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

[james bond]

Yep, you admitted it.

Thus demonstrating quite clearly that this is all childish trolling to get attention using your sock puppet account.

Jeez, you're back. I would think a Dr. Frankenstein would've done this already and that is to artificially create this transitional fossil. Do you know anything like this experiment? What would it look like to you lol?

Would that convince us? We would have to see if it lived and continued on.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Then apply it to Fort Fun Indiana assuming whales became land animals and asking leading questions. The guy thinks creationists are idiots just because he's one. I found a creationist article and discovered they laughed their asses off at the evolutionist scientists and their wacky explanations of what they find. The evo said a sea lion was a whale to land mammal transitional fossil.

So, they don't know if it is sea mammal to land mammal or land mammal to sea mammal?

'"It is reported that Hans Thewissen, an assistant professor of anatomy at Northeastern Ohio Medical School; Tasseer Hussain, professor of anatomy at Harvard University; and M. Arif, a geologist of the Geological Survey of Pakistan, happened upon the fossil during a 1992 dig in hills west of Islamabad, Pakistan. The Plain Dealer, along with its article, has a good picture of the fossil. When some of the ICR staff looked at the picture with the knowledge that Thewissen and fellow workers called this creature a whale, they laughed. Evolutionists may claim that this was because of ignorance of subtle distinctions of anatomy; on the other hand, associating the word "whale" with a creature with large and powerful front and hind legs does seem a bit ludicrous to skeptics. In their Science article,[6] Thewissen and coworkers state that Ambulocetus was about the size of a male sea lion, weighing about 650 lbs. and had a robust radius and ulna (the two bones in the upper forearm). They report that the structure of the forearm would have allowed powerful elbow extension by triceps, and that, unlike modem cetaceans, elbow, wrist, and digital joints were flexible and synovial (lubricated). The hand was long and broad, with five digits. The femur was short and stout, and the feet were enormous. The toes were terminated by a short phalanx carrying a convex hoof. They suggest that unlike modern cetaceans, Ambulocetus had a long tail, and that it probably did not possess flukes.'

When is a Whale a Whale? | The Institute for Creation Research

www.icr.org

ETA: If you want to show us some evidence of sea-to-land mammal, the show us the transitional fossils. There should be plenty of them as you would need a large population for evolution to do its magic wouldn't you? It's hard for me to see a sea mammal start walking on land suddenly as their breathing apparatus are vastly different.

That is typical of how Darwinians try to prove their case. It's a three step process:

1) Assume that speciation by natural selection was a real thing.
2) Be as creative as it takes in arranging the scant fossils available to fit them into that model.
3) Claim that the imaginary lines of descent you see in the way you have arranged the fossils are proof that the assumption is true.

 

[james bond]

Anyone else that wastes one second replying to you on this topic is foolish.

Thus demonstrating quite clearly that this is all childish trolling to get attention using your sock puppet account.

Answer the question. What would this transitional animal look like to you?

So, they don't know it is is sea mammal to land mammal or land mammal to sea mammal?

Is it a whale to land mammal or vice versa? How much water was on Earth? At least, tell us what we are to imagine Fort Fun Indiana? Have you run away for good now that the questions are too hard for you?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Jeez, you're back. I would think a Dr. Frankenstein would've done this already and that is to artificially create this transitional fossil. Do you know anything like this experiment? What would it look like to you lol?

Would that convince us? We would have to see if it lived and continued on.

You can save your embarrassing blathering. I used you to make my point, now I am done with you.

Thanks for being my good little assistant, though.

And kudos for having the stones to be honest and admit you are a delusional nutter who could never possibly be convinced. Let your little sockpuupet troll buddy know that he needs to grow a pair, too.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Answer the question. What would this transitional animal look like to you?


Is it a whale to land mammal or vice versa? How much water was on Earth? At least, tell us what we are to imagine Fort Fun Indiana? Have you run away for good now that the questions are too hard for you?

I'll let him out of ignore land, if he even answers that one question. I doubt that he will, though.

Darwinist's most important principle is to never let themselves be pinned down to any specific claim. The vaguer the better for an imaginary scenario like speciation by natural selection.

 

[abu afak]

I'll let him out of ignore land, if he even answers that one question. I doubt that he will, though.

Darwinist's most important principle is to never let themselves be pinned down to any specific claim. The vaguer the better for an imaginary scenario like speciation by natural selection.

You have him on [Faux] Ignore too you FRAUD?
Dishonest little scvmbag can't debate all comers.
I can.
`

 

[Hollie]

So, they don't know if it is sea mammal to land mammal or land mammal to sea mammal?

