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

[jwoodie]

Darwinists are wedded to a fatally flawed theory that can't be defended except by straw man arguments against "creationists." That is why they won't even consider any other alternatives.

YOUR 'alternative' belongs in the religious section Reverend dipshlt.
`

You don't even know what alternatives I consider, moron. (Creation of the universe in 168 hours is not one of them.) But thanks for proving my point!

 

[jwoodie]

do unto others as I would have them do unto me

Hmm, where did you come up with that concept?

 

[jwoodie]

Darwinists are wedded to a fatally flawed theory that can't be defended except by straw man arguments against "creationists." That is why they won't even consider any other alternatives.

I’m not convinced that magic and supernaturalism is really a countering argument.

I don't really care what you are convinced of, because it is clear that you are wedded to the theories of someone who did not understand the distinction between inter-species and intra-species differentiation. His observations were of significant scientific value, but so were those of Copernicus, who posited that the Sun was the center of the universe.

Both contributed an elementary understanding of our physical origination, but both also required much further inquiry and testing to verify their validity. This has been done with Copernicus' theory, but dogmatic believers in Darwin's theory seem to be stuck at the basic level and left with having to attack anyone who raises questions about their beliefs.

 

[Hollie]

Darwinists are wedded to a fatally flawed theory that can't be defended except by straw man arguments against "creationists." That is why they won't even consider any other alternatives.

I’m not convinced that magic and supernaturalism is really a countering argument.

I don't really care what you are convinced of, because it is clear that you are wedded to the theories of someone who did not understand the distinction between inter-species and intra-species differentiation. His observations were of significant scientific value, but so were those of Copernicus, who posited that the Sun was the center of the universe.

Both contributed an elementary understanding of our physical origination, but both also required much further inquiry and testing to verify their validity. This has been done with Copernicus' theory, but dogmatic believers in Darwin's theory seem to be stuck at the basic level and left with having to attack anyone who raises questions about their beliefs.

You couldn't be more wrong. It is exclusively the more fundamentalist Christians who attack "Darwinism" with a single minded focus to denigrate all of science. It is they who don't understand the core precepts ''descent with modification", "adaptation", "fitness for survival" are all applicable to Darwinian theory. Learning and new information will modify and adjust scientific theories but Darwinian theory has been strengthened in the last 150 years.

If you have a testable theory of supernaturalism, by all means, present it.

 

[jwoodie]

It is exclusively the more fundamentalist Christians who attack "Darwinism" with a single minded focus to denigrate all of science. It is they who don't understand the core precepts ''descent with modification", "adaptation", "fitness for survival" are all applicable to Darwinian theory. Learning and new information will modify and adjust scientific theories but Darwinian theory has been strengthened in the last 150 years.

Thanks for the great example of a Straw Man argument, not to mention your simplistic "core precepts." BTW I am not a "fundamentalist" Christian who believes that everything was literally created in seven days or that the first humans were actually made of mud. However the Biblical order of events in Genesis is remarkably consistent with our modern understanding of geology (unlike Turtle Eats Wolf or some other Native American fable).

Looking at the bigger picture, there is a basic philosophical disagreement as to whether everything in the universe represents nothing more than random statistical coincidences or whether there is some design to all of it. If you can set aside your anti-religious prejudices, you might find that there is some merit to both philosophies.

 

[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."

We don’t all Debate with you. I can prove it. I didn’t read a fking thing you wrote.

 

[abu afak]

Darwinists are wedded to a fatally flawed theory that can't be defended except by straw man arguments against "creationists." That is why they won't even consider any other alternatives.

YOUR 'alternative' belongs in the religious section Reverend dipshlt.
`

You don't even know what alternatives I consider, moron. (Creation of the universe in 168 hours is not one of them.) But thanks for proving my point!

Well we are all ears!
What is your theory what happened, because obviously it doesn't include evolution.
Meaning everything must have been POOFED into existence just about as is regardless of 168 hours or 168 billion.
You're up!
I mean, I'm proud to post my ideas and why.. aren't you?
Or do you know yours are voodoo crap?

`

 

[Hollie]

It is exclusively the more fundamentalist Christians who attack "Darwinism" with a single minded focus to denigrate all of science. It is they who don't understand the core precepts ''descent with modification", "adaptation", "fitness for survival" are all applicable to Darwinian theory. Learning and new information will modify and adjust scientific theories but Darwinian theory has been strengthened in the last 150 years.

