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



## Blackrook (Aug 15, 2020)

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."


----------



## Erinwltr (Aug 15, 2020)

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

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


----------



## RightNorLeft (Aug 15, 2020)

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.


----------



## Blackrook (Aug 15, 2020)

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.


----------



## Blackrook (Aug 15, 2020)

"Survival of the fittest" is an ugly thought when applied to humans' relationships with humans.

That is why so many Christians, despite the logical fallacy of defending Creationism, do so anyway.

The way to reach such people is to assure them that one can believe that a scientific theory that governs relationships amongst animals in the wild has no place amongst civilized people.


----------



## Moonglow (Aug 15, 2020)

Erinwltr said:


> "Why do Darwinists spend time debating with Creationists and believers in Intelligent Design?"
> 
> LOL!  They don't.   You do.  Keep posting silly non sense.


Why do confused catholics get drunk and post about religion in the science and technology section?


----------



## Blackrook (Aug 15, 2020)

Moonglow said:


> Erinwltr said:
> 
> 
> > "Why do Darwinists spend time debating with Creationists and believers in Intelligent Design?"
> ...


If the theory of evolution is a religious topic then color me confused.

Do you have anything intelligent to say?

Because so far, you haven't.


----------



## Erinwltr (Aug 15, 2020)

Moonglow said:


> Erinwltr said:
> 
> 
> > "Why do Darwinists spend time debating with Creationists and believers in Intelligent Design?"
> ...


To gain a sense of religious superiority.


----------



## Moonglow (Aug 15, 2020)

Blackrook said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Erinwltr said:
> ...





> 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.


----------



## Oz and the Orchestra (Aug 15, 2020)

Blackrook said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


Actually Darwin said that 'Natural Selection' is 'possibly' a tool God used in his creation process.
So your just going on what has been said about Darwin and not what he said himself.
Many people - the German Medical profession up till the end of WWll, Nazi;s, these so call Social Darwinists, if they exist, yourself, just read into what they think Darwin said without ever studying the source material. If it isn't in 'On the Origin of Species' Charles Darwin that you have read yourself, don't assume anything!

As for -
_"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". _

Yes they would and did! Have you never heard of the 'Flat Earth Society'?
They were quite popular particularly in the US until  1969 when a photo from the Moon landing showing the Earth - a big blue and white disk in the blackness of space and made the front pages all around the world (you must have seen the very famous photo), seemed to spoil their party and their membership was decimated. However I recently read that there is a resurgence.

Think you need to do a lot more research before posting however I do agree with your final point - 

_"The theory of evolution and belief in God can co-exist." _

So you shouldn't assume your alone in that


----------



## cnm (Aug 15, 2020)

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


Light entertainment.



Very light...


----------



## Mac-7 (Aug 15, 2020)

Godless libs start another thread bashing Christians

so what else is new?


----------



## cnm (Aug 15, 2020)

Mac-7 said:


> Godless libs start another thread bashing Christians
> 
> so what else is new?


A raving god botherer starting a thread bashing non-god botherers? As in this case.


----------



## Mac1958 (Aug 15, 2020)

Erinwltr said:


> "Why do Darwinists spend time debating with Creationists and believers in Intelligent Design?"  LOL!  They don't.   You do.  Keep posting silly non sense.


What I've actually noticed is Creationists here starting conversations against Darwinism.

I've also noticed, over the last few years, them trying to leverage science into their arguments.  Which is delicious in its irony, as so many of them hate science.

If their religion makes them happy, or provides them with comfort and strength and answers, that's nice.  But this other stuff is pointless.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 15, 2020)

Never argue with stupid people.  They will bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience


----------



## Hollie (Aug 15, 2020)

Blackrook said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


I think countering the false claims of religionists is worth an effort.


----------



## harmonica (Aug 15, 2020)

Blackrook said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


Why do theists spend time debating with Darwinists and non-believers in evolution?
..why do theists constantly try to FORCE their beliefs on others?..
..I have a no solicitation sign and I get theists coming up to my door
..they tried/try to FORCE their religion on the Native Americans/Africans/etc
..this is a discussion board, yes???!!!
.I've never had a Darwinist come to my door


----------



## Hollie (Aug 15, 2020)

Politicalchic should arrive any moment now with her usual collection of phony "quotes''.


----------



## Erinwltr (Aug 15, 2020)

Mac1958 said:


> Erinwltr said:
> 
> 
> > "Why do Darwinists spend time debating with Creationists and believers in Intelligent Design?"  LOL!  They don't.   You do.  Keep posting silly non sense.
> ...


Oh my Gawd!  Is that you, Q?


----------



## Erinwltr (Aug 15, 2020)

RightNorLeft said:


> 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.


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


----------



## jwoodie (Aug 16, 2020)

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.


----------



## abu afak (Aug 16, 2020)

blackrook said:
			
		

> Why do Darwinsits debate.."



The main reason is that 12 IQ Kweationists constantly are allowed to TROLL the Science section with their Stupid and fake objections to real Science.
Otherwise there would be all science in the science section.
Hark, You Brain Dead Mutha.

BTW, I've totally Destroyed PoliticalChick and she's been DEAD/MUM here for a week+.
Bang - she STFU.
But/SO all of a sudden YOU popped up starting threads doing same, despite not having started one in this section for FOUR MONTHS.
Otherwise, again, there would be just science in the science section, Not religion masquerading as scientific objection.
You are 50 IQ points to low to debate anything.

You're determined to harass/LIE-FOR-JESUS, despite not knowing enough science to name sodium chloride, and otherwise having NO real interest in anything science.
You're just trailier-church-trash
`


`


----------



## abu afak (Aug 16, 2020)

jwoodie said:


> 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. 
`


----------



## james bond (Aug 16, 2020)

Blackrook said:


> 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?



A scientific theory does not have to be true.  That's why they're theories.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...

I stopped reading after that.


----------



## james bond (Aug 16, 2020)

RightNorLeft said:


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



The chicken came first because scientists found a protein on the eggshell that can only be produced by the ovaries of a hen in 2017.


----------



## james bond (Aug 16, 2020)

Blackrook said:


> "Survival of the fittest" is an ugly thought when applied to humans' relationships with humans.



It's not true.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA..


----------



## james bond (Aug 16, 2020)

abu afak said:


> blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



YOU ARE AN IDIOT!!!  You can't even destroy a wet paper bag.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 17, 2020)

Blackrook said:


> 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.
> 
> ...




I can destroy Darwin's theory without any reference to reliigon.


The fact is, Darwinism is part of the Left's religion, Militant Secularism.


*"Darwinism, by contrast, is an essential ingredient in secularism, that aggressive, quasi-religious faith without a deity.* The Sternberg case seems, in many ways, an instance of one religion persecuting a rival, demanding loyalty from anyone who enters one of its churches -- like the National Museum of Natural History.” The Branding of a Heretic



There are many examples of evidence that prove the very opposite of what Darwin proposed.

Darwins said simple to complex….what if the opposite is in the evidence? The premise that Darwinian evolution is false is nowhere better revealed than in the Cambrian explosion. Consider the evaluation of Roger Lewin, former staff member of _New Scientist_ in London for nine years. He, then, went to Washington, D.C. to write for _Science_ for ten years. In "A Lopsided Look At Evolution," Lewin wrote "Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are bottom-up and top-down approaches. In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit. The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect." A Lopsided Look at Evolution | Science


Yet Darwin-believers accept it on faith....because it is a part of their religion.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 17, 2020)

james bond said:


> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> > 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?
> ...


Your childish behavior is an embarrassment to everyone but you.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 17, 2020)

PoliticalChic said:


> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> > 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?
> ...



Your silly ''quotes'' destroyed Darwin's theory?

Where did that happen exactly?

Such is the disease of the fundie religionist,


----------



## Hollie (Aug 17, 2020)

PoliticalChic said:


> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> > 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?
> ...



"Darwins said simple to complex''

Who is Darwins? 

This is another example of your phony cutting and pasting. The edits and alterations you make to ''quotes'' makes you the silly buffoon.

Darwin never said "simple to complex". Your simpleton cutting and pasting reveals another of your frauds,


----------



## Erinwltr (Aug 17, 2020)

RightNorLeft said:


> 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.


You apparently have not attended a chemistry class or a debate team.  You should bet your marbles on scientists.  They don't create, they hypothesis and study.  And prove.  And then after multiple times of trying to get grant funding, finally get published.


----------



## LuckyDuck (Aug 18, 2020)

Blackrook said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


As an Atheist, I'm not going to go around and around regarding Darwinian Evolution and an Invisible Thingy in the sky. 
I will address the strong prey on the weak and genocide concept of Evolution.  Yes...in nature, there are predators that attack and consume their prey.  If you take the time to do your research, you will find that while Hitler and his Nazi cronies were into the occult, Hitler was actually a Catholic and said as much.  I doubt though that he wasn't much of a practicing Catholic.  A lack in the belief in a all-powerful, all-knowing, Invisible Thingy in the sky, doesn't make a person immoral.  
Let's take my family for instance.  No one in my family went to a church or prayed, nor had any opinion on religion.  It just wasn't part of our lives growing up.  But, even though I don't believe in the Invisible Thingy in the Sky, I have the following rules:
1.  I wouldn't like it if I were robbed, beaten or murdered....therefore, I have that same stance with regards to others.  A do unto others as I would have them do unto me stance.
2.  I'm not lazy, which the same can't be said for many Communists.  I've worked all my life and provided for my wife and kids.  Further, I don't believe in hitting my wife and kids.  
3.  I don't care what a person's race is.  It's irrelevant.  I care how he/she treats me (are they courteous?).
So, you don't need religion to have some baseline morals that you weren't taught, only used via common sense.


