Darwinism

[Crepitus]

Hundreds of millions of years of fossils records.

Fossils don't last that long and there are no transitional ones.

Dickinsonia is the name we gave the animal which left the eldest fossil of an animal on planet Earth. This fossil is 550 million years old.

Information about this lifeform: Dickinsonia - Wikipedia

The fossil being 550 million years old is wrong.

Okay - it are 558 million years ... or 541 million years?

It can only be a few thousand of years old. Nothing lasts that long.

Australians, Russians and Germans are not convinced you are right.

1. Ilya Bobrovskiy
2. Janet M. Hope
3. Andrey Ivantsov
4. Benjamin J. Nettersheim
5. Christian Hallmann
6. Jochen J. Brocks

wrote this about Dickinsonia: Ancient steroids establish the Ediacaran fossil Dickinsonia as one of the earliest animals | Science

The fossil should be indestructible then, but they won't let you hit it with a hammer. Thus, it isn't and only a few thousand years old.

Lol!

Religious "reasoning" is funny.

 

[james bond]

Time to adjust the dosage on your anti-hysteria meds?

I haven't seen anyone ask "how is God scientific?"

It's interesting that you bring up hysteria and meds in the same sentence. Isn't that what you do daily?

I ask how God is scientific because atheist scientists go out of their way to explain science with no God. Obviously, they end up with stupid theories like millions and billions year old Earth and universe and how the egg came before the chicken. The end up with Satan's Antible of evolution which are scientific lies.

If Darwin was right about ToE, then it wouldn't take billions of years. He would not even accept 3 billion years and thus died without ever knowing how old the Earh and universe was.

 

[james bond]

Religious "reasoning" is funny.

The fact that atheists and evos believe in lies isn't funny. They have been fooled by Satan and end up in the Lake of Fire.

God and Satan must exist because all of evolution contradicts what God said about his science.

 

[Hollie]

Time to adjust the dosage on your anti-hysteria meds?

I haven't seen anyone ask "how is God scientific?"

It's interesting that you bring up hysteria and meds in the same sentence. Isn't that what you do daily?

I ask how God is scientific because atheist scientists go out of their way to explain science with no God. Obviously, they end up with stupid theories like millions and billions year old Earth and universe and how the egg came before the chicken. The end up with Satan's Antible of evolution which are scientific lies.

If Darwin was right about ToE, then it wouldn't take billions of years. He would not even accept 3 billion years and thus died without ever knowing how old the Earh and universe was.

Explaining science absent gods is the rational way to explain science. Identify how your gods influence the entirely natural world.

As you have some rather odd notions relative to Charles Darwin and some rather quaint notions of a 6.000 year old planet, we'll have to take things in small steps to explain a reality based worldview.

 

[Crepitus]

Religious "reasoning" is funny.

The fact that atheists and evos believe in lies isn't funny. They have been fooled by Satan and end up in the Lake of Fire.

God and Satan must exist because all of evolution contradicts what God said about his science.

Ummmm....

Whut?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The anglo-american discussion "evolution vs creation" is unfortunatelly one of the most neverending stupid discussions I ever heard in my life.

It is important to note that the creation side is the stupid side. They argue for a young earth and no evolution. There would be no debate, if the stupid aide didn't insist that the science contradicts their iron aged dogma.

 

[james bond]

Explaining science absent gods is the rational way to explain science. Identify how your gods influence the entirely natural world.

As you have some rather odd notions relative to Charles Darwin and some rather quaint notions of a 6.000 year old planet, we'll have to take things in small steps to explain a reality based worldview.

I am explaining creation science using God force as the supernatural and how he acts with the natural. I don't ignore the findings of the atheist scientists nor the facts of the case or situation while you and the atheist scientists ignore creation science. Even the findings of atheist scientists that help creation science is put on the backburner. That is false science. For example, you cannot explain how the chicken came before the egg while it has been demonstrated using the scientific method as the protein formed by the ovaries of the hen are used to make the outer layer of the eggshell. Your atheist scientists won't be able to create the eggshell. The supernatural living next to the natural.