Thanks for the great example of a Straw Man argument, not to mention your simplistic "core precepts." BTW I am not a "fundamentalist" Christian who believes that everything was literally created in seven days or that the first humans were actually made of mud. However the Biblical order of events in Genesis is remarkably consistent with our modern understanding of geology (unlike Turtle Eats Wolf or some other Native American fable).

Looking at the bigger picture, there is a basic philosophical disagreement as to whether everything in the universe represents nothing more than random statistical coincidences or whether there is some design to all of it. If you can set aside your anti-religious prejudices, you might find that there is some merit to both philosophies.

I never directed the "fundamentalist Christian" label at you so there goes that Straw Man argument. And yes, the core precepts of Darwin's theory are descent with modification", "adaptation", "fitness for survival", The great contribution of Darwin’s original theory that it identified and explained the process by which descent with modification could arise in an ordered way from the interaction between organisms and their environment. And yet, the creationists they never seem to notice that if creationism were true, there shouldn’t be any of that evidence of adaptation to require accommodation.

Organisms evolve through a combination of genetic mutation and natural selection. The data confirms that. And the evidence still reflects a common origin for all living things from a common ancestor via a process of descent with modification, no matter how life arose in the first place. That is the problem for creationists. If you have evidence for a supernatural causation, present it.

I do, in fact, accept the evidence for evolution in general and Darwininan evolution in particular because it is the strongest of all competing theories for the origin and diversity of species. I also accept Einstein's theory of gravity, the germ theory of disease, and the plate tectonic theory of earth history. Because they are respectively the strongest of all competing theories for gravity, disease and earth history.

That is the way that "true science" works, you know?


I disagree that the Biblical order of events in the Genesis fable is even remotely consistent with our modern understanding of geology. Nothing in modern geology suggests a 6,000 year old planet or a worldwide flood just a few thousand years ago. Creationism requires faith because its processes are unknown, and no theory is offered to explain those processes. Evolution requires no faith because its processes are well known. The explanatory theories hold up, time after time. The evidence, both fossil and DNA, appears exactly as we would expect it to, if evolution is true. Creationists, in their egocentric desperation to prove their Bibles are true stick their fingers in their ears and squeeze their eyes tight-- willfully ignoring what the rest of the world knows to be true.

 

[ChemEngineer]

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

LOL! They don't. You do. Keep posting silly non sense. (sic)

Who's the silly one when you can't even spell "nonsense" correctly?

The debate goes on, around the world, notwithstanding your giggly denial.

Nota bene: "Creationism" is your straw man. It's unscientific. It's ignorant.
When a theory fails, as Darwinism does so miserably, it must be rejected. No replacement "theory" is necessary. That's not science. It's the semantics of Darwinists who are desperate and cling to any nonsense, lumping everyone into the creationist bag, when many scientists who reject Darwinism are atheists.

 

[ChemEngineer]

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

"Nothing is known for certain except in pure mathematics." - Carl Sagan

"Science doesn't do proofs." - Professor John Lennox, Emeritus Professor of Mathematics professor at
Oxford University

Global Warming is the premier example of what lying, biased scientists call "established".

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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.

Because nobody debates the other scientific theories that are as strong as evolution. Your religion doesn't make you doubt electromagnetic theory.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

do unto others as I would have them do unto me

Hmm, where did you come up with that concept?

Primitive philosophy. It predates the Bible.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Darwinists are wedded to a fatally flawed theory that can't be defended except by straw man arguments against "creationists." That is why they won't even consider any other alternatives.

I’m not convinced that magic and supernaturalism is really a countering argument.

I don't really care what you are convinced of, because it is clear that you are wedded to the theories of someone who did not understand the distinction between inter-species and intra-species differentiation. His observations were of significant scientific value, but so were those of Copernicus, who posited that the Sun was the center of the universe.

Both contributed an elementary understanding of our physical origination, but both also required much further inquiry and testing to verify their validity. This has been done with Copernicus' theory, but dogmatic believers in Darwin's theory seem to be stuck at the basic level and left with having to attack anyone who raises questions about their beliefs.

Are you talking strictly about Darwin's discoveries, or the theory of evolution in general? Because you pull a little bait and switch there.

 

[jwoodie]

Darwinists are wedded to a fatally flawed theory that can't be defended except by straw man arguments against "creationists." That is why they won't even consider any other alternatives.