----------



## james bond (Aug 18, 2020)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Blackrook said:
> ...



The answer to the question in the topic is because we have the best theory while the opposition, i.e. you guys, are usually wrong.  Atheists and their scientists are usually wrong.  It would be a better world if creation science was taught in schools and creation scientists participated in peer reviews.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 18, 2020)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...




I'd be perfectly happy if they simply provided the examples of where Darwin has been proven wrong, and stopped offering it to the uninformed as 'fact' and 'proven.'


----------



## Hollie (Aug 18, 2020)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



Actually, ID’iot creationism is not taught in public schools because religion is not taught in public schools. It would be pointless to teach magic and supernaturalism in place of science.

Id’iot creationism is not a theory.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 18, 2020)

PoliticalChic said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Biological evolution is fact. Darwinian evolution is among the best supported theories in science.

I’d be perfectly happy if religionism could support claims to magic and supernaturalism but of course, it can’t.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 18, 2020)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


“People cited violation of the First Amendment when a New Jersey schoolteacher asserted that evolution and the Big Bang are not scientific and that Noah's ark carried dinosaurs. This case is not about the need to separate church and state; it's about the need to separate ignorant, scientifically illiterate people from the ranks of teachers.” 
― Neil deGrasse Tyson


----------



## Hollie (Aug 18, 2020)

jwoodie said:


> 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.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 18, 2020)

PoliticalChic said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...




If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case.” 
― Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species


I’m not convinced that dinosaurs on an Ark, 900 year old men, a global flood just a few thousand years ago and a 6,000 year old planet is realistic.

Show us the magic.


----------



## jwoodie (Aug 18, 2020)

abu afak said:


> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Aug 18, 2020)

LuckyDuck said:


> do unto others as I would have them do unto me



Hmm, where did you come up with that concept?


----------



## jwoodie (Aug 18, 2020)

Hollie said:


> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> > 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 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 (Aug 18, 2020)

jwoodie said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > jwoodie said:
> ...


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 (Aug 18, 2020)

Hollie said:


> 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 (Aug 18, 2020)

Blackrook said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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


----------



## abu afak (Aug 18, 2020)

jwoodie said:


> *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.*





			
				me said:
			
		

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





			
				jwoodie said:
			
		

> *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 (Aug 18, 2020)

jwoodie said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Aug 18, 2020)

Erinwltr said:


> "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 (Aug 18, 2020)

Erinwltr said:


> 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 (Aug 18, 2020)

Blackrook said:


> 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 (Aug 18, 2020)

jwoodie said:


> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> > do unto others as I would have them do unto me
> ...


Primitive philosophy. It predates the Bible.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Aug 18, 2020)

jwoodie said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > jwoodie said:
> ...


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 (Aug 18, 2020)

abu afak said:


> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> > *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.*
> ...



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 (Aug 18, 2020)

jwoodie said:


> 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 (Aug 19, 2020)

jwoodie said:


> 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 (Aug 19, 2020)

abu afak said:


> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> > > 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?
> ...


----------



## jwoodie (Aug 19, 2020)

abu afak said:


> Humans are 98.6% genetically similar to Chimps.


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


----------



## ChemEngineer (Aug 19, 2020)

jwoodie said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > Humans are 98.6% genetically similar to Chimps.
> ...



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 (Aug 19, 2020)

ChemEngineer said:


> Erinwltr said:
> 
> 
> > "Why do Darwinists spend time debating with Creationists and believers in Intelligent Design?"
> ...



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”.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 19, 2020)

ChemEngineer said:


> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> > abu afak said:
> ...



A truly pointless attempt at analogy.

I suppose when you’re a “thinking challenged” type, you cut and paste from silly web blogs.


----------



## jwoodie (Aug 19, 2020)

Hollie said:


> A truly pointless attempt at analogy.


An analogy may be inappropriate, but it is never pointless.  Apparently, a distinction that is way over your head.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 19, 2020)

jwoodie said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > A truly pointless attempt at analogy.
> ...


It is pointless when utterly unrelated.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Aug 19, 2020)

jwoodie said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > Humans are 98.6% genetically similar to Chimps.
> ...


Mutation, genetic drift, natural selection, etc.


----------



## abu afak (Aug 19, 2020)

jwoodie said:


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


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.

`


----------



## ChemEngineer (Aug 19, 2020)

Hollie said:


> A>B>C>D is not science, it is unintelligent
> 
> 
> A topnotch WordPress.com site
> ...



While you are on my Ignore List for good reason, I was curious at what my friend JWoodie had to say and pursued the thread.

First, simply declaring that a point is "truly pointless," it is incumbent on you to explain precisely WHY it is "truly pointless."  Don't simply make snide and ignorant remarks.  
Your second ignorant remark was to call me "thinking challenged."

Superlative thinker that YOU believe YOU are, why don't you explain why the watermelon/cloud analogy is "pointless."  Really try.

You called The Evolution Fraud a "silly web log."   Read it carefully and show each and every sentence, graph, and quote is "silly."  

Nor did I "cut and paste" from it.  I assembled it over a period of years, citing quotes from biologists, Nobel Laureates, and bitter evolutionists such as Richard Dawkins.

I don't  expect you to  respond because you don't have the expertise to do so, nor do you have the initiative to take the time and try to teach anyone anything.  The best you can do is to sling your pettiness and bitterness.  "Anger comes from the bosom of a fool." - The Holy Bible

Never more accurate than when you consider the actions and words of today's atheists, Antifa psychos, BLM terrorists, Trump-haters, and angry feminists who think they are so strong and so smart.


----------



## ChemEngineer (Aug 19, 2020)

Hollie said:


> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



THAT is *PRECISELY THE POINT!  *They are UNRELATED, like chimps and humans.
HELLO!!!  

Denial of the obvious is the standard response from a Leftist/atheist/Darwinist.


----------



## abu afak (Aug 19, 2020)

ChemEngineer said:


> *While you are on my Ignore List for good reason, I was curious at what my friend JWoodie had to say and pursued the thread.*
> 
> First, simply declaring that a point is "truly pointless," it is incumbent on you to explain precisely WHY it is "truly pointless."  Don't simply make snide and ignorant remarks.
> Your second ignorant remark was to call me "thinking challenged."
> ...


I took the time to take Woodie apart point for point.
You have anything to say to me?
Any rebuttal?

Of course not, you are a 100% Fraud, not interested in the truth, who for YEARS has used Ignore as denial/inability to reply. (I think 50 or 60 someplace)
I put up lots of meat
Let's see you put up some.
`


----------



## jwoodie (Aug 19, 2020)

abu afak said:


> You didn't answer anything I said including even on this point.


You didn't ask any questions.


----------



## abu afak (Aug 19, 2020)

jwoodie said:


> You didn't ask any questions.


True, but I made alot of points rebuttal you can 'answer' if you have any.
Obviously not.
Let's be clear. You were busted down the line.
I 'intervened.'

`


----------



## Viktor (Dec 5, 2021)

Blackrook said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


I don't accept evolution. Accepting it requires faith. Science is the description of observed things. Nobody has ever seen a T-Rex or a trilobite or a whale walking on land.


----------



## Dagosa (Dec 6, 2021)

Viktor said:


> Science is the description of observed things. Nobody has ever seen a T-Rex or a trilobite or a whale walking on land.


So you don’t accept that the grave site you place flowers on Memorial Day is that of your deceased relatives. You weren’t there for every burial. So you don’t know right ? But you do accept the evidence of “ advertisement “ that taking aspirin will help a headache. 

Your-post is ridiculous blather.  You’re just choosing to believe the uneducated . Good choice then. Fuxyour own fking car when it breaks down.


----------



## miketx (Dec 6, 2021)

Blackrook said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


Mainly because they are stupid losers.


----------



## miketx (Dec 6, 2021)

Viktor said:


> I don't accept evolution. Accepting it requires faith. Science is the description of observed things. Nobody has ever seen a T-Rex or a trilobite or a whale walking on land.


Depends on how much LSD they took. If people came from apes, why aren't apes still turning into people?


----------



## Viktor (Dec 6, 2021)

Dagosa said:


> So you don’t accept that the grave site you place flowers on Memorial Day is that of your deceased relatives. You weren’t there for every burial. So you don’t know right ? But you do accept the evidence of “ advertisement “ that taking aspirin will help a headache.



1.; I don't go to cemeteries at all
2. You are lying. I don't accept the evidence that aspirin will cure my headache because I am not allowed to take aspirin.


Dagosa said:


> Your-post is ridiculous blather.



You are a chronic liar and I don't believe a word you say. From what I have seen here, lots of others don't believe you, either.  IGNORE


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 6, 2021)

RightNorLeft said:


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


Well,it was the egg,by hundreds of millions of years.


----------



## Hollie (Dec 6, 2021)

ChemEngineer said:


> THAT is *PRECISELY THE POINT!  *They are UNRELATED, like chimps and humans.
> HELLO!!!
> 
> Denial of the obvious is the standard response from a Leftist/atheist/Darwinist.


You wrote earlier that I was on your ignore list and yet, obviously not as you read my comments and responded.

So... that would suggest you're a liar. WWJD?


