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

[Hollie]

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

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

I'm sure you're looking to address how it is that a month long flood carved through hundreds of thousands of feet of rock ( the flat earth is very thick, apparently), but in the mean time, from the site you linked to:

"The timing of many evolutionary and geologic events on Earth has been determined through two complementary lines of evidence: relative dating and absolute (numerical or radiometric) dating. This evidence makes it clear that life is very old and places a timescale on the pace of evolutionary change, diversification, and extinction."

Did you notice the time scales used? How can life be very old?

 

[Grumblenuts]

As usual, you have no explanation, flat Earther.

Explanation? For you? No. And sorry, "flat Earther" best describes a Bible thumping literalist like you.

What about tardigrades Kleiner Wasserbar?

Indeed!

They have been found everywhere in Earth's biosphere, from mountaintops to the deep sea and mud volcanoes,[8] and from tropical rainforests to the Antarctic.[9] Tardigrades are among the most resilient animals known,[10][11] with individual species able to survive extreme conditions — such as exposure to extreme temperatures, extreme pressures (both high and low), air deprivation, radiation, dehydration, and starvation — that would quickly kill most other known forms of life.[12] Tardigrades have survived exposure to outer space.[13][14] There are about 1,300 known species[15] in the phylum Tardigrada, a part of the superphylum Ecdysozoa consisting of animals that grow by ecdysis such as arthropods and nematodes. The earliest known true members of the group are known from Cretaceous (145 to 66 million years ago) amber, found in North America, but are essentially modern forms, and therefore likely have a significantly earlier origin, as they diverged from their closest relatives in the Cambrian, over 500 million years ago.

 

[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.

The mountains ranges are made of marine fossils and we have them at the top such as clam fossils on top of Mt. Everest.

I found a Mr. Nicholas Steno, the father of paleontology in my website. He was a creationist. Just can't keep a great scientist down.

"

Fossils and the Birth of Paleontology: Nicholas Steno​

If one day in history had to be picked as the birth of paleontology, it might be the day in 1666 when two fishermen caught a giant shark off the coast of Livorno in Italy. The local duke ordered that this curiosity be sent to Niels Stensen (better known as Steno), a Danish anatomist working at the time in Florence. As Steno dissected the shark, he was struck by how much the shark teeth resembled “tongue stones,” triangular pieces of rock that had been known since ancient times.

Today, most people would instantly wonder whether the tongue stones were giant petrified shark teeth, but in 1666 such a presumption was a tremendous leap. Few could imagine how living matter could be turned to stone, and beyond that, encased in solid rock—especially if the rock were well above sea level and contained remnants of a marine organism. Fossils were instead thought to have fallen from the sky, or to be “sports of nature”—peculiar geometrical shapes impressed on the rocks themselves."

Fossils and the Birth of Paleontology: Nicholas Steno

evolution.berkeley.edu

 

[Colin norris]

Is there any scientific theory, other than evolution, where the scientists who promote it spend their time debating with people who make religion-based arguments that said scientific theory cannot be true?

I haven't seen any scientists as a whole debating the godbotherers.

I think not.

Imagine there was a religion that taught that God had made the world flat.

There was at one time

Would planetologists spend time debating with the proponents of the Flat Earth religion?

No, they would not.

Why wouldn't they if they knew different?

Imagine there was a religion that taught that God had made the Moon out of cheese.

I'm not sure if there ever was but it wouldn't be beyond those delusional jesus junkies.

Would astronomers spend time debating with the proponents of the Moon is Cheese religion?

Absolutely, no.

Imagine there was a religion that taught that the entire universe was nothing more than an imaginary construct in the Mind of God?

No. Can't imagine anyone that silly.

Would astrophysicists seek out the believers in this Universe is the Mind of God religion to convince them they were wrong?

No because they don't seek out anyone. They simply find and test their finds, release it to the public and you can believe it or not. They don't care.

No.

Then why is it that Darwinists are constantly engaged in endless debates with Creationists and promoters of Intelligent Design in a pointless effort to convince them they are mistaken?

There is no doubt evolution is a fact and can be proven with DNA and fossils.
Darwinists do not engage in those debates. Its the creationists who feel they are doing gods work to recruit all those recalcitrant intelligent atheists.
Its pointless alright. Science and physics are not wrong about evolution but you nuts won't believe it. Thats the problem

And -- here's the thing, I admit that I myself have expressed doubts about Darwinism on this forum because (1) I find it interesting that a scientific theory is defended by its proponents with the same zeal as a religion,

its not a theory. The testing if Darwins findings is way past that silly suggestion.
Again they don't have to defend fact. I don't care if you believe a lie for the rest of your life. Knock yourself out son but its still a lie.

and (2) I find it amusing to watch Darwinism's zealous defenders get upset when I express the slightest doubt that their beloved scientific theory might not be true.