That is typical of how Darwinians try to prove their case. It's a three step process:

1) Assume that speciation by natural selection was a real thing.
2) Be as creative as it takes in arranging the scant fossils available to fit them into that model.
3) Claim that the imaginary lines of descent you see in the way you have arranged the fossils are proof that the assumption is true.

1) There are many examples of speciation. Speciation provides no evidence of design or intervention by supernatural means.

2) ID'iot creationers are forced to invent some really, really absurd conspiracy theories to placate an emotional requirement to protect their gods sacred cows from the glaring light shining on their fears and superstitions.

3) Descent with modification is a well established fact of nature.

Ma'am, the Enlightenment happened a long time ago. The Middle Ages are over. The reason ID'iot creationerism lacks any substance is because it is nothing more than a subjective, vacuous claim that the ID'iot creationers are unable to defend.

That ID'iot creationer design'ism is fraudulent is demonstrated by the inability of ID'iot creationers to describe any objective evidence for it.

 

[Hollie]

I'll let him out of ignore land, if he even answers that one question. I doubt that he will, though.

Darwinist's most important principle is to never let themselves be pinned down to any specific claim. The vaguer the better for an imaginary scenario like speciation by natural selection.

It has been obvious that on not a single occasion, not once, has an ID'iot creationer made a single attempt to support their claims to magical, supernatural gods, designer gods or space alien visitors.

The ID'iot creationers should ask thenselves: what limits the process of small changes within a species to large changes? Why can't hundreds of such small changes over 10 million years, result in a different species?

I'll bet $1.00 the ID'iot creationers will be reduced, as always, to a hasty retreat at the Ken Ham children's playground.

 

[Hollie]

You have him on [Faux] Ignore too you FRAUD?
Dishonest little scvmbag can't debate all comers.
I can.
`

They don't have anyone on ignore. That's just an excuse to avoid being held accountable for the nonsense spam they litter threads with.

 

[james bond]

You can save your embarrassing blathering. I used you to make my point, now I am done with you.

Thanks for being my good little assistant, though.

And kudos for having the stones to be honest and admit you are a delusional nutter who could never possibly be convinced. Let your little sockpuupet troll buddy know that he needs to grow a pair, too.

You cannot be done with science, real science. What kind of fake science idiot are you? Evolution has no answers. You wanted land mammal from sea mammals, but my just saying they lived together made you a scardy cat and run away. I am intelligent enough to know bullshit when I see it. For example, I stopped listening to POTUS Biden after his child care spiel. He said he wants a minimum 15% tax on corporations who pay zero taxes. That is insane. What a SAF POS POTUS we have. I won't say he's weak as soft feces if he can back up what the sanctions he laid out against Russia. I doubt the weakest POTUS ever will be able to deliver. All those standing ovations will be forgotten tomorrow. The farker needs to deliver and you need to beg for forgiveness as you don't know and understand REAL science.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You cannot be done with science, real science. What kind of fake science idiot are you? Evolution has no answers. You wanted land mammal from sea mammals, but my just saying they lived together made you a scardy cat and run away. I am intelligent enough to know bullshit when I see it. For example, I stopped listening to POTUS Biden after his child care spiel. He said he wants a minimum 15% tax on corporations who pay zero taxes. That is insane. What a SAF POS POTUS we have. I won't say he's weak as soft feces if he can back up what the sanctions he laid out against Russia. I doubt the weakest POTUS ever will be able to deliver. All those standing ovations will be forgotten tomorrow. The farker needs to deliver and you need to beg for forgiveness as you don't know and understand REAL science.

We get it.

Evolution is impossible. No evidence could ever convince you it is even possible, much less convince you of the truth of it.

We heard you the first zillion times.

 

[james bond]

We get it.

Evolution is impossible. No evidence could ever convince you it is even possible, much less convince you of the truth of it.

We heard you the first zillion times.

Where did I say evolution is IMPOSSIBLE? I just wanted evidence for it and already said that it's based on papers that evolution scientists flooded the US with, No one in the world has evidence for evolution except for NATURAL SELECTION which God created in His infinite wisdom. It continues even if original sin and our sin gets in the way. I provided the argument that whales and other sea creatures lived at the same time and science backs it up. Do you realize that the majority of people do not believe what you stated and can't even imagine what the transitional creature looked like. They don't know if it was sea-to-land or land-to sea.

That said, I am intelligent enough to search for this whale-land mammal you FAIL to provide. It is this it?:

It doesn't even resemble a whale. No wonder you ran away.

 

[james bond]

Why can't hundreds of such small changes over 10 million years, result in a different species?

No one can prove what happens in millions of years. Uniformitarianism and that is NOT science.