----------



## Dagosa (Dec 6, 2021)

Viktor said:


> 1.; I don't go to cemeteries at all
> 2. You are lying. I don't accept the evidence that aspirin will cure my headache because I am not allowed to take aspirin.
> 
> 
> You are a chronic liar and I don't believe a word you say. From what I have seen here, lots of others don't believe you, either.  IGNORE


You have yet to disprove anything. Just being a big bag of wind is not proof. Calling someone a liar with no evidence makes you the liar. Really, the right now is inundated with snowflakes who need permission to just make up shit.


----------



## Dagosa (Dec 6, 2021)

Viktor said:


> I don't accept evolution. Accepting it requires faith. Science is the description of observed things. Nobody has ever seen a T-Rex or a trilobite or a whale walking on land.


Woo woo.


----------



## Dagosa (Dec 6, 2021)

Viktor said:


> 1.; I don't go to cemeteries at all


You’re nothing special. Maybe you should.


----------



## Seymour Flops (Feb 28, 2022)

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 (Feb 28, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> 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 (Feb 28, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> 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 (Feb 28, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> 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 (Feb 28, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


''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 (Feb 28, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> 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 (Feb 28, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> 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 (Feb 28, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> 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 (Feb 28, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> 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 (Feb 28, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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


Fort Fun Indiana said:


> 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.  


Fort Fun Indiana said:


> 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 (Feb 28, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> 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 (Feb 28, 2022)

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 (Feb 28, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> 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 (Feb 28, 2022)

james bond said:


> 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 (Feb 28, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Right!
> 
> So, answer the question. Since this is the science section.
> 
> ...


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 (Mar 1, 2022)

abu afak said:


> 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)
> ...


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 (Mar 1, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> 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 (Mar 1, 2022)

RightNorLeft said:


> 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 (Mar 1, 2022)

james bond said:


> 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 (Mar 1, 2022)

Blackrook said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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


----------



## Seymour Flops (Mar 1, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I spent roughly 20 seconds.


You’ve spent post after post after post debating.  If your point is that you haven’t been debating very well, but relying on personal insults, sure that’s true.  But you have made a lot of effort to pretend to have evidence for Darwinism without presenting any.


Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Now, back on track.
> 
> What would evidence that whales evolved from land mammals look like, to you?


It is you who claim to have the evidence.  You should tell me what that evidence looks like.  Or admit that you have none, which is clearly the case.

Is your point is that there can’t really be any evidence for something that happened millions of years ago and left only traces in the ocean?  If so, *ding ding ding ding ding*!

There is no evidence for how life began, and certainly none for the specific Darwinian model.  But for the Darwinian model, we also have more than a hundred years of observation by researchers desperate to prove it, and still no evidence that speciation by natural selection happens.  Absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence, but it’s a good clue after having tried so hard to find it.

Ideas about the origin and development of life are pure guesswork, not theory in the scientific sense.  So, as long as everyone is just guessing, my guess is as good as yours.  Better, because I don’t have to call people “poopy pants” or whatever it is you keep saying.


----------



## Circe (Mar 1, 2022)

Blackrook said:


> 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?


Well, it's not religion-based, but people argue about global warming that way, some of them.

And most people, probably nearly all, who believe in evolution don't bother to argue. People can believe in creationism and what-not if they like; it's rude to argue against religion. My daughter-in-law believes in creationism: I just slip-slide around all that.

A few people try to persuade, like the great Richard Dawkins, but I don't know why. Some of his books are unreadable because of that, like the Watchmaker; it's all persuasion to get people to believe in evolution, which doesn't seem useful to me.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 1, 2022)

james bond said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


There are a great many transitional fossils. The problem you face is that Ken Ham's creationer playground is not where you will find them.

On the other hand, show us the evidence for a supernatural trick performed by your gods.


----------



## Dagosa (Mar 1, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


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


Why not get off your lazy arse and research anyone of the accredited university websites. Afraud ? You have yet to reference any of them.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 1, 2022)

james bond said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


So you admit no evidence could possibly convince you.

And thus ends your participation in the science section.

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


----------



## Seymour Flops (Mar 1, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> So you admit no evidence could possibly convince you.
> 
> And thus ends your participation in the science section.


I "admitted" that you have presented zero evidence.


Fort Fun Indiana said:


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


So you have been very foolish?

No matter. You will still obsessively reply. You can't help yourself.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 1, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> I "admitted" that you have presented zero evidence.
> 
> So you have been very foolish?
> 
> No matter. You will still obsessively reply. You can't help yourself.


Cute whining! Back on track...

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

You certainly are having a hard time with this.


----------



## Seymour Flops (Mar 1, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Cute whining! Back on track...
> 
> What would evidence that whales evolved from land mammals look like, to you? How would you know if you saw some?
> 
> You certainly are having a hard time with this.


If you claim that there is evidence you should know what it looks like.

Do you claim that there is evidence that whales evolved from land mammals?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 1, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> If you claim that there is evidence you should know what it looks like.


 No, we have been over this. You already said you reject all the evidence I could ever produce.So just laying at your feet what I think is evidence would be a waste of time.

So now you get to tell me what that evidence would look like. Scientists have no problem answering this question.

But you sure seem to be in a tailspin over it. Let's try again:

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

Be specific.


----------



## Seymour Flops (Mar 1, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> No, we have been over this. You already said you reject all the evidence I could ever produce.So just laying at your feet what I think is evidence would be a waste of time.


I said nothing like that.


Fort Fun Indiana said:


> So now you get to tell me what that evidence would look like. Scientists have no problem answering this question.


What answer do they give?


Fort Fun Indiana said:


> But you sure seem to be in a tailspin over it. Let's try again:
> 
> What would evidence that whales evolved from land mammals look like, to you?
> 
> Be specific.


I have no idea, I've never seen evidence of that.

If you have seen it, describe it. If you havent, just say so.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 1, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> I said nothing like that.
> 
> What answer do they give?
> 
> ...


No, sorry. I have explained why.

You sure are having a hard time with  this. 

As I knew you would. It's always quite easy to  expose the dishonest nutter frauds trying to waste everyone's time.

This type of simple question always does the trick.

And it is every time.


----------



## Seymour Flops (Mar 1, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> No, sorry. I have explained why.
> 
> You sure are having a hard time with  this.
> 
> ...


Ok, then.  No evidence = nothing to discuss.

Buh-bye.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 1, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> Ok, then.  No evidence = nothing to discuss.
> 
> Buh-bye.


haha, seeya!

Just like I said.

One simple question, and the nutters degenerate into quivering blobs of impotent crybaby.

Works every time.

At least Bond had the stones to be honest and admit that there is no evidence that could possibly compel him to think whales evolved from land mammals.

You on the other hand, a career troll, are too squeamish on an anonymous message board to be honest.

because this trolling is your life and your identity.


----------



## Dagosa (Mar 1, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> Ok, then.  No evidence = nothing to discuss.
> 
> Buh-bye.


More pigeon logic.


----------



## james bond (Mar 1, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> So you admit no evidence could possibly convince you.
> 
> And thus ends your participation in the science section.
> 
> Anyone else that wastes one second replying to you on this topic is foolish.


>>So you admit no evidence could possibly convince you.<<

I thought you would get the most familiar example.  

If you want me to apply it to whales and land mammals, then whales supposedly came first.  But to my thinking I see land mammals, too, living at the same time.  Anyway, you're frustrated and gone like you usually do and have given up.  It sounds like you assume they didn't live at the same time and one turned into the other.  We should see the same thing, but have transitional fossils in your scenario.  Instead, I have fossils of both to back up they were living at the same time.


----------



## james bond (Mar 1, 2022)

Hollie said:


> 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?


Science is supposed to be based on evidence and not assuming long-time and evolution or making the evidence fit your theory.  The theory should should explain the evidence.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 1, 2022)

james bond said:


> Science is supposed to be based on evidence and not assuming long-time and evolution or making the evidence fit your theory.  The theory should should explain the evidence.


Physical and taxonomic evidence confirms the theory of evolution. 

You will deny science and knowledge based solely on the irreconcilable conflicts those elements create with your extremist religious views. 

The planet is not flat. "Hasn't been long time"


----------



## james bond (Mar 1, 2022)

Hollie said:


> Physical and taxonomic evidence confirms the theory of evolution.
> 
> You will deny science and knowledge based solely on the irreconcilable conflicts those elements create with your extremist religious views.
> 
> The planet is not flat. "Hasn't been long time"


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.

'"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?
					

Evolutionists are desperate in their search to find transitional or intermediate forms to validate their theory of evolution. If, as they believe, millions of species of plants and animals have evolved during hundreds of millions of years, many billions times billions of transitional forms would...




					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.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 1, 2022)

james bond said:


> 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.
> 
> '"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.'
> 
> ...


This is the wrong forum to introduce nonsense from charlatans at the ICR Cult.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 1, 2022)

james bond said:


> >>So you admit no evidence could possibly convince you.<<


Yep, you admitted it.

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


----------



## james bond (Mar 1, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> 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 (Mar 1, 2022)

james bond said:


> 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?


james bond said:


> '"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.'
> 
> 
> 
> ...


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 (Mar 1, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


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





Fort Fun Indiana said:


> 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?



Seymour Flops said:


> 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 (Mar 1, 2022)

james bond said:


> 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 (Mar 1, 2022)

james bond said:


> 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 (Mar 1, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> 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 (Mar 1, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> 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) 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 (Mar 1, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> 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 (Mar 1, 2022)

abu afak said:


> 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 (Mar 1, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> 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 (Mar 1, 2022)

james bond said:


> 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 (Mar 1, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> 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 (Mar 1, 2022)

Hollie said:


> 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 (Mar 1, 2022)

james bond said:


> 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.


james bond said:


> 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 (Mar 1, 2022)

Hollie said:


> 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 - Understanding Evolution
					

We've defined evolution as descent with modification from a common ancestor, but exactly what has been modified? Evolution occurs when there is a change in the heritable information passed from one generation to the next. Typically, we think of biological evolution as changes in gene frequency...




					evolution.berkeley.edu


----------



## james bond (Mar 1, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> 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 (Mar 1, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> 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 (Mar 1, 2022)

james bond said:


> 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):
> 
> ...