Not me comrade. You ask me anything you chose about religious facts and ill prove you wrong.

So -- what's really at stake in this debate?

It's not about science. Not at all.

It us about the truth and religion doesn't get a ticket. Its absurd for mature human beings in the 21st century to believing in some celestial dictatorship that could troll everything. Its bloody kid stuff

The debate between Darwinists and Creationists/Promoters of Intelligent Design is a debate about God and his role in creating the universe.

You cannot name one instance with irrefutable evidence that God had any input into the creation of the universe. I'll wait here.

Both sides of the argument believe that if Darwinism is accepted as true, God's role in the creation of the universe is disproven, ergo: there is no God.

Thats correct and until you can prove Darwin findings wrong, there is no god. Not only is there no god, there is no reason for one.

With the belief in the existence of God at stake, both sides fight fiercely because no issue can be more important to the human race than that.

Your problem is faith based. Faith does not equate to fact and never will.

Both sides of the debate believe that if Darwinism is true, and God doesn't exist, life is a struggle where the strong prey on the weak,

That is not true. Evolution is a very cruel taskmaster, inferior species not adapted to their surroundings will succumb to that environment and die out. The opposite will progress to breeding superior offspring.

and there is no room for mercy because the weak should die out. This philosophy is called Social Darwinism, it is the belief system that inspired Adolph Hitler and his Nazis.

That is your biggest piece of bullshit so far. There is no connection between Darwinism and Hitler whatsoever. Dont attempt to link the two because of your filthy religion. WE up to yourself.

I believe there is a middle ground.

Darwinism is true, but God exists and had a hand in the universe's creation.

There is ample evidence for evolution buy no evidence for the existence of a god nor is it needed.
science can give the ONLY plausible explanation why we are here and God does not get a look in because it doesn't exist.

The story of creation in the Book of Genesis teaches us important religious truths about God, man, and our role in the universe, but was not intended by its authors to teach science.

What you call religious truths have been found to be bullshit from the start.
No one believes in immaculate conceptions etc and the religious books are full of impossible scenarios.
When those lies were written they didn't know what a universe was. Next you'll be saying gid helped build the internet.

Social Darwinism is a wicked philosophy when applied to relationships between humans, and the role of government in the lives of humans.

its got nothing to do with any government. In fact evolution proceeded any government on earth. Humans are a child of evolution. Just because you can't accept it, there's is no reason to fabricate scenarios where it damages human life etc tgsts ridiculous.

Social Darwinism inspired a genocide that cost the lives of millions of humans under the Nazi regime.

That is a complete ignorant lie and you know it. You are becoming delusional with the God crap and obviously are of low iq.

That, I believe, is the correct position.

no doubt you do but its nobody's fault you are wrong. You had your chance to research facts but your inherited ignorance forbids you. Youre still frightened some ghost will punish you for straying from the fold. Get a grip on yourself.

If I had the power, I would end this endless debate between the Darwinists and the Creationists/Promoters of Intelligent Design by saying: "You are both right -- but you are also both wrong. The theory of evolution and belief in God can co-exist."

Science and mankind have been tolerating stupid godbotherers since time began to argue about this.
Religion still rely on a 2000 year old book full of proven myths and lies. The only thing in it which is correct are the page numbers.
In years to come Science will discover things you gave never dreamt of about the universe and beyond. New medici es and equipment to help mankind.
But not religion. Youre still stuck on that filthy bible and Virgin births etc.
Youve never received one benefit in your life from Religion, not even life itself. That was evolution.

 

[Hollie]

As usual, you have no explanation, flat Earther.

The mountains ranges are made of marine fossils and we have them at the top such as clam fossils on top of Mt. Everest.

I found a Mr. Nicholas Steno, the father of paleontology in my website. He was a creationist. Just can't keep a great scientist down.

"

Fossils and the Birth of Paleontology: Nicholas Steno​

If one day in history had to be picked as the birth of paleontology, it might be the day in 1666 when two fishermen caught a giant shark off the coast of Livorno in Italy. The local duke ordered that this curiosity be sent to Niels Stensen (better known as Steno), a Danish anatomist working at the time in Florence. As Steno dissected the shark, he was struck by how much the shark teeth resembled “tongue stones,” triangular pieces of rock that had been known since ancient times.

Today, most people would instantly wonder whether the tongue stones were giant petrified shark teeth, but in 1666 such a presumption was a tremendous leap. Few could imagine how living matter could be turned to stone, and beyond that, encased in solid rock—especially if the rock were well above sea level and contained remnants of a marine organism. Fossils were instead thought to have fallen from the sky, or to be “sports of nature”—peculiar geometrical shapes impressed on the rocks themselves."

