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

[Seymour Flops]

The OP made a good point but maybe not the point intended.

If intelligent design and even creationism really were like believing in a flat Earth, no one would bother to argue.

But we have highly qualified scientists writing books about the flaws of non design "theories," and instead of ignoring them, Darwnians write books to counter those books.

It's not settled science.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If intelligent design and even creationism really were like believing in a flat Earth, no one would bother to argue.

well that's pretty dumb.

You can go find idiot flat earthers being mocked all over the place, trying to argue.

Just how you get mocked here.

 

[Seymour Flops]

well that's pretty dumb.

You can go find idiot flat earthers being mocked all over the place, trying to argue.

Just how you get mocked here.

In a way, you have a point, but again not the point you intended.

it is true that I am mocked and name-called on here. But there is very little debate, because none of the avid Darwinians seem to know anything about Darwin.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

In a way, you have a point, but again not the point you intended.

it is true that I am mocked and name-called on here. But there is very little debate, because none of the avid Darwinians seem to know anything about Darwin.

You aren't ready to debate. People mostly have to correct your intentional lies and unwitting falsehoods.

In a nutshell, you need to go read up for a few years before you are even ready to lose the debate you already lost 150 years ago.

A pretty sad way to be.

 

[Hollie]

The OP made a good point but maybe not the point intended.

If intelligent design and even creationism really were like believing in a flat Earth, no one would bother to argue.

But we have highly qualified scientists writing books about the flaws of non design "theories," and instead of ignoring them, Darwnians write books to counter those books.

It's not settled science.

''Highly qualified'' charlatans writing books about what they don't understand is why ID'iot creationers or design'ists are not taken seriously.

The problem faced by design'ists is that ID'iot creationerism has no credibility since it fails to present any scientifically relevant explanation or hypothesis. As we see with the creationer groupies in these threads, other than '‘Darwinism is wrong, therefore creationerism must be right. That's the entire argument made by ID'iot creationerism. It's clear that creationer nonsense is doomed to remain just anti-science rants,

 

[Seymour Flops]

You aren't ready to debate. People mostly have to correct your intentional lies and unwitting falsehoods.

In a nutshell, you need to go read up for a few years before you are even ready to lose the debate you already lost 150 years ago.

A pretty sad way to be.

Instead of just saying, "You lost, dude!" why not present some evidence of Darwinian evolution?

 

[Hollie]

You aren't ready to debate. People mostly have to correct your intentional lies and unwitting falsehoods.

In a nutshell, you need to go read up for a few years before you are even ready to lose the debate you already lost 150 years ago.

A pretty sad way to be.

Why would anyone think, Darwinism.... bad is a debate tactic.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Instead of just saying, "You lost, dude!" why not present some evidence of Darwinian evolution?

Why?

Because that would be a waste of my time. The only evidence I could present is that which has convinced the scientific community and every modern, educated person on the planet.

But you already say this evidence hasn't convinced you.

So who would waste their time compiling it and laying it at your feet? Only a fool.

Given the mountains of mutually supportive evidence that has convinced the global scientific community, and given your a priori and clearly stated rejection of it, it is far more proper that you first tell us what that evidence would look like.

Then we could address your request. To the best of our abilities.

So, what would it look like? What would convince you, for example, that whales evolved from land mammals?

 

[Hollie]

Instead of just saying, "You lost, dude!" why not present some evidence of Darwinian evolution?

You’re the evidence.

You won the Darwin Award.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Why?

Because that would be a waste of my time. The only evidence I could present is that which has convinced the scientific community and every modern, educated person on the planet.

But you already say this evidence hasn't convinced you.

So who would waste their time compiling it and laying it at your feet? Only a fool.

Yet, you spend so much time explaining why you won't take the time to defend Darwinism.

Given the mountains of mutually supportive evidence that has convinced the global scientific community, and given your a priori and clearly stated rejection of it, it is far more proper that you first tell us what that evidence would look like.

Then we could address your request. To the best of our abilities.

Sadly, I think you are at max capacity of your abilities right now. You know next to nothing about Darwinism other than that the scientific community is convinced. Which is not true in the first place. Darwinian biologists are convinced of Darwinian evolution. They have to say they are convinced, since that is their livelihood. The overwhelming majority of astrologers are convinced that it is a valid way to make predictions. Doesn't mean they are right. Science is not a democracy, its a search for the truth.

So, what would it look like? What would convince you, for example, that whales evolved from land mammals?

Evidence that whales evolved from land mammals.