For example, you can't explain the layers in mountains and the seafloor that comprise it. How can glaciers produce that you dumb beotch?

 

[Seymour Flops]

Where did I say evolution is IMPOSSIBLE? I just wanted evidence for it and already said that it's based on papers that evolution scientists flooded the US with, No one in the world has evidence for evolution except for NATURAL SELECTION which God created in His infinite wisdom. It continues even if original sin and our sin gets in the way. I provided the argument that whales and other sea creatures lived at the same time and science backs it up. Do you realize that the majority of people do not believe what you stated and can't even imagine what the transitional creature looked like. They don't know if it was sea-to-land or land-to sea.

People are convinced by evidence. The Darwinians have none.

That said, I am intelligent enough to search for this whale-land mammal you FAIL to provide. It is this it?:



It doesn't even resemble a whale. No wonder you ran away.

Plus which - it's a drawing. It isn't the bones that they claim prove that an animal that looks like this existed. Even when they show bones, they are almost always filled in with some kind of modeling material, so that you see way more epoxy resin or whatever than bone. But, we are expected to accept these models as "proof." The overwhelming majority of supposed "missing link" fossils are fragments that they embellish to achieve the desired effect.

When I was in school, they showed us short clips of film with a claymation T-Rex so we would have "seen it with our own eyes."

 

[james bond]

Descent with modification is a well established fact of nature.

C'mon below is the bullshit with DWM. It's not backed up by science and is not observable nor testable. I even provided my alma mater website where I learned evolution:

"But biological evolution also includes changes in DNA that does not code for genes and changes in heritable information not encoded in DNA at all. In all of these cases, the modifications are heritable and can be passed on to the next generation — which is what really matters in evolution: long term change. Here, we’ll focus on changes in genes and other genetic elements (e.g., in non-coding DNA) as they relate to evolution."

Descent with modification

evolution.berkeley.edu

 

[james bond]

People are convinced by evidence. The Darwinians have none.

Yes. That's why I'm trying to get them to show us what they believe, but they can't even do that. We have to use our "imaginations" first lol.

My website claims the following with DWM for whales. I don't think they were ancestors as they prolly lived at the same time (oops):

"

The evolution of whales​

The first thing to notice on this evogram is that hippos are the closest living relatives of whales, but they are not the ancestors of whales. In fact, none of the individual animals on the evogram is the direct ancestor of any other, as far as we know. That’s why each of them gets its own branch on the family tree."

Fort Fun Indiana doesn't even know what he's talking about lol.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

People are convinced by evidence. The Darwinians have none.

How would you know? You can't even say what it would look like. You don't know what it would look like. So how could you possibly know if they do or don't have evidence?

Kind of a conundrum for you.

 

[Dagosa]

Yes. That's why I'm trying to get them to show us what they believe, but they can't even do that. We have to use our "imaginations" first lol.

My website claims the following with DWM for whales. I don't think they were ancestors as they prolly lived at the same time (oops):

"

The evolution of whales​

The first thing to notice on this evogram is that hippos are the closest living relatives of whales, but they are not the ancestors of whales. In fact, none of the individual animals on the evogram is the direct ancestor of any other, as far as we know. That’s why each of them gets its own branch on the family tree."

Fort Fun Indiana doesn't even know what he's talking about lol.

Wow. Pictures. That’s an improvement.

 

[Hollie]

No one can prove what happens in millions of years. Uniformitarianism and that is NOT science.

For example, you can't explain the layers in mountains and the seafloor that comprise it. How can glaciers produce that you dumb beotch?

Your hyper-religious extremism leaves you at a disadvantage. Evidence from millions of years ago is still evidence.

Sedimentary rock layers are understandable because there is nothing supernatural about how they formed.

On to matters of religionism, tell us about sacrificing farm animals to appease your gods. Belief in a flat, 6,000 year old earth is unique to one brand of religionism. Can you provide any evidence for it?

 

[Hollie]

Yes. That's why I'm trying to get them to show us what they believe, but they can't even do that. We have to use our "imaginations" first lol.

My website claims the following with DWM for whales. I don't think they were ancestors as they prolly lived at the same time (oops):

"

The evolution of whales​

The first thing to notice on this evogram is that hippos are the closest living relatives of whales, but they are not the ancestors of whales. In fact, none of the individual animals on the evogram is the direct ancestor of any other, as far as we know. That’s why each of them gets its own branch on the family tree."

Fort Fun Indiana doesn't even know what he's talking about lol.

''My website claims the following with DWM for whales''

Is ''your website'' not disclosed because it's a religious extremist website? Where did all those animals come from / go to in just the last 4,000 years? Did they fall off the edge of the flat earth?