Wow. Pictures. That’s an improvement.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 2, 2022)

james bond said:


> 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 (Mar 2, 2022)

james bond said:


> 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):
> 
> ...



''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?


----------



## james bond (Mar 2, 2022)

Hollie said:


> 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?


Yes, the sedimentary rock layers back creation.  Otherwise, you would be able to explain what it has to do with evolution and how it backs it up.


----------



## james bond (Mar 2, 2022)

Hollie said:


> ''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?


Knock yerself out -- The evolution of whales - Understanding Evolution.

They admit the creatures are not related, so they back creation and what I said about them living together.


----------



## Dagosa (Mar 2, 2022)

james bond said:


> Knock yerself out -- The evolution of whales - Understanding Evolution.
> 
> They admit the creatures are not related, so they back creation and what I said about them living together.


Why would you use a reference that refutes what you say and supports evolution. Then, you give your own interpretation and lie about what is written.  Did you actually read it ? Maybe you’re just enamored with the pictures.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 2, 2022)

james bond said:


> Knock yerself out -- The evolution of whales - Understanding Evolution.
> 
> They admit the creatures are not related, so they back creation and what I said about them living together.


You knocked yourself out. The "evogram" clearly identifies evolution of species. 

You handily refuted your own brand of hyper-religionism.


----------



## james bond (Mar 2, 2022)

Hollie said:


> You knocked yourself out. The "evogram" clearly identifies evolution of species.
> 
> You handily refuted your own brand of hyper-religionism.


You mean it's a EVILgram?  No.  The species are not related and lived at the same time.  I think they want you to put 2+2 together for EVILution and overlook they aren't related and lived at the same time.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 2, 2022)

james bond said:


> You mean it's a EVILgram?  No.  The species are not related and lived at the same time.  I think they want you to put 2+2 together for EVILution and overlook they aren't related and lived at the same time.


You didn't look at what you copied and pasted. 

Which animals strolled off the Ark? You need to edit your bibles to make the time frames work. Add some new gods?


----------



## james bond (Mar 2, 2022)

Hollie said:


> You didn't look at what you copied and pasted.
> 
> Which animals strolled off the Ark? You need to edit your bibles to make the time frames work. Add some new gods?


This is why the evos here are SAF and not just POS.  They mix up their animals with what the Bible says.

I just showed you your EVILution which clearly most here did not know, especially that SAF & POS abu afak.  What a boring POS, eh Hollie?  Is he going to read it and learn?  HELL no!

With Noah's animals, why don't you read the Bible to discover what are clean and unclean animals?  This may give you a start.

“Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth” Genesis 7:2–3


----------



## Hollie (Mar 2, 2022)

james bond said:


> This is why the evos here are SAF and not just POS.  They mix up their animals with what the Bible says.
> 
> I just showed you your EVILution which clearly most here did not know, especially that SAF & POS abu afak.  What a boring POS, eh Hollie?
> 
> ...



So, what animals strolled off Noah's Ark?


----------



## abu afak (Mar 2, 2022)

Hollie said:


> So, what animals strolled off Noah's Ark?


Either Noah's family was very incestuous or they and the animals were doing other animals.
In which case you get "Biblical evolution"/different Species!
`


----------



## james bond (Mar 2, 2022)

Hollie said:


> So, what animals strolled off Noah's Ark?


Instead of making yourself SAF & POS, like that scumbag abu afak, because of your faith, why don't you read some of that website?

"These first whales, such as _Pakicetus_, were typical land animals. They had long skulls and large teeth that could be used for eating meat. From the outside, they don’t look much like whales at all."


----------



## surada (Mar 2, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> You’ve spent post after post after post debating.  If your point is that you haven’t been debating very well, but relying on personal insults, sure that’s true.  But you have made a lot of effort to pretend to have evidence for Darwinism without presenting any.
> 
> It is you who claim to have the evidence.  You should tell me what that evidence looks like.  Or admit that you have none, which is clearly the case.
> 
> ...


There is evidence of evolution. Science doesn't have any position on how life started. They don't know. You're confused about Darwin.


----------



## surada (Mar 2, 2022)

james bond said:


> Yes, the sedimentary rock layers back creation.  Otherwise, you would be able to explain what it has to do with evolution and how it backs it up.


What about the prehistoric cemetery in Egypt? That's 30,000 years ago.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 2, 2022)

surada said:


> There is evidence of evolution. Science doesn't have any position on how life started. They don't know. You're confused about Darwin.


 The vast majority of scientists(probably 100% of biologists) will tell you that they believe life almost certainly formed on Earth via abiogenesis.

For one, there is no good reason to think otherwise. 

Second, all the ingredients were here.


----------



## james bond (Mar 2, 2022)

You know what?  I'll start using my website to embarrass the evos here who think they know evolution when they know shit.  They're SAF & POS, some more than others.


----------



## james bond (Mar 2, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> The vast majority of scientists(probably 100% of biologists) will tell you that they believe life almost certainly formed on Earth via abiogenesis.
> 
> For one, there is no good reason to think otherwise.
> 
> Second, all the ingredients were here.


Here is a perfect example of a SAF & POS evo.  Jumping to conclusions and deferring to authority of false logic.

What _real_ evos think of the origin of life is from soup to cells.  What they have are _hypotheses_ of how this happened.  They have ancient fossils, radiometric dating, phylogenics (chemistry of modern organisms) and experiments such as Miller-Urey.


----------



## james bond (Mar 2, 2022)

surada said:


> What about the prehistoric cemetery in Egypt? That's 30,000 years ago.


Please explain.


----------



## Seymour Flops (Mar 2, 2022)

surada said:


> There is evidence of evolution. Science doesn't have any position on how life started. They don't know. You're confused about Darwin.


Oh, thank whoever!

Finally, a poster who has evidence of Darwinian evolution.  Present it, please!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 2, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> Oh, thank whoever!
> 
> Finally, a poster who has evidence of Darwinian evolution.  Present it, please!


But you can't describe what that evidence would look like. You don't even know what it might look like.

You couldn't think of one single example. 

So how will you know if you have seen any or not?

Oh, I get it. You like attention.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 2, 2022)

james bond said:


> Instead of making yourself SAF & POS, like that scumbag abu afak, because of your faith, why don't you read some of that website?
> 
> "These first whales, such as _Pakicetus_, were typical land animals. They had long skulls and large teeth that could be used for eating meat. From the outside, they don’t look much like whales at all."


I have read some of that website. Much of it is wrong and has a bias you're aware of. 

That's why you cut and paste from there,


----------



## Dagosa (Mar 2, 2022)

james bond


james bond said:


> This is why the evos here are SAF and not just POS.  They mix up their animals with what the Bible says.
> 
> I just showed you your EVILution which clearly most here did not know, especially that SAF & POS abu afak.  What a boring POS, eh Hollie?  Is he going to read it and learn?  HELL no!
> 
> ...


Moses wrote genesis. Really, the logistics are impossible. It takes a lot of magic just to get seven pairs of animals to coexist on a fking boat. Who are you trying to kid ? It’s a farce.


----------



## james bond (Mar 2, 2022)

Hollie said:


> I have read some of that website. Much of it is wrong and has a bias you're aware of.
> 
> That's why you cut and paste from there,


Here's a favorite of mine:  God created humans in one day.

To you, Fort Fun Indiana and abu afak, if only you read and used my website sometimes...

"Macroevolution encompasses the grandest trends and transformations in evolution, such as the origin of mammals and the radiation of flowering plants. Macroevolutionary patterns are generally what we see when we look at the large-scale history of life.


It is not necessarily easy to “see” macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using all available evidence: geology, fossils, and living organisms.


Once we’ve figured out _what_ evolutionary events have taken place, we try to figure out _how_ they happened. Just as in microevolution, basic evolutionary mechanisms like mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection are at work and can help explain many large-scale patterns in the history of life.

The basic evolutionary mechanisms — mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection — can produce major evolutionary change if given enough time."






Or humans from monkeys -- The emergence of humans - Understanding Evolution


----------



## james bond (Mar 2, 2022)

surada said:


> What about the prehistoric cemetery in Egypt? That's 30,000 years ago.


Interesting.  Wasn't it a zoo?  Did they have dinosaurs?






Here's one where the people gave a velociraptor to their Pharoah.  Of course, the evos think they offered the skeleton.  What Egyptian in their right mind would give bones to a Pharoah?


----------



## surada (Mar 2, 2022)

james bond said:


> Interesting.  Wasn't it a zoo?  Did they have dinosaurs?


Nope.


----------



## james bond (Mar 2, 2022)

surada said:


> Nope.



The evidence is there.

"
Dinosaurs and humans -- did they live together?​
What fossil evidence supports dinosaurs and humans living at the same time? Do scientists ever find dinosaurs buried with animals that were not supposed to have evolved yet?"









						Dinosaurs and humans -- did they live together?
					