Got some?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yet, you spend so much time explaining why you won't take the time to defend Darwinism.

I spent roughly 20 seconds.

Now, back on track.

What would evidence that whales evolved from land mammals look like, to you?

 

[james bond]

Darwinism nor evolution has nothing to do with God. People can accept short-time or long-time. It was fine until they said we came from monkeys.

 

[james bond]

What would evidence that whales evolved from land mammals look like, to you?

Ancient myths. Evolution isn't a new idea from the 1850s. It can be explained by looking at early pagan ideas. A few examples are:

Anaximander (c. 610–546 BC) taught that ‘humans originally resembled another type of animal, namely fish.

Democritus (c.460–370BC) who taught that primitive people began to speak with ‘confused’ and ‘unintelligible’ sounds but ‘gradually they articulated words.’

Epicurus (341–270BC) taught that there was no need of a God or gods, for the Universe came about by a chance movement of atoms.

There are plenty more, but why bother. This is the science section.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There are plenty more, but why bother. This is the science section.

Right!

So, answer the question. Since this is the science section.

What would evidence that whales evolved from land mammals look like, to you? How would you know it, if you saw it?

Be specific.

 

[james bond]

Right!

So, answer the question. Since this is the science section.

What would evidence that whales evolved from land mammals look like, to you? How would you know it, if you saw it?

Be specific.

Since it is the science section, whales would look like whales. Created on the 5th day. Land mammals would look like land mammals. Created on the 6th day.

I know because of science that there isn't any ancestorial connection between them. Otherwise, we would see a transition of not only whales, but land mammals.

You have relatives don't you? We see that they're related to you and that you had other relatives in the past. Same with me. Neither of us had an ape-human in the family nor anyone resembling an ape. Maybe abu afak had as he showed us that drawing lol.

ETA: To find the answer to your question, see my last comment. We would expect to see the whale-land mammal ancestor, right?

 

[james bond]

You didn't answer anything I said including even on this point.
We would all repudiate evolution if ie, humans were truly different instead of the usual space between similar species. (like Gorillas and chimps)
1. Not even DNA based, but ie, HCL based, or had no moving parts, were just solid state, no sex, live-forever beings.
2. You of course had to ignore my pointing out we had anatomical remnants of our ancestors (Wisdom Teeth, Coccyx, is, etc)
3. What makes any difference between species? Time, conditions and genetic drift.
You put humans in the Himalayas, London, and the Congo, they are immediately going to start getting increasingly genetically further apart, until they can no longer mate. Speciation. We were well on our way to that before widely available travel started. We have subspecies/race and as much as 1% difference between us humans.

and of course basically my whole post Unanswered because I busted your many errors, including the main Creationist Proxy:
The baseless voodoo "Intervention," interventionIST, ID, god.

`

Stop it with your repetitious bullshit posts lol. This is typical of the papers the evolutionists wrote. It just explains a make-believe process, but there is no evidence for it. And how many times do we have to explain there are no vestigial organs? Natural selection does not mean change in species or it leads to a process where there is. Otherwise, we would both see it and understand it. The truth would be self-evident. It is what it is.

 

[james bond]

What would evidence that whales evolved from land mammals look like, to you? How would you know it, if you saw it?

Instead of whales-land mammals, can we do apes and humans? Let's say we have Lucy the first female ape-human. From her mating, we would get another ape-human right? So that's at least three or more ape-humans. Lucy, her mate and their offspring. Probably they would have more than one child because they're the first. Eventually, we would get a good sized population of ape-humans. From that population and long-time, we would get a human. We would also have several fossils of these ape-humans. Would you agree?

 

[konradv]

I still dont know what came first the chicken or the egg

Ever since I was a kid everything science told us was the gospel has been disproved, changed or we found out instead of helping us like they said, it was killing us...Then when they are caught being wrong they use the same old line..."We came to the conclusion based on the best evidence at that time"
I do not bet my marbles on scientists that have create something sensational to keep getting grant money so they can get paid.

Of course the egg came first. The first life was unicellular, just like an egg. As far as chickens go, the egg would have come first with its mother being an end-stage proto-chicken.

 

[Hollie]

Darwinism nor evolution has nothing to do with God. People can accept short-time or long-time. It was fine until they said we came from monkeys.

Correct. The study of natural, evolutionary processes has nothing to do with god'ism / supernaturalism.

It's fine that you're ignorant of science but why do you insist on announcing that in a public forum?

 

[surada]

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."

They do claim God made the earth flat .. they say the mountains popped up during Noah's global flood.