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

[Dagosa]

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?

So you’re saying “ god” just zapped them into existence.
Seems like god has gone through a lot of trial and error until he/she finally decided what was in her/him image and likeness. So by your reasoning, god was/is a confused puppy.

 

[ReinyDays]

Darwinism? ... that's based on alchemy ... maybe interesting to other 19th Century Natural Philosophers ... today we have "science" and something called "molecules" that explain the natural world ...

Anything is better than spontaneous generation I guess ...

The eclipse of Darwinism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Libby von H]

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 think not.

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

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

No, they would not.

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

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?

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

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?

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, 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.

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

It's not about science. Not at all.

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

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.

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.

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, 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.

I believe there is a middle ground.

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

Social Darwinism is a wicked philosophy when applied to relationships between humans, and the role of government in the lives of humans. Social Darwinism inspired a genocide that cost the lives of millions of humans under the Nazi regime.

That, I believe, is the correct position. 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."

Let me step astride this discussion and point out 3 LOGIC ERRORS in your analysis

1) It is not true that Darwinism took this view initially. Darwin forced it againt Russel
"Darwin felt that evolution only worked if it applied to everything. For Darwin, making an exception for the brain could crumble the whole theory. Following Wallace’s warning that he had admitted limitations, Darwin wrote to Wallace “I hope you have not murdered too completely your own & my child” (referring to the entire theory of natural selection). When the review was published, Darwin was not happy. In the margin of his copy, Darwin wrote “NO!!!” He then responded to Wallace expressing his surprise, stating “if you had not told me I should have thought that they had been added by someone else.” Darwin then confirmed Wallace’s fears: “as you expected, I differ grievously from you, and I am very sorry for it.”" Wallace was more the father of natural selection than Darwin.,

2) There is no middle ground if the Bible has to give way in every case. There is for example the direct creation of Eve. If you re-shuffle that you might as well admit you are not concerned at all about middle ground but really want to re-write the obvious.

3) Russel Wallace at least admitted publicly what Darwin tortured himself over endlessly

You (and I mean YOU) have to posit an answer here as all that data and theory and common sense tell you is : This is dreadfully unlikely

 

[Libby von H]

Bet your marbles all you want, scientists investigate, study, make a hypothesis and either prover it, or not.

So silly to think this way. ... You are not a scientist and you have had no science training.

Here is one of the greatest scientists of the last 100 years (greatly admired by Einstein)

“We cannot ultimately specify the grounds (either metaphysical or logical or empirical) upon which we hold that our knowledge is true. Being committed to such grounds, dwelling in them, we are projecting ourselves to what we believe to be true from or through these grounds. We cannot therefore see what they are. We cannot look at them because we are looking with them.”
― Michael Polanyi,

and the coup de grace against your main premise

a series of observations which at one time were held to be important scientific facts, were a few years later completely discredited and committed to oblivion, without ever having been disproved or indeed newly tested, simply because the conceptual framework of science had meanwhile so altered that the facts no longer appeared credible.

 

[Dagosa]

There is no middle ground if the Bible has to give way in every case. There is for example the direct creation of Eve. If you re-shuffle that you might as well admit you are not concerned at all about middle ground but really want to re-write the obvious.

I find it hilarious how religious leaders make exceptions to their beliefs. For example, every major religion has adopted AGW climate change which promotes man’s involvement in the increase rate of change in our climate, faster that our species and those we coexist with can adapt…….sounds lIke they’re getting into this evolution thing.

 

[Dagosa]

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 think not.

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

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

No, they would not.

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

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?

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

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?

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, 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.

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

It's not about science. Not at all.

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

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.

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.

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, 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.

I believe there is a middle ground.

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

Social Darwinism is a wicked philosophy when applied to relationships between humans, and the role of government in the lives of humans. Social Darwinism inspired a genocide that cost the lives of millions of humans under the Nazi regime.

That, I believe, is the correct position. 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."

