Darwinism

[zaangalewa]

By the way. The very most Christians have absolutely not any problem with the theory of evolution.

My reading of the Bible leads me to believe Christians are to be making peace with those who study evolution ... "blessed are the peacemakers" ... the only debate is exactly what was created in the beginning ... without vexing the Spirit with vanities.

"Let there be light." The Big Bang? Then..., everything else is evolution.

How mutates light (or a big bang) and evolves new forms of light (electromagnetic radiation)? Do you really speak about the theory of [biological] evolution now?

Light(energy) becomes matter. E=mc2

And what has the formula E=mc2 historically to do with Charles Darwin or what have the facts behind this formula to do with the theory of [biological] evolution?

The transformation of energy into matter was the beginning of all evolution.

Matter is everything what needs space and has a mass. A better way to see this is perhaps to call everything matter what has the spin 1/2 = Quarks and Leptons and all objects, which are made with quarks an leptons. So photons, gluons, bosons - and the Higgs boson are not matter.

How did evolve this structures and what was the alternative? Why evolved this and not something else? And what about if all this things were here in the very first moment of the creation of the unverse and they just simple froze out?

And last not least: Why and for what needs a physicist the theory of [biological] evolution from Mr. Charles Darwin? What is he able to do with this theory in physics? Why needs a physicist this theory - for what?

 

[zaangalewa]

I gave somewhere for example the example "evolution of cars". In the moment I ask what the big bang theory or the existence of light or the existence of the formula "E=mc2" have to do with the theory of [biological] evolution. The known physical forces for example did not follow any darwinistic theory of evolution with "winners" (survivors) and "losers" (outdied species) - they just simple "froze out".

The word 'evolution' is used in a different sense when talking cars vs. nature. That's equivocation.

The people continously use the word "evolution" in lots of different meanings - and nearly never it has something to do with the theory of [biological] evolution.

Also, there were winners and losers. Anti-matter lost out to normal matter.

What's still a paradox, which no one is able to understand. 1 part of a billion parts "survived" - otherwise nothing would be here. As far as I understand this is a break in symmetrie which no one is able to explain. It should had been 1,000,000,000 : 1,000,000,000 parts anti-matter and matter and not 1,000,000,000 : 1,000,000,001. No one knows why.

But what had happened there is nothing what we can express with "survival of the fittest" in sense of the theory of [biological] evolution.

 

[konradv]

My whole point is that "creation" was in the act of the Big Bang. Everything else was evolution (because God wanted it that way? Your call.)

 

[zaangalewa]

My whole point is that "creation" was in the act of the Big Bang. Everything else was evolution (because God wanted it that way? Your call.)

Perhaps creation never stopped and we are somehow in the eighth day of creation? Virtual particles and their anti-particles for example are existing in the vacuum. The Hawking radiation is an effect of this process. In general a creative process begins with a first cause = an physically uncaused cause. An inspiration could base on such a first cause for example. And every cause (whether it is [for us] uncaused or not) is able to make a maximal effect. So god is perhaps often much more active, than we are able to see or to think.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The known physical forces for example did not follow any darwinistic theory of evolution with "winners" (survivors) and "losers" (outdied species) - they just simple "froze out".

Well, maybe. Maybe not.

The Logic and Beauty of Cosmological Natural Selection

I have a prediction. There is a scientific hypothesis, formulated over 20 years ago, that we will one day look back on, when the evidence is in, and say “Of course that was right!

blogs.scientificamerican.com

 

[ChemEngineer]

Fort Fun Indiana
Diamond Member
JoinedMar 10, 2017Messages40,604Reaction score3,647Points1,855
46 minutes ago

• New
• Add bookmark
• #145

You are ignoring content by this member. Show ignored content

------------------

Go from the presence of a foolish man. - Holy Bible
Answer not a fool according to his folly lest thou be like unto him. - Holy Bible

 

[ChemEngineer]

Creation science is modern. We're the ones who invented the scientific method and still are involved with today's science even though are eliminated from peer review.

Thus, it's atheist scientists running science today. It means they are wrong and believe in ignorant and wrong theories such as humans evolving from monkeys and birds from dinosaurs. They believe in abiogenesis with no evidence and no scientific method. Their leading scientist Darwin turned out to be a white supremacist and hate monger.

The Ivy League Colleges are among the most prestigious learning centers in America. ALL of them have Christian charters.
Tell us, anyone, which college in America has a charter stating its atheist foundations.
I was born in a Catholic hospital as was my wife and two daughters.
Tell us, anyone, which hospital in America has "Atheist" in its name.
Anyone, anyone? Anyone?