Racist Darwin only created more racism while we find God made things as such to have all men being equal. It's too bad that due to Adam's sin that we end up with atheist science, death, and the end of the world.

We will not be able to become multi-planetary and escape our fate no matter how men and women try. More evidence of God science and how God interacts with nature.

 

[james bond]

Religious "reasoning" is funny.

The fact that atheists and evos believe in lies isn't funny. They have been fooled by Satan and end up in the Lake of Fire.

God and Satan must exist because all of evolution contradicts what God said about his science.

Ummmm....

Whut?

I already had a thread on the matter -- Is This Evidence For Satan?.

Hope you can read it. Satan may be blocking you from reading it.

 

[zaangalewa]

Hundreds of millions of years of fossils records.

Fossils don't last that long and there are no transitional ones.

Dickinsonia is the name we gave the animal which left the eldest fossil of an animal on planet Earth. This fossil is 550 million years old.

Information about this lifeform: Dickinsonia - Wikipedia

The fossil being 550 million years old is wrong.

Okay - it are 558 million years ... or 541 million years?

It can only be a few thousand of years old. Nothing lasts that long.

Australians, Russians and Germans are not convinced you are right.

1. Ilya Bobrovskiy
2. Janet M. Hope
3. Andrey Ivantsov
4. Benjamin J. Nettersheim
5. Christian Hallmann
6. Jochen J. Brocks

wrote this about Dickinsonia: Ancient steroids establish the Ediacaran fossil Dickinsonia as one of the earliest animals | Science

The fossil should be indestructible then, but they won't let you hit it with a hammer. Thus, it isn't and only a few thousand years old.

Okay. You are not a Christian. You modfied what I said, so it was more easy now for you to speak bullshit here. And the reason for this is to deny truth. But Christians do not modify information - also not in case if there exist contradictions - because this would be similiar to the idea to try to modify the word of god (which is creation). And a real Christian never tries to deny any truth (or opinion, which could be true) - because god is the truth.

The Dickinsonia fossile is 550 milion years old! That's what "we" found out by using the best instruments, the best knowledge and the best education we are able to use. Every scientific truth is as long true as it is not falsified. But what you try to do is not a correct falsification in sense of natural science. You deny god by proclaiming "I am the truth" and god is only this, what you think about god and his creation - while the world has to do and to be what your "I" thinks. In this way you make your "I" - or your mind owners - to a false god. And you ignore gods real creation.

 

[zaangalewa]

Who is "we"?

Humans.

But this was not his only motivation to find this out. There was also a lot of spirituality and mystics in his mind.

And we have gotten good results without that, too.

Who is "we"?

That's pretty definitive evidence that it's not necessary.

What is not necessary?

I would say the curiosity that led him to scientific discovery was the same curiosity that led him to mysticism.

My dog is unbelievable curious - but damned bad in physics. By the way - the success of the theory of Newton was basing on the ideas of Kepler. Wonderful mathematics.

One does not deserve any credit for the other.

Hmm - I guess you said something whith this sentence - and perhaps one day I will understand it - or not.

They do not overlap.

What does not overlap?`

They are not fundamentally compatible methods.

What are fundamentally compatible methods? What for heavens sake do you speak about?

If you happen to arrive at the same end using each,

?

chalk that up to coincidence; only one of the two paths is based on evidence.

Which coincidence? Which two paths? Which evidence? ...

Dude, you are just going to have to read more slowly or something.

You think someone was able to understand what you said? For example: Why do you replace the concrete person Newton with an abstract "we" and said practically this "we" had found the same what Newton found. I remember in this context for example that mathematicians needed about 300 years to find again an important evidence, which was lost. And they knew very exact what they were looking for.

 

[zaangalewa]

The anglo-american discussion "evolution vs creation" is unfortunatelly one of the most neverending stupid discussions I ever heard in my life.

It is important to note that the creation side is the stupid side.

What an "intelligent" sentence.

They argue for a young earth and no evolution. There would be no debate, if the stupid aide didn't insist that the science contradicts their iron aged dogma.