YOUR 'alternative' belongs in the religious section Reverend dipshlt.
`

You don't even know what alternatives I consider, moron. (Creation of the universe in 168 hours is not one of them.) But thanks for proving my point!

Well we are all ears!
What is your theory what happened, because obviously it doesn't include evolution.
Meaning everything must have been POOFED into existence just about as is regardless of 168 hours or 168 billion.
You're up!
I mean, I'm proud to post my ideas and why.. aren't you?
Or do you know yours are voodoo crap?

Well, aren't you a snotty little shithead. Without even knowing my theory, you denounce it as "voodoo crap." You must have had a very dysfunction upbringing to respond in that way. Your infantile yammering doesn't really deserve a response, but I will give you one anyway in the forlorn hope that a tiny bit of information will seep into your damaged psyche:

There are two basic principles at work regarding the development of life on Earth. The first is that all life gradually evolved from some original organism into much more complicated organisms (including Humans) through random mutation. This is useful to explain adaptation of existing species to their environment, but does not explain the rapid creation of new species (e.g., Cambrian Explosion), which appear and disappear with astonishing speed in fossil records.

The second principle is that of interventionism, meaning that external events (rather than random mutations) are more likely to have created new species. For example, the Earth has gone through at least two "deep freezes" wherein virtually all life was extinguished and had to be regenerated. It is extremely unlikely that the random creation of life on Earth, and nowhere else that we know of, would occur three times in a row.

A more recent example would be the generally accepted occurrence of large extraterrestrial objects striking the Earth and helping to extinguish the dinosaurs (and creating the Moon?). On the other hand, the longest lived species on Earth remained unchanged over hundreds of millions of years before dying out. Why didn't they mutate during these long periods of time?

The development of human beings is the most perplexing question. We possess physical and mental attributes that fundamentally distinguish us from all other animals, thus seeming to contradict the idea that we are simply the random mutation of another species. What caused our sudden rise to global (if not greater) dominance? Indications that there have been several human species, some coexisting at the same time, suggest that some sort of external experimentation may have been involved.

Whether or not these interventions were part of some celestial design is something only religious zealots and atheists claim to know for certain. I believe that there are many things we do not (and may never) know during our earthly existence. As a result, I do not wholeheartedly adopt theories which can't demonstrated or duplicated.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Why didn't they mutate during these long periods of time?

A great question. For one, 'sibling species' do form, and selection that stabilizes the population. Evolution happens at all speeds.

 

[abu afak]

Well, aren't you a snotty little shithead. Without even knowing my theory, you denounce it as "voodoo crap." You must have had a very dysfunction upbringing to respond in that way. Your infantile yammering doesn't really deserve a response, but I will give you one anyway in the forlorn hope that a tiny bit of information will seep into your damaged psyche:

Reading below I'd say you are a stealth creationist (Sneaky! 'interventionist') who doesn't understand or believe evolution.
One at a time.

There are two basic principles at work regarding the development of life on Earth. The first is that all life gradually evolved from some original organism into much more complicated organisms (including Humans) through random mutation. This is useful to explain adaptation of existing species to their environment, but does not explain the rapid creation of new species (e.g., Cambrian Explosion), which appear and disappear with astonishing speed in fossil records.

Not really. Gould and Etheridge tweaked Evolution with 'Punctuated Equilibrium,' but they are absolutely Evolution believers.
Of course, this would only make sense for many reasons, incl but not limited to climate change/Meteor strike, etc.

The second principle is that of interventionism, meaning that external events (rather than random mutations) are more likely to have created new species. For example, the Earth has gone through at least two "deep freezes" wherein virtually all life was extinguished and had to be regenerated. It is extremely unlikely that the random creation of life on Earth, and nowhere else that we know of, would occur three times in a row.

When deep freezes/'snowball earth' (not Lesser Ice ages), life had not reached much complexity.
The last precedes the Cambrian explosion by 100 Million years. So there wasn't much life to regenerate, just simple stuff.

A more recent example would be the generally accepted occurrence of large extraterrestrial objects striking the Earth and helping to extinguish the dinosaurs (and creating the Moon?). On the other hand, the longest lived species on Earth remained unchanged over hundreds of millions of years before dying out. Why didn't they mutate during these long periods of time?

Nah, the moon was much, much, much earlier. Google it please.
Yes the impact that wiped out dinosaurs would leave only smaller creatures, especially under-gounders like the mammals that evolved into.. us.