Atheists and other Leftists shoot their mouths off relentlessly, extravagantly, excessively, but can they ever back up their claims? No, they cannot. They simply continue lying and boasting, failing to realize it's not about them, it's about issues discussed. The issue I put forth now is atheist mendacity, arrogance, condescension, and personal greed. Leftists CLAIM to be giving and generous but are anything BUT. Documentation in Who Really Cares by Arthur C. Brooks, former liberal.

 

[Hollie]

Creation science is modern. We're the ones who invented the scientific method and still are involved with today's science even though are eliminated from peer review.

Thus, it's atheist scientists running science today. It means they are wrong and believe in ignorant and wrong theories such as humans evolving from monkeys and birds from dinosaurs. They believe in abiogenesis with no evidence and no scientific method. Their leading scientist Darwin turned out to be a white supremacist and hate monger.

The Ivy League Colleges are among the most prestigious learning centers in America. ALL of them have Christian charters.
Tell us, anyone, which college in America has a charter stating its atheist foundations.
I was born in a Catholic hospital as was my wife and two daughters.
Tell us, anyone, which hospital in America has "Atheist" in its name.
Anyone, anyone? Anyone?

Atheists and other Leftists shoot their mouths off relentlessly, extravagantly, excessively, but can they ever back up their claims? No, they cannot. They simply continue lying and boasting, failing to realize it's not about them, it's about issues discussed. The issue I put forth now is atheist mendacity, arrogance, condescension, and personal greed. Leftists CLAIM to be giving and generous but are anything BUT. Documentation in Who Really Cares by Arthur C. Brooks, former liberal.

Odd that the religious extremist rattles on with “it's about issues discussed.” The religious extremist refuses to actually discuss any issues because he immediately runs to his emotional hiding place of putting on ignore those who refute the religious extremists failed arguments.

Religious extremists are such delicate flowers.

 

[zaangalewa]

The known physical forces for example did not follow any darwinistic theory of evolution with "winners" (survivors) and "losers" (outdied species) - they just simple "froze out".

Well, maybe. Maybe not.

The Logic and Beauty of Cosmological Natural Selection

I have a prediction. There is a scientific hypothesis, formulated over 20 years ago, that we will one day look back on, when the evidence is in, and say “Of course that was right!

blogs.scientificamerican.com

"Cosmological natural selection" in sense of this what Darwin said is an absurdity. Our very stable solar system for example came from chaos and will go into chaos. Only billions of years of boredom in this cosmological dimension make life on Earth possible. By the way: We are destroying life on Earth - the most valuable form of matter in the whole universe - faster than we are able to learn what life really is.

 

[LittleNipper]