All Jews, Christians and Muslims believe in creation. That's more than 50% of all mankind. And most of the other 50% of all mankind believe in creation too. I on my own also believe everything comes from god.

 

[zaangalewa]

...

Instead of praising that racist idiot Darwin, we should be celebrating God and life.

Oh by the way: A very good sentence. But evolution is created. Example: You on your own! Experiment by thoughts: Yesterday I was able to kill you - so you was not able to say what you said here. But also the day before I was able to kill you and the reality now would had been the same. And this was all the days of your life the same. Someone or something was able to finish your current existence at any moment of your life - including the time when your mother was pregnant.
But what was before she got pregnant? If someone had killed her - or your father - then your current existence now is impossible too. Thousands of years ago also something was able to finish your existence - before it had started. This means on the other side: Something of this what you are today was here thousands of years ago. And that's not meta-physical - that's physically true. Thousands, millions and billions of years ago - up to the very first moment of the universe - something was a able to finish your existence before it had started. So something of this what you are now was here since the very first moment.

And what do you do here now? You spit in the face of god! Nevertheless god created you. But if you should change now anything in your mind, because of my words here, then this would not satisfy me. But think about. It would satisfy me much more if you would just simple love god and his creation - including all children of god - on no special reason to have to do so. Your sane heart - everyones sane heart - feels: this is the best everyone is able to do.

-----
If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing. Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known. So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.
-----

-----

 

[Hollie]

Explaining science absent gods is the rational way to explain science. Identify how your gods influence the entirely natural world.

As you have some rather odd notions relative to Charles Darwin and some rather quaint notions of a 6.000 year old planet, we'll have to take things in small steps to explain a reality based worldview.

I am explaining creation science using God force as the supernatural and how he acts with the natural. I don't ignore the findings of the atheist scientists nor the facts of the case or situation while you and the atheist scientists ignore creation science. Even the findings of atheist scientists that help creation science is put on the backburner. That is false science. For example, you cannot explain how the chicken came before the egg while it has been demonstrated using the scientific method as the protein formed by the ovaries of the hen are used to make the outer layer of the eggshell. Your atheist scientists won't be able to create the eggshell. The supernatural living next to the natural.

Racist Darwin only created more racism while we find God made things as such to have all men being equal. It's too bad that due to Adam's sin that we end up with atheist science, death, and the end of the world.

We will not be able to become multi-planetary and escape our fate no matter how men and women try. More evidence of God science and how God interacts with nature.

You might benefit from actually reading what you write. "creation science", "god forces", "the supernatural".

It's fortunate that most of humanity has moved beyond the fear and superstition of the Dark Ages.

 

[zaangalewa]

Explaining science absent gods is the rational way to explain science. Identify how your gods influence the entirely natural world.

As you have some rather odd notions relative to Charles Darwin and some rather quaint notions of a 6.000 year old planet, we'll have to take things in small steps to explain a reality based worldview.

I am explaining creation science using God force as the supernatural and how he acts with the natural. I don't ignore the findings of the atheist scientists nor the facts of the case or situation while you and the atheist scientists ignore creation science. Even the findings of atheist scientists that help creation science is put on the backburner. That is false science. For example, you cannot explain how the chicken came before the egg while it has been demonstrated using the scientific method as the protein formed by the ovaries of the hen are used to make the outer layer of the eggshell. Your atheist scientists won't be able to create the eggshell. The supernatural living next to the natural.

Racist Darwin only created more racism while we find God made things as such to have all men being equal. It's too bad that due to Adam's sin that we end up with atheist science, death, and the end of the world.

We will not be able to become multi-planetary and escape our fate no matter how men and women try. More evidence of God science and how God interacts with nature.

You might benefit from actually reading what you write. "creation science", "god forces", "the supernatural".

It's fortunate that most of humanity has moved beyond the fear and superstition of the Dark Ages.

What you call "dark ages" are anythign else than dark ages. We call it "the middle ages". Dark are some moments in the modern ages, as for example the original sin of physics: Hiroshima and Nagasaki - or other forms of industrialized mass-murder.