There is no debate between science and religion. One operates on evidence, the other in faith, which is the lack of evidence. BTW, a theory in science is neither right or wrong. It just adds meaning and helps to understand a subject based upon the evidence that now exists. That’s why it’s called a theory. As new evidence is developed, our understanding can be enhanced.

 

[Dagosa]

So silly to think this way. ... You are not a scientist and you have had no science training.

Here is one of the greatest scientists of the last 100 years (greatly admired by Einstein)


View attachment 932043

“We cannot ultimately specify the grounds (either metaphysical or logical or empirical) upon which we hold that our knowledge is true. Being committed to such grounds, dwelling in them, we are projecting ourselves to what we believe to be true from or through these grounds. We cannot therefore see what they are. We cannot look at them because we are looking with them.”
― Michael Polanyi,

and the coup de grace against your main premise

a series of observations which at one time were held to be important scientific facts, were a few years later completely discredited and committed to oblivion, without ever having been disproved or indeed newly tested, simply because the conceptual framework of science had meanwhile so altered that the facts no longer appeared credible.

People make a lot of assumptions about science that are incorrect. The basic premise that science is “ discredited “ is incorrect. Look at Newtonian physics. Was it discredited by Qantum theory ? No. Newtonian physics is still a valid way of looking at the physics of daily life…excluding using a cell phone.

 

[Dagosa]

Many Leftists have viewpoints and attempt to substantiate them by using hate-filled snarls, condescension, and ignorance.

Really ? Just because you lie about something, you expect to be taken seriously. It’s not hate pointing out you’re a bullshit arrest. It’s a worthy endeavor.

 

[ChemEngineer]

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 think not.

Tell everyone what you think the science is in "natural selection". That isn't science at all. It's tautological poppycock.

Second, and more importantly, a scientific study of Darwinism is NOT "religion based." There are atheists who see through the wispy emptiness of Darwinism

It's not about science. Not at all.

No, Darwinism is not science at all. It is trivial pursuit.

That, I believe, is the cOnlorrect position. 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."

Only in your mind.

Sex organs in women did not "evolve" simultaneously, just by chance, wink, nudge, at the same time sex organs "evolved* in men.

The ten co-dependent systems in every human did not and could not have evolved simultaneously in humans just by chance.

Atheists relentlessly and dishonestly characterize everyone challenging Darwinism as religious zealots who know nothing about science. This is an arrogant lie!
That is proven by the fact that 85% of Nobel Laureates are Christians and Jews,, NOT atheists.
Q.E.D.

 

[Dagosa]

Tell everyone what you think the science is in "natural selection". That isn't science at all. It's tautological poppycock.

Second, and more importantly, a scientific study of Darwinism is NOT "religion based." There are atheists who see through the wispy emptiness of Darwinism

No, Darwinism is not science at all. It is trivial pursuit.


Only in your mind.

Sex organs in women did not "evolve" simultaneously, just by chance, wink, nudge, at the same time sex organs "evolved* in men.

The ten co-dependent systems in every human did not and could not have evolved simultaneously in humans just by chance.

Atheists relentlessly and dishonestly characterize everyone challenging Darwinism as religious zealots who know nothing about science. This is an arrogant lie!
That is proven by the fact that 85% of Nobel Laureates are Christians and Jews,, NOT atheists.
Q.E.D.

View attachment 932202

Tell us the periodic table is miss named again.

 

[rampart]

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 think not.

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

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

No, they would not.

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

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?

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

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?

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, 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.

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

It's not about science. Not at all.

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

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.

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.

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, 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.

I believe there is a middle ground.

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

Social Darwinism is a wicked philosophy when applied to relationships between humans, and the role of government in the lives of humans. Social Darwinism inspired a genocide that cost the lives of millions of humans under the Nazi regime.

That, I believe, is the correct position. 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."

i think there may be some evolutionary advantage to allowing creationists to die in ignorance.

 

[Dagosa]

You are both right -- but you are also both wrong. The theory of evolution and belief in God can co-exist."