What fossil evidence supports dinosaurs and humans living at the same time? Do scientists ever find dinosaurs buried with animals that were not supposed to have evolved yet?   The Creation Magazine LIVE! TV program is a ministry of Creation Ministries International. With offices in seven...




					creation.com


----------



## Grumblenuts (Mar 2, 2022)

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

Because we're social animals.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 3, 2022)

james bond said:


> Here's a favorite of mine:  God created humans in one day.
> 
> To you, Fort Fun Indiana and abu afak, if only you read and used my website sometimes...
> 
> ...



Nothing in that long cut and paste suggests anything about your gods.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 3, 2022)

james bond said:


> The evidence is there.
> 
> "
> Dinosaurs and humans -- did they live together?​
> ...



There is only evidence of creationer fraud.


----------



## Seymour Flops (Mar 3, 2022)

Grumblenuts said:


> Why do Darwinists spend time debating with Creationists and believers in Intelligent Design?
> 
> Because we're social animals.


Yes, such a debate can be an enjoyable “sport,” so to speak.  Unfortunately, the Darwinists on this message board are by far the worst I’ve ever seen at debating the topic.  

There argument is literally this:  I’ve believed in Darwin my whole life because everyone says that the experts say it is true.   If you do not, you’re an idiot.


----------



## Seymour Flops (Mar 3, 2022)

james bond said:


> Here's a favorite of mine:  God created humans in one day.
> 
> To you, Fort Fun Indiana and abu afak, if only you read and used my website sometimes...
> 
> ...


That is interesting.  I’m not a creationist, and I’m not sure whether you are, or whether your beliefs are unique.  

Do you subscribe to micro-evolution, macro-evolution, both, neither?  Do you define micro-evolution as change within a species?


----------



## Hollie (Mar 3, 2022)

Grumblenuts said:


> Why do Darwinists spend time debating with Creationists and believers in Intelligent Design?
> 
> Because we're social animals.


That, and I think it's worth the effort to counter the fraud and misrepresentations of the ID'iot creationers. These are the people who loathe science, learning and discovery. These are the people who want to force their religion into public schools. They want to indoctrinate children with the belief they are evil and base and only through their religious ideology can they be saved from eternal torment. One can see the loathing for science displayed by the poster poser who opens near daily "Darwinism is bad", threads but is unable to offer a single coherent comment actually refuting the Theory of Evolution.


----------



## james bond (Mar 3, 2022)

The main point I see is macroevolution such as humans from apes took 3.8 BILLION years.  That's much worse than millions of years.  We can't relate to how long millions of years is unless you want to admit humans lived with dinosaurs.  Yet, we knew before the 1850s.


----------



## james bond (Mar 3, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> That is interesting.  I’m not a creationist, and I’m not sure whether you are, or whether your beliefs are unique.
> 
> Do you subscribe to micro-evolution, macro-evolution, both, neither?  Do you define micro-evolution as change within a species?


My point was the evos here don't really know evolution.  Prior to the 1850s, i.e. uniformitarianism and Darwinism, we thought prehistoric was millions of years ago and that we lived with dinosaurs.  Afterward, if dinosaurs lived with humans, then evolution is destroyed.  IOW, it took 3.8 billion years for big change or new species evolution to happen.

The main point is this 3.8 billion years change is HYPOTHESIS and not a theory.

BTW, the other 3.8 billion years change of dinosaurs to birds has been disproved.


----------



## james bond (Mar 3, 2022)

Hollie said:


> That, and I think it's worth the effort to counter the fraud and misrepresentations of the ID'iot creationers. *These are the people who loathe science, learning and discovery.* These are the people who want to force their religion into public schools. They want to indoctrinate children with the belief they are evil and base and only through their religious ideology can they be saved from eternal torment. One can see the loathing for science displayed by the poster poser who opens near daily "Darwinism is bad", threads but is unable to offer a single coherent comment actually refuting the Theory of Evolution.


To the contrary, it's because we love science and don't want it to go believing in LIES.  Science was correct until Hutton, Lyell and Darwin came along.  It could be conservatives vs liberals after that, so politics could be involved.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 3, 2022)

james bond said:


> The main point I see is macroevolution such as humans from apes took 3.8 BILLION years.  That's much worse than millions of years.  We can't relate to how long millions of years is unless you want to admit humans lived with dinosaurs.  Yet, we knew before the 1850s.


Humans never lived with dinosaurs... except at the silly Ken Ham monstrosity park.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 3, 2022)

james bond said:


> To the contrary, it's because we love science and don't want it to go believing in LIES.  Science was correct until Hutton, Lyell and Darwin came along.  It could be conservatives vs liberals after that, so politics could be involved.


That's quite a conspiracy theory.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 3, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> Yes, such a debate can be an enjoyable “sport,” so to speak.  Unfortunately, the Darwinists on this message board are by far the worst I’ve ever seen at debating the topic.
> 
> There argument is literally this:  I’ve believed in Darwin my whole life because everyone says that the experts say it is true.   If you do not, you’re an idiot.


Yours is a completely fraudulent representation of the arguments supporting biological evolution.


----------



## james bond (Mar 3, 2022)

Hollie said:


> Nothing in that long cut and paste suggests anything about your gods.


Our resident forum expert on evolution, abu afak, admitted that evolution does not have anything to do with atheism.  However, I've discovered that evolution does have something to do with Christianity and God.  Thus, you are WRONG again.

"
Observation and Natural Theology: William Harvey & William Paley​


Image courtesy of the National Library of Medicine. 

Harvey showed how blood, pumped by the heart, circulated through vessels in the arm. Images courtesy of the National Library of Medicine.
In the 1600s the study of life changed forever. After relying on the authority of ancient writers like Aristotle and Galen for centuries, European naturalists began to look at life for themselves. Anatomists discovered new organs in the human body, and also discovered that familiar organs didn’t work the way Aristotle and Galen said they did. The English physician William Harvey (above left), for example, discovered in the early 1600s that blood was pumped from the heart through the body in a closed loop. Meanwhile, Harvey and others were examining animals and plants and making equally astonishing discoveries. The English inventor, Robert Hooke, for example, looked through a microscope at a previously unimaginable complexity hidden in tiny animals as humble as a flea.
Envisioning organisms as machines​This new generation of naturalists envisioned life as machines. Like human-made machines, an animal had many different parts—muscles, eyes, bones, organs, and so on—that all played vital functions to help keep the animal alive. Naturalists found that they could apply the same scientific methods in physics that they used to invent machines, to life itself.
Natural theology and God’s design​Some clergymen worried that this mechanistic approach of life smacked of atheism. But many of the naturalists themselves believed that they actually were on a religious mission. In fact, a number of them were both naturalists _and_ theologians. They believed that God had created the entire world in such a way that his plan could be understood in part by rational creatures. By studying the intricate structures of a hand or a feather, a naturalist could appreciate God’s benevolent design.


Image courtesy of Wikipedia.
Natural theology, as it became known, dominated English thinking for nearly two centuries. In the early 1800s, it was best known to Englishmen through the writings of Reverend William Paley (left). Natural theology was important scientifically because it guided researchers to the fundamental question of how life works. Even today, when scientists discover a new kind of organ or protein, they try to figure out its function. But it would be Charles Darwin, who actually occupied Paley’s rooms at Cambridge University and was an admirer of Paley’s work, who would take science beyond natural theology and move those questions from the religious sphere to the scientific."









						Observation and Natural Theology: William Harvey & William Paley - Understanding Evolution
					

Image courtesy of the National Library of Medicine. Harvey showed how blood, pumped by the heart, circulated through vessels in the arm. Images courtesy of the National Library of Medicine. In the 1600s the study of life changed forever. After relying on the authority of ancient writers like...




					evolution.berkeley.edu


----------



## Hollie (Mar 3, 2022)

james bond said:


> Our resident forum expert on evolution, abu afak, admitted that evolution does not have anything to do with atheism.  However, I've discovered that evolution does have something to do with Christianity and God.  Thus, you are WRONG again.
> 
> "
> Observation and Natural Theology: William Harvey & William Paley​
> ...


That faux science site to steal from fools no one but you.


----------



## james bond (Mar 3, 2022)

Hollie said:


> Yours is a completely fraudulent representation of the arguments supporting biological evolution.


It seems your leader, abu afak, has ABANDONED you.  It proves that he is a COWARD and was AFRAID to admit that he was wrong besides being SAF & POS.  Who's the leader for EVIL-ution now?  You?  Fort Fun Indiana?  surada?  Just wait and see?  I guess we'll have to wait and see unless they take charge.


----------



## Dagosa (Mar 3, 2022)

james bond said:


> Here's a favorite of mine:  God created humans in one day.
> 
> To you, Fort Fun Indiana and abu afak, if only you read and used my website sometimes...
> 
> ...


More woo woo. I don’t think you read your own references.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 3, 2022)

james bond said:


> It seems your leader, abu afak, has ABANDONED you.  It proves that he is a COWARD and was AFRAID to admit that he was wrong besides being SAF & POS.  Who's the leader for EVIL-ution now?  You?  Fort Fun Indiana?  surada?  Just wait and see?  I guess we'll have to wait and see unless they take charge.



That juvenile tirade served what purpose?


----------



## Seymour Flops (Mar 3, 2022)

james bond said:


> My point was the evos here don't really know evolution.


No, they absolutely don't know anything about evolution.  They don't even suspect.  The ones I have engaged thus far seem to regard their ignorance as a virtue.  That they accept what they read in high school textbooks as irrefutable fact is a sign of their loyalty to whatever it is they are loyal to.


james bond said:


> Prior to the 1850s, i.e. uniformitarianism and Darwinism, we thought prehistoric was millions of years ago and that we lived with dinosaurs.  Afterward, if dinosaurs lived with humans, then evolution is destroyed.  IOW, it took 3.8 billion years for big change or new species evolution to happen.
> 
> The main point is this 3.8 billion years change is HYPOTHESIS and not a theory.
> 
> BTW, the other 3.8 billion years change of dinosaurs to birds has been disproved.