150 Years Later, the Fossil Record Still Doesn't Help Darwin
BY BRIAN THOMAS, PH.D. * |
MONDAY, MARCH 02, 2009

“Creationists claim there are no transitional fossils, aka missing links. Biologists and paleontologists, among others, know this claim is false,” according to a recent LiveScience article that then describes what it claims are 12 specific transitional form fossils.1 But do these examples really confirm Darwinism?
Charles Darwin raised a lack of transitional fossils as a possible objection to his own theory: “Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?”2 Later in this chapter of his landmark book, he expressed hope that future discoveries would be made of transitional forms, or of creatures that showed some transitional structure—perhaps a half-scale/half-feather.
Although some creationists do say that “there are no transitional fossils,” it would be more accurate to state that there are no undisputed transitional forms. Although the article asserts that the fossil record “is full of them,” the reality is that it does not contain a single universally accepted transitional form. Every transitional fossil candidate has both proponents and doubters even among evolutionary “biologists and paleontologists.”
The first supposed transitional form offered in the report is Sahelanthropus. This 2001 discovery was first hailed as a transitional form in the ape-to-human line, but controversy over its transitional status immediately ensued. Brigitte Senut of the Natural History Museum in Paris was skeptical, saying that its skull features, “especially the [canine teeth],”3 were characteristic of female gorillas, not human-like gorillas. Senut and her colleagues also disputed that Sahelanthropus was even in the ancestry of humans at all: “To represent a valid clade, hominids must share unique defining features, and Sahelanthropus does not appear to have been an obligate biped [creature that walked on two feet].”4 In other words, Sahelanthropus is at best a highly disputed fossil of an extinct ape, having no clear transitional features.
LiveScience also listed a medium-neck-length fossil giraffe named Bohlinia and the “walking manatee” as transitional forms. However, Bohlinia is just variation within what is still clearly the giraffe kind and doesn’t answer the question, “Where did the giraffe kind come from?” Such variations within kinds do not refute the creation concept, but rather are predicted by it.5 And the “walking manatee” walked because it had fully formed, ready-to-walk legs, hips, nerves, and musculature. The article does not mention that this particular fossil is shown elsewhere to be a dead-end species, “transitioning” to nothing, according to evolutionists.6
The LiveScience article, borrowing from geologist Donald Prothero, also claimed that Moeritherium is “the ultimate transitional fossil,” the ancestor of elephants. This was an amphibious mammal, shaped like a hippo, with a mobile, muscular lip fused with its nostril. But it had none of the real characteristics of an elephant—not the trunk, size, tusks, nor the specialized weight-bearing knee joint structure.7
The “classic fossil of Archaeopteryx” is not a transitional form either, but was fully bird. Its “reptile-like” teeth and wing claws are found in some birds today.8 Many reptiles have no teeth, but nobody claims that they evolved from birds. And the discovery of a “frog-amander” has yet to be agreed upon as transitional by evolutionists. John Bolt, a curator at the Field Museum in Chicago, told National Geographic that “it is difficult to say for sure whether this creature was itself a common ancestor of the two modern groups, given that there is only one known specimen of Gerobatrachus, and an incomplete one at that.”9
Other extinct creatures had “shared features,” physical structures that are found in different kinds of living organisms. However, “shared features” are not transitional features, which is what Darwin needed. There is no scientific evidence to refute the idea that shared features were designed into creatures by a Creator who wisely formed them with the equipment to live in various shared habitats.
Fossils do reveal some truth about Darwin’s theory—they reveal that the same inconsistencies he noted between his theory and the fossil data persist, even after 150 years of frantic searches for elusive transitions.10 Not only is there no single, undisputed transition, but real fossils reveal that animals were fully formed from the beginning.

 

[ChemEngineer]

LittleNipper: according to a recent LiveScience article that then describes what it claims are 12 specific transitional form fossils.

Twelve! And there are 10,000,000 species of animals. "Proof"

 

[Hollie]

150 Years Later, the Fossil Record Still Doesn't Help Darwin
BY BRIAN THOMAS, PH.D. * |
MONDAY, MARCH 02, 2009

“Creationists claim there are no transitional fossils, aka missing links. Biologists and paleontologists, among others, know this claim is false,” according to a recent LiveScience article that then describes what it claims are 12 specific transitional form fossils.1 But do these examples really confirm Darwinism?
Charles Darwin raised a lack of transitional fossils as a possible objection to his own theory: “Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?”2 Later in this chapter of his landmark book, he expressed hope that future discoveries would be made of transitional forms, or of creatures that showed some transitional structure—perhaps a half-scale/half-feather.
Although some creationists do say that “there are no transitional fossils,” it would be more accurate to state that there are no undisputed transitional forms. Although the article asserts that the fossil record “is full of them,” the reality is that it does not contain a single universally accepted transitional form. Every transitional fossil candidate has both proponents and doubters even among evolutionary “biologists and paleontologists.”
The first supposed transitional form offered in the report is Sahelanthropus. This 2001 discovery was first hailed as a transitional form in the ape-to-human line, but controversy over its transitional status immediately ensued. Brigitte Senut of the Natural History Museum in Paris was skeptical, saying that its skull features, “especially the [canine teeth],”3 were characteristic of female gorillas, not human-like gorillas. Senut and her colleagues also disputed that Sahelanthropus was even in the ancestry of humans at all: “To represent a valid clade, hominids must share unique defining features, and Sahelanthropus does not appear to have been an obligate biped [creature that walked on two feet].”4 In other words, Sahelanthropus is at best a highly disputed fossil of an extinct ape, having no clear transitional features.
LiveScience also listed a medium-neck-length fossil giraffe named Bohlinia and the “walking manatee” as transitional forms. However, Bohlinia is just variation within what is still clearly the giraffe kind and doesn’t answer the question, “Where did the giraffe kind come from?” Such variations within kinds do not refute the creation concept, but rather are predicted by it.5 And the “walking manatee” walked because it had fully formed, ready-to-walk legs, hips, nerves, and musculature. The article does not mention that this particular fossil is shown elsewhere to be a dead-end species, “transitioning” to nothing, according to evolutionists.6
The LiveScience article, borrowing from geologist Donald Prothero, also claimed that Moeritherium is “the ultimate transitional fossil,” the ancestor of elephants. This was an amphibious mammal, shaped like a hippo, with a mobile, muscular lip fused with its nostril. But it had none of the real characteristics of an elephant—not the trunk, size, tusks, nor the specialized weight-bearing knee joint structure.7
The “classic fossil of Archaeopteryx” is not a transitional form either, but was fully bird. Its “reptile-like” teeth and wing claws are found in some birds today.8 Many reptiles have no teeth, but nobody claims that they evolved from birds. And the discovery of a “frog-amander” has yet to be agreed upon as transitional by evolutionists. John Bolt, a curator at the Field Museum in Chicago, told National Geographic that “it is difficult to say for sure whether this creature was itself a common ancestor of the two modern groups, given that there is only one known specimen of Gerobatrachus, and an incomplete one at that.”9
Other extinct creatures had “shared features,” physical structures that are found in different kinds of living organisms. However, “shared features” are not transitional features, which is what Darwin needed. There is no scientific evidence to refute the idea that shared features were designed into creatures by a Creator who wisely formed them with the equipment to live in various shared habitats.
Fossils do reveal some truth about Darwin’s theory—they reveal that the same inconsistencies he noted between his theory and the fossil data persist, even after 150 years of frantic searches for elusive transitions.10 Not only is there no single, undisputed transition, but real fossils reveal that animals were fully formed from the beginning.