Fossils and the Birth of Paleontology: Nicholas Steno

evolution.berkeley.edu

Why are you adding the ''creationist'' label to Nicholas Steno? Did he ever use that term to define himself?

Why do you find the need for such dishonesty? Why are you attempting to force your religious beliefs on someone else?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Nothing fishy about ancient marine fossils on Everest

A widely shared meme claims

www.aap.com.au

 

[alang1216]

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

Have you see them? One is high, sharp and angular, the other is low and well rounded. One is growing, one is eroding.

All the animals living died such as dinosaurs and new or younger species took their place.

Where did these new or younger species come from?

Your previous Chicxulub wasn't enough of a catastrophe. Was it the only asteroid or large meteor of such significance to hit the Earth?

A crater over 100 miles across wasn't enough of a catastrophe? What's that based on, the fact it isn't mentioned in the Bible?
As a history book, the Bible is very incomplete, no ice ages, no drying up of the Mediterranean Sea, etc.

 

[james bond]

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.

We find more evidence to back the Bible and I for the global flood, but from my evo website. Haven't I been saying that since I've been here? And now I am using the evo website that has been updated.

Here's another famous creation scientist, Carolus Linnaeus -- Nested Hierarchies, the Order of Nature: Carolus Linnaeus - Understanding Evolution.

"

Nested Hierarchies, the Order of Nature: Carolus Linnaeus​

Linnaeus’ system diverged from Aristotle’s vision of a Great Chain of Being, above.
Homo sapiens, Tyrannosaurus rex, Escherichia coli—our English conversation is littered with pairs of Latin names for animals, plants, and microbes. How did a dead language find this renewed life? It is the 250-year-old legacy of a Swedish naturalist’s quest to discover God’s handiwork in nature.
Image courtesy of the Swedish Museum of Natural History.
Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1798) was far from the first thinker to try to classify life. Aristotle, for example, argued that each species had a unique form and could be classified by some of its key characteristics. In the process, he organized life in a ladder-like hierarchy, with plants on the bottom, animals in the middle, and humans on top (figure, right). Medieval European scholars were guided by both Aristotle and the Bible, and they believed that nature—including all of the species on Earth—reflected God’s benevolent organization of the world."

Nested Hierarchies, the Order of Nature: Carolus Linnaeus

evolution.berkeley.edu

What do you think of his realm of Being? Did you learn that in the 60s lol?

 

[james bond]

Nothing fishy about ancient marine fossils on Everest

A widely shared meme claims

www.aap.com.au

"Instead, they support the theory of plate tectonics, with the presence of ancient sedimentary rock and marine life evidence parts of the mountain were once sea floor."

Tut, tut. We know plate tectonics from another famed creationist, Alfred Wegener, and we found clam fossils on the top of Mt. Everest. Anyway, your link admits what was once sea floor is part of the mountain which was my evidence for a global flood. The BIG ONES are 3/4 water covering Earth partly from the fountains of the deep or oceans of water from below Earth. Did you learn that in the 60s?

 

[james bond]

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

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..

This is what I found on my website for "Snowball Earth." It just seems like made up malarky. No one has any evidence billions of years ago unless they're lying. Someone made up "Snowball Earth" and someone else ran with it.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/chronozoom/CZ%20UCMP%20p.%209%20%20Earth%20and%20Life%20%20Chart%20Panel%202.pdf

 

[Hollie]

We find more evidence to back the Bible and I for the global flood, but from my evo website. Haven't I been saying that since I've been here? And now I am using the evo website that has been updated.

Here's another famous creation scientist, Carolus Linnaeus -- Nested Hierarchies, the Order of Nature: Carolus Linnaeus - Understanding Evolution.

"

Nested Hierarchies, the Order of Nature: Carolus Linnaeus​

Linnaeus’ system diverged from Aristotle’s vision of a Great Chain of Being, above.
Homo sapiens, Tyrannosaurus rex, Escherichia coli—our English conversation is littered with pairs of Latin names for animals, plants, and microbes. How did a dead language find this renewed life? It is the 250-year-old legacy of a Swedish naturalist’s quest to discover God’s handiwork in nature.
Image courtesy of the Swedish Museum of Natural History.
Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1798) was far from the first thinker to try to classify life. Aristotle, for example, argued that each species had a unique form and could be classified by some of its key characteristics. In the process, he organized life in a ladder-like hierarchy, with plants on the bottom, animals in the middle, and humans on top (figure, right). Medieval European scholars were guided by both Aristotle and the Bible, and they believed that nature—including all of the species on Earth—reflected God’s benevolent organization of the world."