Yes, the time required for the changes that Darwinists propose is far too great for it to have happened in what is estimated to be the timeline of Earth's history.  Not to mention, the even faster pace of Darwinian evolution required for the Cambrian explosion.  You know, what is "written" in the infallible "fossil record?"



> The English inventor, Robert Hooke, for example, looked through a microscope at a previously unimaginable complexity hidden in tiny animals as humble as a flea.


Yes.  So much for modern "complex" life evolving from prehistoric "simple" life.


----------



## james bond (Mar 3, 2022)

Hollie said:


> That juvenile tirade served what purpose?


No juvenile.  No tirade.  It's just my opinion as abu afak used to post the most in regards to evo, but now he's learned his lesson and has bowed down to the creationists.  As for you and the rest, we are waiting to see who takes his place and posts the most arguments for evo.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 3, 2022)

james bond said:


> No juvenile.  No tirade.  It's just my opinion as abu afak used to post the most in regards to evo, but now he's learned his lesson and has bowed down to the creationists.  As for you and the rest, we are waiting to see who takes his place and posts the most arguments for evo.


Your juvenile tirades are funny.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Mar 3, 2022)

All Darwinists, comments welcome here: 




__





						Advances In Age Reversal
					

I'm sure like most, I've remained curious while skeptical of all this stuff. Never moved to spend a cent on any of it. Well, suspend your disbelief for a while and watch this video. Actually, there's really very little to see until the end, so you can just listen to most of it while doing other...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				



Negativity trolls, enjoy watching the sunrise instead.


----------



## james bond (Mar 4, 2022)

Hollie said:


> Your juvenile tirades are funny.


I just posted another challenge to the evos here and that I would use my Cal website on evo AGAINST them.  The evos keep saying that I am IGNORANT of evo.  Will I be able to WIN using that?  For example, Fort Fun Indiana didn't know it was whales to hippos.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 4, 2022)

james bond said:


> I just posted another challenge to the evos here and that I would use my Cal website on evo AGAINST them.  The evos keep saying that I am IGNORANT of evo.  Will I be able to WIN using that?  For example, Fort Fun Indiana didn't know it was whales to hippos.


The phony website is an embarrassment, and, like the stereotypical religo, you are ignorant of science and biology.


----------



## Dagosa (Mar 4, 2022)

james bond said:


> The evos keep saying that I am IGNORANT of evo.


No one here has ever restricted your ignorance to evolution.


----------



## abu afak (Mar 4, 2022)

james bond said:


> It seems your leader, abu afak, has ABANDONED you.  It proves that he is a COWARD and was AFRAID to admit that he was wrong besides being SAF & POS.  Who's the leader for EVIL-ution now?  You?  Fort Fun Indiana?  surada?  Just wait and see?  I guess we'll have to wait and see unless they take charge.


I must say I tire of your INSANITY.
You're a LUNATIC.
Like a street person yelling the same thing daily.

But the FACT is there is NO evidence of god,  but overwhelming evidence of Evolution.

And until you claim your Nobel Prize (for finding Vishnu), you're Full of shlt and you really have NOTHING to say.
You're always claiming "proof" of this or that insanity.
But you're a brainwashed/indoctrinated Lunatic with no facts.
Smart believers understand they have a non-provable personal belief and don't try.

And YES, I prefer posting on Mensa's group than listening to your tireless Circle Jerk claims.
(like me and Scientific American are into Bestiality)

Go **** yourself and burn that bible..
And don't tag me again FREAK Show.

`
`


----------



## james bond (Mar 4, 2022)

Hollie said:


> The phony website is an embarrassment, and, like the stereotypical religo, you are ignorant of science and biology.


No, it is this forum that is an embarrassment whenever most evos/ags/atheists post to it.  They just want evo to fit their beliefs so bad.  But it can't because science DOES NOT back it up.  Science BACKS UP creation science.  How else can I win EVERY TIME???!!!???!!!

Now, I'm claiming that I think I can win just by using the website where I learned my evolution, i.e. most here think they know evolution, but don't.


----------



## james bond (Mar 4, 2022)

abu afak said:


> I must say I tire of your INSANITY.
> You're a LUNATIC.
> Like a street person yelling the same thing daily.
> 
> ...


Tut, tut.  You are describing YOURSELF.  I'm not the one who starts these evo vs creation threads and go looney tunes and get SUSPENDED.

Furthermore, that's why I'm going to try CHANGING my approach.  I'll just use my evolution website from Cal.  Embarrass the fark out of people here who think they know evolution when all they're trying to do is back up their false religion.  Maybe we'll find an area where evolution is questionable or better yet, CONTRADICTS itself?  I hope you will be able to defend or at least explain your science.

Fort Fun Indiana was embarrassed, so may not return for weeks or months.  Look at you.  You ran away and haven't posted until now.

ETA:  It could be that the libs will say we are POST COVID now just to make their fearful leader look good.


----------



## Dagosa (Mar 4, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> That they accept what they read in high school textbooks as irrefutable fact is a sign of their loyalty to whatever it is they are loyal to.


Wow, you don't believe in going to school. Amazing. What did you do with your kids for 8 hours a day, if you had any ?


----------



## Dagosa (Mar 4, 2022)

james bond said:


> No, it is this forum that is an embarrassment whenever most evos/ags/atheists post to it.  They just want evo to fit their beliefs so bad.  But it can't because science DOES NOT back it up.  Science BACKS UP creation science.  How else can I win EVERY TIME???!!!???!!!
> 
> Now, I'm claiming that I think I can win just by using the website where I learned my evolution, i.e. most here think they know evolution, but don't.


Unfortunate for you, you can’t post one reference from any university that offers a degree in science that says, the world was created in seven days.


----------



## abu afak (Mar 4, 2022)

james bond said:


> Tut, tut.  You are describing YOURSELF.  I'm not the one who starts these evo vs creation threads and go looney tunes and get SUSPENDED.
> *Look at you.  You ran away and haven't posted until now.*
> 
> ETA:  It could be that the libs will say we are POST COVID now just to make their fearful leader look good.



"I Ran away"?
​Yesterday at 3:58 PM?​Suspended?​




						Scientists Discover a Self-Replicating Protein Structure, And It Could Have Built The First Life on
					

No logic is involved here, just your faith.  Own it.   False.  By faith I believe that the imperatives of logic are reliable.  Please explain why you believe they're not.  Thanks.  By faith you believe the creation of the universe is somehow connected to a man who lived and died on Earth some...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				


​​Wednesday - 3 posts here​"Suspended"?​




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

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...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				


-​




						Why does devolution often accompany evolution?
					

Humans are the best example, of course. We supposedly descend from an ape-like ancestor. Obviously growing a big brain would be beneficial to survival.   But what was the survival benefit of losing our fur coats, our strong jaws, our super speed and super strength (compared to apes), along with...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				


-​




						Why does devolution often accompany evolution?
					

Humans are the best example, of course. We supposedly descend from an ape-like ancestor. Obviously growing a big brain would be beneficial to survival.   But what was the survival benefit of losing our fur coats, our strong jaws, our super speed and super strength (compared to apes), along with...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				


​​Tuesday: - 8 more​




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

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...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				


​




						Evidence of Common Descent (LOTS, across the sciences)
					

Again. Where is the Law of Evolution?  Just so embarrassingly stupid.  Correction: PROUDLY stupid.



					www.usmessageboard.com
				


​




						Evidence of Common Descent (LOTS, across the sciences)
					

Again. Where is the Law of Evolution?  Just so embarrassingly stupid.  Correction: PROUDLY stupid.



					www.usmessageboard.com
				


​




						Evidence of Common Descent (LOTS, across the sciences)
					

Again. Where is the Law of Evolution?  Just so embarrassingly stupid.  Correction: PROUDLY stupid.



					www.usmessageboard.com
				


​




						Evidence of Common Descent (LOTS, across the sciences)
					

I'm not trying to force people to believe as I do.  Believe in spontaneous abiogenesis, and designer-less design all you like.  I'm fine with that.   You're the one who screams in all-caps when challenged to provide evidence.  I don't know how life happened, and unlike you I have not made up a...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				


​




						Evidence of Common Descent (LOTS, across the sciences)
					

I'm not trying to force people to believe as I do.  Believe in spontaneous abiogenesis, and designer-less design all you like.  I'm fine with that.   You're the one who screams in all-caps when challenged to provide evidence.  I don't know how life happened, and unlike you I have not made up a...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				


​(to you)​




						All Primates share ABO Blood Types from a previous ancestor
					

That's WHY it was IRONICALLY Named after Rhesus monkeys.  It was named so only because it was first discovered in the rhesus monkey. In fact, all primates have it.



					www.usmessageboard.com
				


​




						Evidence of Common Descent (LOTS, across the sciences)
					

I'm not trying to force people to believe as I do.  Believe in spontaneous abiogenesis, and designer-less design all you like.  I'm fine with that.   You're the one who screams in all-caps when challenged to provide evidence.  I don't know how life happened, and unlike you I have not made up a...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				


​​"I ran away"?​"Suspended"?​​LUNATIC!​​


----------



## james bond (Mar 4, 2022)

Blackrook said:


> if Darwinism is accepted as true, God's role in the creation of the universe is disproven, ergo: there is no God.