Encyclopedia of American Loons

It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.

americanloons.blogspot.com

Brian Thomas is, according to his bio, a “Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research,” and young Earth creationist. Indeed, Thomas is the source of most of the content that comes out of the Institute’s website on a day-to-day basis (excluding their various magazines etc.). According to the bio, he specializes in biology, problems in evolution, origin of life, and dinosaurs, though his forays into astronomy and cosmology are frequent. He does, apparently, have a masters degree in biotechnology, and has a background as a school teacher, but, needless to say, those qualifications do not quite put him in the position he wants in order to authoritatively ponder the questions he likes to, well, not ponder, really, but rather have knee-jerk, preset opinions about.

Mr. Thomas’s primary contributions to the ICR’s website is his Daily Science Updates, or ICR News (same thing, apparently). The articles tend to cover some-weeks-old news on matters scientific that Thomas attempts to shoehorn into a creationist framework (unsurprisingly usually rather desperately). And no, the content rather quickly reveals that Thomas does precariously little research on the topics at hand, apart from looking at the press release and paper itself. A good example (among many) might be his article “Distant Watery Planet Looks Young”, which asked whether the red dwarf orbiting exoplanet Gliese 1214 b could have held on to its atmosphere for billions of years against the solar wind while orbiting so close to the star, and lamented that “[T]he scientific literature typically does not ask questions like these,” which is false, but – you know – persecutions of Christians and all that. A typical example of Thomas’s densely moronic approach to scientific findings is here (and here). Thomas also weighed in on the discovery of the Australopithecus sediba, classifying it unhesitatingly as an ape (without much further thought) and thereby avoided even the caution of the AiG.

 

[Hollie]

LittleNipper: according to a recent LiveScience article that then describes what it claims are 12 specific transitional form fossils.

Twelve! And there are 10,000,000 species of animals. "Proof"

Did Noah really take 10,000,000 species of animals on his pleasure cruise?

Could you provide the exact link to the LiveScience article? I looked for it but couldn't find it. I'm thinking you are confused as to what you read,

 

[james bond]

No. Creation and nature are the same. The word is "natural science", the expression "creation science" is an empty phrase.

I'm on your side, but no to you. Creation is supernatural. You do not listen to people more knowledgeable than you so you fail like ding. He ends up with the atheists, too, even though they're not on your side. You can't have it both ways albeit you and ding aren't on their side, but end up in the middle. I think both your ways of thinking leads to Tribulation. Just my opinion on the latter.

 

[james bond]

No, That simply isn't true. There's nothing modern about biblical literalism.

I've explained it to many times, but I think it goes over your head. Creation scientists listen to what today's scientists find and use. For example, fine tuning parameters. Or we keep track of what planets have a magnetic field while others have lost their magnetic fields never to get it again. The Earth's magnetic field will be gone, too, but atheist scientists do not think this will happen, but the are wrong as atheists are usually wrong.