Nested Hierarchies, the Order of Nature: Carolus Linnaeus

evolution.berkeley.edu

What do you think of his realm of Being? Did you learn that in the 60s lol?

It never occurred to you that science knowledge has increased since the 18th century?

You didn't notice that your "evo website" actually contradicts what you claim?

 

[james bond]

Have you see them? One is high, sharp and angular, the other is low and well rounded. One is growing, one is eroding.


Where did these new or younger species come from?


A crater over 100 miles across wasn't enough of a catastrophe? What's that based on, the fact it isn't mentioned in the Bible?
As a history book, the Bible is very incomplete, no ice ages, no drying up of the Mediterranean Sea, etc.

Why is one growing and one eroding? Are you saying from that, we know one is young and one is old? Why don't you post a link that I can look at? Do you want to me to try and find them on my evo website?

The Bible isn't being updated and isn't a history book. It's God's autobiography and explains why we are here and still here for now. The big events were 6 days of creation, original sin, the global flood, the Resurrection and the end of times. , At least, it gives us human history unlike evolution with those atheist papers people have written.

 

[james bond]

It never occurred to you that science knowledge has increased since the 18th century?

You didn't notice that your "evo website" actually contradicts what you claim?

It never occurred to you that creationists invented science. There is no doubt that we have the greatest scientists in history and still do.

What occurred to me is the atheists here know very little about evolution. I think I've proved this is true using my website. The site began in 2004.

If there are contradictions to the Bible, then the website is wrong. Pick out a few of them.

 

[alang1216]

Why is one growing and one eroding? Are you saying from that, we know one is young and one is old? Why don't you post a link that I can look at? Do you want to me to try and find them on my evo website?

Go measure them. That is but one piece of evidence. Yes, try and find them on your evo website?

The Bible isn't being updated and isn't a history book. It's God's autobiography and explains why we are here and still here for now. The big events were 6 days of creation, original sin, the global flood, the Resurrection and the end of times.

Lots of history and genealogy in the Bible.

 

[Hollie]

It never occurred to you that creationists invented science. There is no doubt that we have the greatest scientists in history and still do.

What occurred to me is the atheists here know very little about evolution. I think I've proved this is true using my website. The site began in 2004.

If there are contradictions to the Bible, then the website is wrong. Pick out a few of them.

Creationers didn't "invent science". Your extremist religionism creates some strange notions.

"Your website" contradicts your religionism. It's really odd using "your website" to refute your extremist views.

 

[james bond]

Go measure them. That is but one piece of evidence. Yes, try and find them on your evo website?


Lots of history and genealogy in the Bible.

I still don't understand what you are saying? So you can't find any links or people with the same opinion as you? There is no point for me to do anything with the Cal website if you can't explain what you are saying. Show me some pics and areas. What do you have as evidence for their ages besides looks? How much age difference between them are you saying? Anyway, what's your point anyway with comparing two mountain ranges? You were shown to be wrong with the other mountain ranges and never provided anything to back up what you said before. I won OVERWHELMING victory and you were embarrassed beyond belief. Two mountain ranges doesn't mean much to me.

 

[alang1216]

I still don't understand what you are saying? So you can't find any links or people with the same opinion as you? There is no point for me to do anything with the Cal website if you can't explain what you are saying. Show me some pics and areas. What do you have as evidence for their ages besides looks? How much age difference between them are you saying? Anyway, what's your point anyway with comparing two mountain ranges? You were shown to be wrong with the other mountain ranges and never provided anything to back up what you said before. I won OVERWHELMING victory and you were embarrassed beyond belief. Two mountain ranges doesn't mean much to me.

I love how you ignore evidence and then declare victory. I don't have the patience to give you a High School level geology course. Maybe Google can help.

 

[Grumblenuts]

What are ammonite fossils? They're marine fossils.

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

Hey, here's another idea! Let's examine your image source! What's its explanation?

"Evolution 101" -- LOL

• 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.

Gee, so not news to anyone sane and truthful who's been paying attention!
{or hey, what's 2 or 3 decimal places between friends?}

 

[Grumblenuts]

The idea that the presence of marine fossils in mountains proves the earth was once flooded has been associated with literal readings of the Biblical story of Noah and the flood, included in the book of Genesis.

However, that account flies in the face of scientific evidence, Dr Buckman said, adding that the Himalayas’ were formed millions of years before the first humans appeared on earth. It is also worth noting that many of the fossils found in the Himalayas are of long-extinct species.

Noah wasn't human?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Did you notice the time scales used? How can life be very old?

Contradicts his own source. Belligerently oblivious. James Belligerivious.