rockies are very different ages.

Why do you think these two mountain ranges are very different ages?

Anyway, the website has been updated and maintained. It didn't have "Mountains were built in catastrophic instants, and in the process whole groups of animals became extinct and were replaced by new species" before.

It should be mountains were built in a catastrophic instant by a global flood. If creationists were teaching creation science in public schools, then this would be accepted theory. The catastrophic instant fits the global flood and replaced by new species, Alfred Wegener's continental drift theory, plate tectonics, one land mass breaking into seven, the mountains and fountains of the deep or the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. The argument for short vs. long-time would go on, but more dino fossils should be found with soft tissue and C-14 remaining.

I said you're too focused on one thing and miss the forest. You have lost sight of the forest and what I've been telling you with catastrophism. All the animals living died such as dinosaurs and new or younger species took their place. Your previous Chicxulub wasn't enough of a catastrophe. Was it the only asteroid or large meteor of such significance to hit the Earth?

 

[james bond]

Why would floods cause mountains?

Just let it go. You have water on the brain.

 

[Hollie]

Just let it go. You have water on the brain.

That was quite a sidestep. How would a flood just a few thousand years ago account for mountain ranges we see today? Water erosion doesn't cut through tens of thousands of feet of rock in one month.

How do you account for the vast diffences in ages of various mountain ranges across the the globe flat earth?

 

[james bond]

That's sad. I learned about it at home and in grade school, mid 60s. It's often difficult to imagine just how backward so much of this country remains. Actually, small wonder you're such a mess.

It goes to show your knowledge is stuck in the 60s while I'm going over the updates here. I've said I'll use my website versus the evolutionists here who I thought were wrong about evolution. Now, it's evo vs evo.

I bet you didn't even know about the exoplanets.

 

[james bond]

That was quite a sidestep. How would a flood just a few thousand years ago account for mountain ranges we see today? Water erosion doesn't cut through tens of thousands of feet of rock in one month.

How do you account for the vast diffences in ages of various mountain ranges across the the globe flat earth?

I'll open this up to discussion as you had the misfortune of being water logged in the brain.

"In such cases, we can date the fossil-bearing layers relative to one another using other lines of evidence and reasoning. For example, in the vast majority of strata studied, rock layers containing ammonite fossils are found beneath rock layers containing dinosaur fossils. Because of this, scientists are quite confident that ammonites died out before dinosaurs arose."

What are ammonite fossils? They're marine fossils.

Where's Grumblenuts? What's his explanation from the 60s?

 

[Hollie]

I'll open this up to discussion as you had the misfortune of being water logged in the brain.

"In such cases, we can date the fossil-bearing layers relative to one another using other lines of evidence and reasoning. For example, in the vast majority of strata studied, rock layers containing ammonite fossils are found beneath rock layers containing dinosaur fossils. Because of this, scientists are quite confident that ammonites died out before dinosaurs arose."

What are ammonite fossils? They're marine fossils.

Where's Grumblenuts? What's his explanation from the 60s?

When you cut and paste material, it's in good form to attribute the source.

We're back to my earlier questions you tried to sidestep.

"How would a flood just a few thousand years ago account for mountain ranges we see today? Water erosion doesn't cut through tens of thousands of feet of rock in one month.

How do you account for the vast diffences in ages of various mountain ranges across the the globe flat earth?"

 

[Grumblenuts]

I'll open this up to discussion as you had the misfortune of being water logged in the brain.

"In such cases, we can date the fossil-bearing layers relative to one another using other lines of evidence and reasoning. For example, in the vast majority of strata studied, rock layers containing ammonite fossils are found beneath rock layers containing dinosaur fossils. Because of this, scientists are quite confident that ammonites died out before dinosaurs arose."

What are ammonite fossils? They're marine fossils.

Where's Grumblenuts? What's his explanation from the 60s?

Sorry, young fella, still not seeing anything relating to "How would a flood just a few thousand years ago account for mountain ranges we see today? Water erosion doesn't cut through tens of thousands of feet of rock in one month."

Far as making giant presumptive leaps based upon one type of fossil, how do you account for the immortal, ubiquitous nature of tardigrades? Kleiner Wasserbär! {Not to mention, a flat Earth?}

 

[Grumblenuts]

What are ammonite fossils? They're marine fossils.

No idea, but that thing appears to have formed much like a marine shell or landlubber snail -- growing in accord with Nature's golden ratio, i.e. Aether driven. Otherwise.. I see precious little even suggestive of "Intelligence" behind the "Design," nor of "life" for that matter.

 

[james bond]

Sorry, young fella, still not seeing anything relating to "How would a flood just a few thousand years ago account for mountain ranges we see today? Water erosion doesn't cut through tens of thousands of feet of rock in one month."

Far as making giant presumptive leaps based upon one type of fossil, how do you account for the immortal, ubiquitous nature of tardigrades? Kleiner Wasserbär! {Not to mention, a flat Earth?}

As usual, you have no explanation, flat Earther.

What about tardigrades Kleiner Wasserbar?

The flood is not explained in my evo website as I've already said. Do you have water in the brain, too?

'Numerical dating relies on radioactive elements, such as uranium, potassium, rubidium and carbon. Radioactive elements decay, or convert to a non-radioactive form, at rates that scientists have carefully observed. If you know how long it takes for a radioactive element to decay, and you measure how much of the element is left in a sample, you can work out how old the sample is. Fossils less than about 50,000 years old can be dated directly using their radioactive carbon content, but for the most part, fossils themselves cannot be dated directly based on radioactive elements. However, we can use this method to date volcanic ashes or other igneous rocks (rocks that form directly from the crystallization of molten rock) to constrain the age of older fossils. For example, by dating volcanic ash layers both above and below a fossil-bearing layer, as shown in the diagram at the top of the page, you can determine that the fossil trilobites are “older than 520, but younger than 545 million years.” Geologists have assembled the ages for the geological timescale on the basis of numerical dating of rocks from around the world.'

Chronology

evolution.berkeley.edu

 

[Grumblenuts]

Far more interesting than imagining how warm, gooey gobs of inorganic material may have "grown" into snail-suggestive rocks over perhaps millennia:

Icy waters of 'Snowball Earth' may have spurred early organisms to grow bigger

A new study tackles one of the oldest questions in the history of the planet: How did living organisms get so big?

www.colorado.edu

Simpson said that modern-day bacteria and other single-celled organisms move around in aquatic environments using two different sets of tools: There are cilia—which are wavy, hair-like projections—and flagella—think the “tails” on sperm cells. Both of these tools would have been painfully slow in frigid ocean conditions, his results show.

If individual cells joined forces to make a bigger organism, in contrast, they could produce a lot more swimming power while keeping the energy needs of each cell low.

That goes a long way toward answering why snails may bother growing at all. But one might then wonder why snails only get so big? One answer could be that a crab inevitably happens along, dips its claw into the snail's milkshake, and sucks it up,.. sometimes even stealing its shell for protection from bigger threats,.. like lobsters..