 

[Hollie]

No, That simply isn't true. There's nothing modern about biblical literalism.

I've explained it to many times, but I think it goes over your head. Creation scientists listen to what today's scientists find and use. For example, fine tuning parameters. Or we keep track of what planets have a magnetic field while others have lost their magnetic fields never to get it again. The Earth's magnetic field will be gone, too, but atheist scientists do not think this will happen, but the are wrong as atheists are usually wrong.

You haven't explained anything. For example, you haven't explained the creationist "fine tuning" slogan in terms of our solar system and the universe which is actually quite chaotic,

What you call "creation scientists" are people who dogmatically represent Christian theology as science. So no, your claim that "Creation scientists listen to what today's scientists find and use." Quite clearly, today's scientists don't represent that the planet is 6,000 years old. That's a claim made by those at the fundamentalist ministries.

 

[zaangalewa]

No. Creation and nature are the same. The word is "natural science", the expression "creation science" is an empty phrase.

I'm on your side, but no to you. Creation is supernatural.

The greek word for super-natural is meta-physics. This means: In a Christian library the books about metaphysics are meta (after or beyond) the books about physics. Augustinus for example said a wonder hurts not physics - it hurts only our knowledge about physics.

You do not listen to people more knowledgeable than you

With 20 I had the feeling I had forgotten three times more than some others had learned during their whole long life. Meanwhile I'm much older and forgot much more.

so you fail like ding. He ends up with the atheists, too, even though they're not on your side.

You are not a Catholic - so you are not really on my side, isn't it? And if a Catholic is an atheist, then he is on my side, because there will be a reason, why he stays to be a Catholic, even if he never got the belief in god or lost his belief in god.

You can't have it both ways albeit you and ding aren't on their side, but end up in the middle.

... The tree of life was in the midst of the garden ...

I think both your ways of thinking leads to Tribulation.

“So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets. “Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.

Just my opinion on the latter.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

150 Years Later, the Fossil Record Still Doesn't Help Darwin
BY BRIAN THOMAS, PH.D. * |
MONDAY, MARCH 02, 2009

“Creationists claim there are no transitional fossils, aka missing links. Biologists and paleontologists, among others, know this claim is false,” according to a recent LiveScience article that then describes what it claims are 12 specific transitional form fossils.1 But do these examples really confirm Darwinism?
Charles Darwin raised a lack of transitional fossils as a possible objection to his own theory: “Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?”2 Later in this chapter of his landmark book, he expressed hope that future discoveries would be made of transitional forms, or of creatures that showed some transitional structure—perhaps a half-scale/half-feather.
Although some creationists do say that “there are no transitional fossils,” it would be more accurate to state that there are no undisputed transitional forms. Although the article asserts that the fossil record “is full of them,” the reality is that it does not contain a single universally accepted transitional form. Every transitional fossil candidate has both proponents and doubters even among evolutionary “biologists and paleontologists.”
The first supposed transitional form offered in the report is Sahelanthropus. This 2001 discovery was first hailed as a transitional form in the ape-to-human line, but controversy over its transitional status immediately ensued. Brigitte Senut of the Natural History Museum in Paris was skeptical, saying that its skull features, “especially the [canine teeth],”3 were characteristic of female gorillas, not human-like gorillas. Senut and her colleagues also disputed that Sahelanthropus was even in the ancestry of humans at all: “To represent a valid clade, hominids must share unique defining features, and Sahelanthropus does not appear to have been an obligate biped [creature that walked on two feet].”4 In other words, Sahelanthropus is at best a highly disputed fossil of an extinct ape, having no clear transitional features.
LiveScience also listed a medium-neck-length fossil giraffe named Bohlinia and the “walking manatee” as transitional forms. However, Bohlinia is just variation within what is still clearly the giraffe kind and doesn’t answer the question, “Where did the giraffe kind come from?” Such variations within kinds do not refute the creation concept, but rather are predicted by it.5 And the “walking manatee” walked because it had fully formed, ready-to-walk legs, hips, nerves, and musculature. The article does not mention that this particular fossil is shown elsewhere to be a dead-end species, “transitioning” to nothing, according to evolutionists.6
The LiveScience article, borrowing from geologist Donald Prothero, also claimed that Moeritherium is “the ultimate transitional fossil,” the ancestor of elephants. This was an amphibious mammal, shaped like a hippo, with a mobile, muscular lip fused with its nostril. But it had none of the real characteristics of an elephant—not the trunk, size, tusks, nor the specialized weight-bearing knee joint structure.7
The “classic fossil of Archaeopteryx” is not a transitional form either, but was fully bird. Its “reptile-like” teeth and wing claws are found in some birds today.8 Many reptiles have no teeth, but nobody claims that they evolved from birds. And the discovery of a “frog-amander” has yet to be agreed upon as transitional by evolutionists. John Bolt, a curator at the Field Museum in Chicago, told National Geographic that “it is difficult to say for sure whether this creature was itself a common ancestor of the two modern groups, given that there is only one known specimen of Gerobatrachus, and an incomplete one at that.”9
Other extinct creatures had “shared features,” physical structures that are found in different kinds of living organisms. However, “shared features” are not transitional features, which is what Darwin needed. There is no scientific evidence to refute the idea that shared features were designed into creatures by a Creator who wisely formed them with the equipment to live in various shared habitats.
Fossils do reveal some truth about Darwin’s theory—they reveal that the same inconsistencies he noted between his theory and the fossil data persist, even after 150 years of frantic searches for elusive transitions.10 Not only is there no single, undisputed transition, but real fossils reveal that animals were fully formed from the beginning.