The development of human beings is the most perplexing question. We possess physical and mental attributes that fundamentally distinguish us from all other animals, thus seeming to contradict the idea that we are simply the random mutation of another species. What caused our sudden rise to global (if not greater) dominance? Indications that there have been several human species, some coexisting at the same time, suggest that some sort of external experimentation may have been involved.

Afraid not.
Humans are 98.6% genetically similar to Chimps.
It's DNA that helps show us this.
What WOULD show we were different/not common descent WOULD be if we were fundamentally different genetically.
If we did Not even have ie DNA as a base, (oe were hugely different, like 50%) THAT would show something/be proof evolution is false.
But of course it doesn't.
And we have anatomical remnants of our ancestors still on our bodies. (as do many creatures). The Wisdom teeth we have/don't need are evolutionary remnants of when were were herbivorous. Our Coccyx/former tail are equally useless. and many more.
see ie, my

More Strong Evidence for Evolution: Anatomical Vestiges

Another Evidence of Evolution. Just part of an Overwhelming body of such. One rarely mentioned but very telling. Life can be traced to a continuum, with many creatures, including us, having anatomical vestiges of our evolutionary ancestors. An 'immaculate creation' event wouldn't leave useless...

www.usmessageboard.com

Whether or not these interventions were part of some celestial design is something only religious zealots and atheists claim to know for certain. I believe that there are many things we do not (and may never) know during our earthly existence. As a result, I do not wholeheartedly adopt theories which can't demonstrated or duplicated.

"Intervension/ism" implies something/someone 'intervened' instead of some random ie, astronomical/other event.
It's a loaded and baseless word.
Right up there with 'Intelligent Design' (needing a designER/GOD)
IOW and again, Stealth Creationist.

Nice try though.
But you see if you're wrong, there's going to be a premise error/word twist in there somewhere and that's where I come in/my specialty
Outing the gist of that error in one post.

`

 

[jwoodie]

A more recent example would be the generally accepted occurrence of large extraterrestrial objects striking the Earth and helping to extinguish the dinosaurs (and creating the Moon?). On the other hand, the longest lived species on Earth remained unchanged over hundreds of millions of years before dying out. Why didn't they mutate during these long periods of time?

Nah, the moon was much, much, much earlier. Google it please.

Is English you second or third language? I did not say that the Moon was created at the same time as the dinosaurs, so you can add that to your field of straw men.

You are so clearly brainwashed that you cannot accept that there may be any gaps or flaws in your dogma (until updated by your superiors). As a result, you reflexively attack anyone as having some unholy agenda:

I'd say you are a stealth creationist (Sneaky! 'interventionist') who doesn't understand or believe evolution.

You would have done well during the Inquisition.

 

[jwoodie]

Humans are 98.6% genetically similar to Chimps.

But that 1.4% makes all the difference. Where did that come from?

 

[ChemEngineer]

Humans are 98.6% genetically similar to Chimps.

But that 1.4% makes all the difference. Where did that come from?

Watermelons are 99% similar to clouds. Therefore watermelons "evolved" from clouds.
A>B>C>D.
FURTHERMORE, A1>A2>A3>A4
Just ask Richard Hateful Dawkins.

A>B>C>D is not science, it is unintelligent

A topnotch WordPress.com site

TheEvolutionFraud.wordpress.com

 

[Hollie]

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

LOL! They don't. You do. Keep posting silly non sense. (sic)

Who's the silly one when you can't even spell "nonsense" correctly?

The debate goes on, around the world, notwithstanding your giggly denial.

Nota bene: "Creationism" is your straw man. It's unscientific. It's ignorant.
When a theory fails, as Darwinism does so miserably, it must be rejected. No replacement "theory" is necessary. That's not science. It's the semantics of Darwinists who are desperate and cling to any nonsense, lumping everyone into the creationist bag, when many scientists who reject Darwinism are atheists.

I note the religious extremists typically make the same bellicose pronouncements such as: “When a theory fails, as Darwinism does so miserably, it must be rejected.”

Not surprisingly, they’re never able to identify either how, or why, Darwinism theory fails. They’re just empty bluster.

I would expect that at some point, the religious extremists would offer their “General Theory of Supernatural Creation” as a competing model to peer reviewed science. But alas, we’re left with the extremists screeching “... because the Bible is the only authoritative science text and because I say so”.