 

[Crepitus]

Religious "reasoning" is funny.

The fact that atheists and evos believe in lies isn't funny. They have been fooled by Satan and end up in the Lake of Fire.

God and Satan must exist because all of evolution contradicts what God said about his science.

Ummmm....

Whut?

I already had a thread on the matter -- Is This Evidence For Satan?.

Hope you can read it. Satan may be blocking you from reading it.

I'm not sure about Satan's connection to fossils.....

As previously noted, religious "reasoning" is funny.

 

[Crepitus]

But Christians do not modify information -

Wow are you confused.

Seriously, that seems to be their main occupation.

(Most of us call it lying)

 

[DOTR]

Darwinism is a racist ideoloy. Better to use the expression "theory of evolution".

I do not think by the way that the person "Darwin" is as important as the most people seem to think. Since about 20,000 years human beings worked with breeding selection. The step to see that nature is using the same principles, which we used because we were always watching what nature was doing, is not really the titanic deed of a single genius. The monk Gregor Mendel for example explained only by watching plants and experimenting with plants a lot about genetic theory.

The anglo-american discussion "evolution vs creation" is unfortunatelly one of the most neverending stupid discussions I ever heard in my life. In general are "creation" and "evolution" two totally different processes. Both processes don't exclude each other. If someone would discuss "electromagnetism vs gravity" it would be a similar senseless discussion. Evolution needs creation.

Good explanation. Darwinism doesn’t explain creation. And it doesn’t have to.

 

[Crepitus]

The anglo-american discussion "evolution vs creation" is unfortunatelly one of the most neverending stupid discussions I ever heard in my life.

It is important to note that the creation side is the stupid side.

What an "intelligent" sentence.

They argue for a young earth and no evolution. There would be no debate, if the stupid aide didn't insist that the science contradicts their iron aged dogma.

All Jews, Christians and Muslims believe in creation. That's more than 50% of all mankind. And most of the other 50% of all mankind believe in creation too. I on my own also believe everything comes from god.

Religion is a poor substitute for education.

 

[Hollie]

I have to think people are stupid af if they can't figure out nothing lasts for millions of years let alone billions. And yet, the same atheist scientists claim we won't last due to global warming. What a bunch of hooey promoters.

Besides, no one has seen something last that long except God. Now, you may be asking how is God scientific? We have life living next to nature when nature cannot create life. Once life dies, then it is gone forever from nature. All nature can do is use existing life to create a seed or egg. Life cannot begat life and this is demonstrated by the scientific method.

Instead of praising that racist idiot Darwin, we should be celebrating God and life.

It's truly disturbing when creationists are relegated to offering nothing more than ignorant claims that "Darwinism is racism" being the root cause of societal decay. It's a total abandonment of any ethical standard on the part of "religious" zealots.

It's a common tactic of creationists to raise the issue of ethics in relation to evolution. It's a common tactic to claim ''Darwinisn'' is the root of evil. The issue that fundies try to sidestep is that evolutionary science, along with all other science, is ethically neutral. What fundies also try to sidestep is that their religions of fear and superstition can be the true culprits in terms of creating maladjusted personalities.

Attempts have been made by fundies to draw moral conclusions from evolution. One of these attempts is configured as the so-called "social Darwinism" movement. Another is the eugenics movement. Biological science will identify that the fittest organism within a particular environment is more likely to survive. This dynamic is extrapolated to propose that only the fit should survive in society. This approach is not without an entire collection of ancillary assumptions, none of which are purely factual claims.

So the game is played by religionists that ''Darwinism'' (aside from being a corrupting force in society), is the root of all insidious forces that corrupt humanity.

It may be the last, desperate tactic of fundie zealots to denigrate science. Effectively, science is the fundie boogyman.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What an "intelligent" sentence.

Correct. It is. The "stupid" discussion you pointed out only exists because of the stupid side of it: the creationists.

All Jews, Christians and Muslims believe in creatio

Again...please pay attention, you are wasting my time...the problem isn't that they believe in creation. The problem is with people who believe in a young earth and no evolution. Get it?