Encyclopedia of American Loons

It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.

americanloons.blogspot.com

Brian Thomas is, according to his bio, a “Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research,” and young Earth creationist. Indeed, Thomas is the source of most of the content that comes out of the Institute’s website on a day-to-day basis (excluding their various magazines etc.). According to the bio, he specializes in biology, problems in evolution, origin of life, and dinosaurs, though his forays into astronomy and cosmology are frequent. He does, apparently, have a masters degree in biotechnology, and has a background as a school teacher, but, needless to say, those qualifications do not quite put him in the position he wants in order to authoritatively ponder the questions he likes to, well, not ponder, really, but rather have knee-jerk, preset opinions about.

Mr. Thomas’s primary contributions to the ICR’s website is his Daily Science Updates, or ICR News (same thing, apparently). The articles tend to cover some-weeks-old news on matters scientific that Thomas attempts to shoehorn into a creationist framework (unsurprisingly usually rather desperately). And no, the content rather quickly reveals that Thomas does precariously little research on the topics at hand, apart from looking at the press release and paper itself. A good example (among many) might be his article “Distant Watery Planet Looks Young”, which asked whether the red dwarf orbiting exoplanet Gliese 1214 b could have held on to its atmosphere for billions of years against the solar wind while orbiting so close to the star, and lamented that “[T]he scientific literature typically does not ask questions like these,” which is false, but – you know – persecutions of Christians and all that. A typical example of Thomas’s densely moronic approach to scientific findings is here (and here). Thomas also weighed in on the discovery of the Australopithecus sediba, classifying it unhesitatingly as an ape (without much further thought) and thereby avoided even the caution of the AiG.

As if you read or understand a word of that....

 

[james bond]

You haven't explained anything. For example, you haven't explained the creationist "fine tuning" slogan in terms of our solar system and the universe which is actually quite chaotic,

What you call "creation scientists" are people who dogmatically represent Christian theology as science. So no, your claim that "Creation scientists listen to what today's scientists find and use." Quite clearly, today's scientists don't represent that the planet is 6,000 years old. That's a claim made by those at the fundamentalist ministries.

All I can say is you do not know creation science and I already said the creation scientists do not ignore the findings of the atheist scientists. The atheist scientists ignore the findings of the creation scientists because it involves God as science. If God exists and the supernatural lives next to the natural, then the atheists' findings are wrong. We are discussing macroevolution, so if one atheist scientist can show via the scientific method that what they claim as evolution has happened, then the creation scientists will accept it. However, the atheist scientists have systematically eliminated the creation scientists from peer review for no good reason; Acutually, I think it's because the creationists have more real science backing them up.

 

[james bond]

You are not a Catholic - so you are not really on my side, isn't it? And if a Catholic is an atheist, then he is on my side, because there will be a reason, why he stays to be a Catholic, even if he never got the belief in god or lost his belief in god.

Catholics still believe that Jesus saves. After that, it gets confusing. There's no point for me to get into our differences here. What I am saying is you ended up believing in atheist scientists and they are usually wrong; That makes you wrong, too, in science.

For example, I brought up that the magnetic field dissipating means that the Earth is still young. If the Earth was old, then there would be no magnetic field. The findings back up the creation scientists and do not back up the atheist scientists.