I doubt it.  With Darwinism, it needs long-time.  The evolutionists created uniformitarianism or long-time geology and the belief that if we study the PRESENT Earth, then we can discover what was there on early Earth.  However, they discard the global flood stating that is religion.  To the contrary, it is science and creation scientists have found that it shaped the Earth and there is excellent evidence for it.  For example, I made a fool out of my opponent who thought mountains took millions of years to form.  Instead, I proved that all of the mountain ranges and peaks were formed by the global flood at the same time.


----------



## james bond (Mar 4, 2022)

abu afak said:


> "I Ran away"?
> ​Yesterday at 3:58 PM?​Suspended?​
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, you were SUSPENDED, so now are afraid to post TO me.  Anyway, I recognize that you have BOWED DOWN to me and have RAN AWAY from my scientific and educated posts backed by REAL science.  It's perfectly understandable as no one likes to have their butt whupped practically every time I post.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 4, 2022)

james bond said:


> No, it is this forum that is an embarrassment whenever most evos/ags/atheists post to it.  They just want evo to fit their beliefs so bad.  But it can't because science DOES NOT back it up.  Science BACKS UP creation science.  How else can I win EVERY TIME???!!!???!!!
> 
> Now, I'm claiming that I think I can win just by using the website where I learned my evolution, i.e. most here think they know evolution, but don't.


Biological evolution requires no belief. Unlike creationerism, which is absent evidence for the various versions of gods / supernatural agents /space aliens alleged by the "Beliebers", biological evolution is supported by complimentary fields of science.


----------



## abu afak (Mar 4, 2022)

james bond said:


> Yes, you were SUSPENDED, so now are afraid to post TO me.  Anyway, I recognize that you have BOWED DOWN to me and have RAN AWAY from my scientific and educated posts backed by REAL science.  It's perfectly understandable as no one likes to have their butt whupped practically every time I post.


When did this 'suspension' happen.
I posted to YOU Tuesday.
See my list
YOU LUNATIC!


----------



## abu afak (Mar 4, 2022)

james bond said:


> *Yes, you were SUSPENDED, so now are afraid to post TO me.  Anyway, I recognize that you have BOWED DOWN to me and have RAN AWAY from my scientific and educated posts backed by REAL science.  It's perfectly understandable as no one likes to have their butt whupped practically every time I post.*


DELUSIONS of ..now .. GRANDEUR!
"I bowed down to him"
He's proved there is a god. (throw in a few dozen more fictions)
He's proved evolution is false.

He's in line for at least Two Nobel Prizes and will be 1000x more famous and important than his handle, (like god, also fictional) James Bond.

Oh, and he claims I was "Suspended" too!
Yet I posted every day here.

LUNA-EFFING-TIC!

DELUSIONAL MUTHA ******** LUNATIC!  

`


----------



## james bond (Mar 4, 2022)

Hollie said:


> Biological evolution requires no belief. Unlike creationerism, which is absent evidence for the various versions of gods / supernatural agents /space aliens alleged by the "Beliebers", biological evolution is supported by complimentary fields of science.


Sure it does.  Creation scientists KNOW that new species don't evolve after BILLIONS of years.  Not millions.  Your scientists just have a guess or hypothesis because LIFE is here.  OTOH, I have the Bible and KNOW it's true because SCIENCE backs it up.; It means EVIDENCE and PROOF of what one BELIEVES.  But not ONE of the evos have ever said that to me.  Instead, they say I don't know what I'm talking about; It's just their SAF opinion because they've LOST every argument to ME.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 4, 2022)

james bond said:


> Sure it does.  Creation scientists KNOW that new species don't evolve after BILLIONS of years.  Not millions.  Your scientists just have a guess or hypothesis because LIFE is here.  OTOH, I have the Bible and KNOW it's true because SCIENCE backs it up.; It means EVIDENCE and PROOF of what one BELIEVES.  But not ONE of the evos have ever said that to me.  Instead, they say I don't know what I'm talking about; It's just their SAF opinion because they've LOST every argument to ME.


There is no such thing as a ID'iot creationer scientist, A 'statement of faith' that presumes allegiance to religioner supernaturalism excludes one from science.


----------



## james bond (Mar 4, 2022)

Hollie said:


> There is no such thing as a ID'iot creationer scientist, A 'statement of faith' that presumes allegiance to religioner supernaturalism excludes one from science.


My counter argument to that was there is no such thing as millions and billions of years because radiometric dating was done wrong in 1956.  The scientist who did it has been long forgotten.  Besides, one can still do C-14 dating on prehistoric fossils and rocks.  If creation science was taught in schools, then we would have a better test done for both dating methods.  Each side could do their dating method on TV to see which side has the more accurate method.


----------



## james bond (Mar 4, 2022)

abu afak said:


> DELUSIONS of ..now .. GRANDEUR!
> "I bowed down to him"
> He's proved there is a god. (throw in a few dozen more fictions)
> He's proved evolution is false.
> ...





abu afak said:


> When did this 'suspension' happen.
> I posted to YOU Tuesday.
> See my list
> YOU LUNATIC!


Back around last November or so.  PROOF you are a BIG, FAT LIAR!!!  LOL.





__





						I just Penalized USMB TWO WEEKS (at least) without my posting for Bad and asinine 'Moderation'
					

I just Penalized USMB TWO WEEKS without my posting for Bad and asinine 'Moderating. Due to the lack of any moderation throughout I had to call out the many NON-Topical Trolls in my "Solar Cheapest" thread, I had the thread closed for trolling by the Biased FlacalTeen. (probably at Adm Tory's...



					www.usmessageboard.com


----------



## abu afak (Mar 4, 2022)

james bond said:


> Back around last November or so.  PROOF you are a BIG, FAT LIAR!!!  LOL.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/i-just-penalized-usmb-two-weeks-at-least-without-my-posting-for-bad-and-asinine-moderation.930863/[/URL




*That was many Months ago, and obviously had NOTHING to do with you.*
Nor "Bowing" you Clown.
As you can see *I was Penalizing USMB**!
Flacalteen closed one of my threads in Environment section so I Gave HIM a TWO WEEK Penalty!!!!
After which he gave me a 4 day one for calling him out. 10 days less than I had already "suspended" him!!*
LOL
*In fact, I took a Month off to Penalize HIM/USMB.

I was Dictating, Not "bowing."
How/why?
Because my Haymaker threads/OPs in this section and that one are money makers/page views for USMB in both. 
My threads on the first pages (oft on pg 1 alone) have generated a cumulative 140,000+ page views Each section for this commercial (not .org) board.
146K+ on THIS pg 1 Right NOW. 
I can and do control the sections I'm in whenever I feel like it.*

We have conversed many times in the MONTHS since, and I have CONTINUED kicking your ass.
How you would read that as "running away" is completely DELUSIONAL.

We conversed for 2+ Months after that. Now you say "I ran away" out of nowhere you FREAK.
*You waited 2-3 MONTHS after my penalizing USMB to bring it up AS IF I just started responding again? AS IF I was 'bowing"?

LUNATIC!

`*


----------



## Hollie (Mar 4, 2022)

james bond said:


> My counter argument to that was there is no such thing as millions and billions of years because radiometric dating was done wrong in 1956.  The scientist who did it has been long forgotten.  Besides, one can still do C-14 dating on prehistoric fossils and rocks.  If creation science was taught in schools, then we would have a better test done for both dating methods.  Each side could do their dating method on TV to see which side has the more accurate method.


The hyper-religious are the ones who deny an ancient, spherical earth.


----------



## james bond (Mar 5, 2022)

abu afak said:


> *That was many Months ago, and obviously had NOTHING to do with you.*
> Nor "Bowing" you Clown.
> As you can see *I was Penalizing USMB**!
> Flacalteen closed one of my threads in Environment section so I Gave HIM a TWO WEEK Penalty!!!!
> ...


That was the most LUNATIC post I've ever read here lmao.  It's prolly better to PENALIZE me and S&T fans and stay in the politics or religious section lol.  EVERYONE would understand it.


----------



## james bond (Mar 5, 2022)

abu afak said:


> *That was many Months ago, and obviously had NOTHING to do with you.*
> Nor "Bowing" you Clown.
> As you can see *I was Penalizing USMB**!
> Flacalteen closed one of my threads in Environment section so I Gave HIM a TWO WEEK Penalty!!!!
> ...


>>
*Flacalteen closed one of my threads in Environment section so I Gave HIM a TWO WEEK Penalty!!!!
After which he gave me a 4 day one for calling him out. 10 days less than I had already "suspended" him!!*
LOL
*In fact, I took a Month off to Penalize HIM/USMB.*<<

That's why I was saying that you should TAKE OFF more that a MONTH to penalize me and the believers here some more.  To the contrary, I think you need us more than we need you.  But it doesn't matter as you, the non-believers and sinners will get yours.  There is no worry on our part as science backs up the Bible while there is no evidence for macroevolution.  How else could I continue winning EVERY argument?  Sometimes, I just TRUST the Bible and it ALWAYS turns into a VICTORY!!!


----------



## james bond (Mar 5, 2022)

Hollie said:


> The hyper-religious are the ones who deny an ancient, spherical earth.


We're the ones who predicted it and now everyone backs it up.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 5, 2022)

james bond said:


> We're the ones who predicted it and now everyone backs it up.


Predicting a flat earth is not something backed up.


----------



## james bond (Mar 5, 2022)

Hollie said:


> Predicting a flat earth is not something backed up.


You are an ATHEIST, looney (cannot read and understand plain English) and one who will lead us to DESTRUCTION as per the Bible.  The best thing is to RISE UP against you and DESTROY YOU.  Prolly the best thing is to IDENTIFY you with some kind of mark and ANYTHING goes against your kind.