That’s a contradiction. You’re representing one as a theory, which it is, and the other as a fact, which it is not. A theory has evidence. A belief may or may not but by its own admission, it requires faith. Faith by definition is the absence of evidence. So no, they coexist only if you make up something else like “ the soul” as Catholics would have you do. Let’s all agree on only one thing as far as religion is concerned. We don’t know.

 

[Dagosa]

i think there may be some evolutionary advantage to allowing creationists to die in ignorance.

Yup. not getting covid vaccines is natural selection in action.

 

[ChemEngineer]

i think there may be some evolutionary advantage to allowing creationists to die in ignorance.

You cling desperately to a tautology prattled 165 years ago by a mediocre old man, who knew nothing about biochemistry, statistics or physiology and claim that anyone not on your side of the debate is "ignorant"?
Are you also thinking about changing sexes?

 

[Dagosa]

by a mediocre old man, who knew nothing about biochemistry, statistics or physiology and claim

That’s you right !

 

[rampart]

You cling desperately to a tautology prattled 165 years ago by a mediocre old man, who knew nothing about biochemistry, statistics or physiology and claim that anyone not on your side of the debate is "ignorant"?
Are you also thinking about changing sexes?

darwin may have been a pedophile grooming commie satanist, the process of natural selection is demonstrated in detail in the fossil record.

 

[konradv]

darwin may have been a pedophile grooming commie satanist, the process of natural selection is demonstrated in detail in the fossil record…

…and in the DNA of every living thing.

 

[Dagosa]

Tell everyone what you think the science is in "natural selection". That isn't science at all. It's tautological poppycock.

Second, and more importantly, a scientific study of Darwinism is NOT "religion based." There are atheists who see through the wispy emptiness of Darwinism

No, Darwinism is not science at all. It is trivial pursuit.


Only in your mind.

Sex organs in women did not "evolve" simultaneously, just by chance, wink, nudge, at the same time sex organs "evolved* in men.

The ten co-dependent systems in every human did not and could not have evolved simultaneously in humans just by chance.

Atheists relentlessly and dishonestly characterize everyone challenging Darwinism as religious zealots who know nothing about science. This is an arrogant lie!
That is proven by the fact that 85% of Nobel Laureates are Christians and Jews,, NOT atheists.
Q.E.D.

View attachment 932202

The Christian Evidence. Net.
Now there is an independent source….not.

 

[surada]

Science, like life, is constantly evolving.

What is known to be true today is discarded as falsehood tomorrow.

When scientists, or more likely those who falsely claim they speak for scientists, proclaim that "the science is settled", the more probable conclusion is that science has been forced to take a position in the interests of increasing the political power and wealth of those who are forcing science to take that position.

Dissent from an established scientific position is not something to be punished, it is to be encouraged as normal and healthy. The only way science will ever discover the truth is through a process of questioning positions that have been established as orthodoxy.

Here's proof.

Did Noah REALLY Bring Dinosaurs on the Ark?:

 

[ChemEngineer]

darwin may have been a pedophile grooming commie satanist, the process of natural selection is demonstrated in detail in the fossil record.

“250,000 species of plants and animals recorded and deposited in museums throughout the world did not support the gradual unfolding hoped for by Darwin.” (Dr. David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, “Conflicts Between Darwinism and Paleontology”)

“The pathetic thing about it is that many scientists are trying to prove the doctrine of evolution, which no science can do.” (Dr. Robert A. Milikan, physicist and Nobel Prize winner, speech before the American Chemical Society.)

“Many have a feeling that somehow intelligence must have been involved in the laws of the universe.” (Charles Townes, 1964 Nobel Prize winner in Physics, “Science Finds God,” Newsweek, 20 July, 1998)

“I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When that happens, many people will pose the question, ‘How did that happen?’ – (Dr Soren Luthrip, Swedish embryologist)

“My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed…..It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts…The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief.”(Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, noted Swedish botanist and geneticist, of Lund University)

I have many more like these if you wish to read them,
.