Of course, I am kidding but who knows if this kind of sci-fi will come to fruition?


----------



## Hollie (Mar 5, 2022)

james bond said:


> You are an ATHEIST, looney (cannot read and understand plain English) and one who will lead us to DESTRUCTION as per the Bible.  The best thing is to RISE UP against you and DESTROY YOU.  Prolly the best thing is to IDENTIFY you with some kind of mark and ANYTHING goes against your kind.
> 
> Of course, I am kidding but who knows if this kind of sci-fi will come to fruition?


That’s quite a rant from a wannabe Jihadi.


----------



## james bond (Mar 5, 2022)

Hollie said:


> That’s quite a rant from a wannabe Jihadi.


I would think the non-believers started it with uniformitarianism and Darwinism.  I could be wrong, but EVERY generation has been involved in some kind of war.  We had the Civil War soon after, rise of Nazi Germany and WW II.  This could be another civil war.

I'm not certain what leads to the end of the world.  Likely, it's when the non-believers outnumber the believers.


----------



## Ivan88 (Mar 5, 2022)

Stalin believed that war\conflict improved the human breeds.
And he killed millions. Globull warming, Covid suicide injections etc.  Eliminating heating, cooling, automobiles, trucks etc. are all labelled as "science". Yes, the science of propaganda and manpulation, Malthusian population elimination and big profits for "scientists".
There was and maybe still is "evolution" on Earth. It was/is carried out by the Creator, Yahweh with the intent to create mankind and a race that would bless the rest of mankind.
And as part of this Divinely manipulated "evolution"; Yahweh supplies this planet with internal energy, water, oil and minerals, and the Earth is expanding in size. It once had one continent, but the expanding Earth broke those continents up. The mid Atlantic rift is one place that has been identified as an expansion zone on Earth.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 5, 2022)

james bond said:


> I would think the non-believers started it with uniformitarianism and Darwinism.  I could be wrong, but EVERY generation has been involved in some kind of war.  We had the Civil War soon after, rise of Nazi Germany and WW II.  This could be another civil war.
> 
> I'm not certain what leads to the end of the world.  Likely, it's when the non-believers outnumber the believers.


Hyper-religious quackery.


----------



## james bond (Mar 6, 2022)

Hollie said:


> Hyper-religious quackery.


This is the science section.  Not religion.  It's YOU who leads us astray.  You are the WORST!!!

For example, we thought there could be Martians up until recently.  Now, we find there wasn't any in the present nor _the past_. What happened to evolution lol?

"On Mars, there is no evidence of any past or present life. Space agencies like NASA and ESA are actively searching for evidence of habitability, taphonomy (formation of a living fossil) on Mars, as well …" -- Was There Ever Life On Mars Nasa? – EclipseAviation.com


----------



## Hollie (Mar 6, 2022)

james bond said:


> This is the science section.  Not religion.  It's YOU who leads us astray.  You are the WORST!!!
> 
> For example, we thought there could be Martians up until recently.  Now, we find there wasn't any in the present nor _the past_. What happened to evolution lol?
> 
> "On Mars, there is no evidence of any past or present life. Space agencies like NASA and ESA are actively searching for evidence of habitability, taphonomy (formation of a living fossil) on Mars, as well …" -- Was There Ever Life On Mars Nasa? – EclipseAviation.com


Did fall off the edge of your flat earth and bump your head?


----------



## james bond (Mar 6, 2022)

abu afak said:


> *That was many Months ago, and obviously had NOTHING to do with you.*
> Nor "Bowing" you Clown.
> As you can see *I was Penalizing USMB**!
> Flacalteen closed one of my threads in Environment section so I Gave HIM a TWO WEEK Penalty!!!!
> ...


Okay, you can return from your PENALTY.

My evolution website apparently doesn't say there are life on other planets, but points out Exoplanets.

"
Exoplanets​
Outside of our own Solar System, we now know of many exoplanets orbiting other stars. Exoplanets around Sun-like stars were first detected in the 1990s, and since then, thousands are on their way to being confirmed thanks to new telescopes and instruments. In fact, the Kepler space telescope and other planet-hunting telescopes have helped astronomers confirm that planets are common, with perhaps hundreds of billions of exoplanets in the Milky Way Galaxy alone, and something like 1022 planets in the observable Universe. Although astronomers can most easily detect large planets in close-in orbits — gas giants that are often heated to searing temperatures by their parent stars — many smaller planets that may be rocky like Earth have been found, some of which are in Earth-like orbits around Sun-like stars."







This chart compares the smallest known exoplanets, or planets orbiting outside the solar system, to our own planets Mars and Earth. Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons."

I can't argue against that except we didn't find life on Mars.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 6, 2022)

james bond said:


> Okay, you can return from your PENALTY.
> 
> My evolution website apparently doesn't say there are life on other planets, but points out Exoplanets.
> 
> ...


Your evolution website?  Don’t you mean the creationer website posing as something it’s not?


----------



## james bond (Mar 6, 2022)

Hollie said:


> Your evolution website?  Don’t you mean the creationer website posing as something it’s not?


More evidence that you are WACKO.  Why don't you check it out for yourself?  The problem is that it is too SOPHISTICATED for you so you FAIL.

Anyway, I'll use it for the time being against those who think they _know_ evolution such as abu afak, Fort Fun Indiana, alang1216, zaangalewa and more.

I'll tell you what Hollie.  If it mentions a flat Earth or hell, then you'll be the first to know lmao.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 6, 2022)

james bond said:


> More evidence that you are WACKO.  Why don't you check it out for yourself?  The problem is that it is too SOPHISTICATED for you so you FAIL.
> 
> Anyway, I'll use it for the time being against those who think they _know_ evolution such as abu afak, Fort Fun Indiana, alang1216, zaangalewa and more.
> 
> I'll tell you what Hollie.  If it mentions a flat Earth or hell, then you'll be the first to know lmao.


Creationer websites lack sophistication and facts.


----------



## alang1216 (Mar 6, 2022)

james bond said:


> More evidence that you are WACKO.  Why don't you check it out for yourself?  The problem is that it is too SOPHISTICATED for you so you FAIL.
> 
> Anyway, I'll use it for the time being against those who think they _know_ evolution such as abu afak, Fort Fun Indiana, alang1216, zaangalewa and more.
> 
> I'll tell you what Hollie.  If it mentions a flat Earth or hell, then you'll be the first to know lmao.


What website?


----------



## Ivan88 (Mar 6, 2022)

BEST MOST PERFECT EXPLANATION OF HOW THINGS HAVE DEVELOPED  OVER THE LAST MILLION YEARS OR SO.


----------



## james bond (Mar 6, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> What website?


It's UC Berkeley's website where I learned evolution in the late 70s -- Understanding Evolution - Your one-stop source for information on evolution.  Where did you learn it?

Here's what it says about mountains we were discussing:

"Mountains were built in catastrophic instants, and in the process whole groups of animals became extinct and were replaced by new species."

It does not recognize the global flood, but gets it mixed up with uniformitarianism.


----------



## alang1216 (Mar 6, 2022)

james bond said:


> It's UC Berkeley's website where I learned evolution in the late 70s -- Understanding Evolution - Your one-stop source for information on evolution.  Where did you learn it?
> 
> Here's what it says about mountains we were discussing:
> 
> ...


I don't think it says what your quotes seems to indicate so it doesn't really support your views.  Just sayn'


----------



## james bond (Mar 6, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> I don't think it says what your quotes seems to indicate so it doesn't really support your views.  Just sayn'


No, it doesn't.  It's an _evolution_ website and at least it recognizes that mountains were caused by catastrophism. 

What the cause was is the global flood catastrophe.  What else could cause all the mountains to form at once?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Mar 6, 2022)

james bond said:


> It's UC Berkeley's website where I learned evolution in the late 70s


That's sad. I learned about it at home and in grade school, mid 60s. It's often difficult to imagine just how backward so much of this country remains. Actually, small wonder you're such a mess. 


> In American schools, the Genesis creation narrative was generally taught as the origin of the universe and of life until Darwin's scientific theories became widely accepted. While there was some immediate backlash, organized opposition did not get underway until the Fundamentalist–Modernist Controversy broke out following World War I


----------



## Grumblenuts (Mar 7, 2022)

Why Darwinists spend time debating Creationists and believers in Intelligent Design:​


> So if evolution is as established in the scientific community as the theory of gravity, why are people still arguing about it more than century and a half after Darwin proposed it? The answer lies, in large part, in the theological implications of evolutionary thinking. For many religious people, the Darwinian view of life – a panorama of brutal struggle and constant change – conflicts with both the biblical creation story and the Judeo-Christian concept of an active, loving God who intervenes in human events.











						Darwin in America
					

Almost 160 years after Charles Darwin publicized his groundbreaking theory on the development of life, Americans are still arguing about evolution. In spite of the fact that evolutionary theory is accepted by all but a small number of scientists, it continues to be rejected by many Americans.




					www.pewforum.org


----------



## Hollie (Mar 7, 2022)

james bond said:


> It's UC Berkeley's website where I learned evolution in the late 70s -- Understanding Evolution - Your one-stop source for information on evolution.  Where did you learn it?
> 
> Here's what it says about mountains we were discussing:
> 
> ...



Does the site go on to recognize their getting mixed up about uniformitarianism?

During the few thousand years after the flood, where did these new animals come from that replaced those whole groups that became extinct?

Why would the gods arbitrarily wipeout entire species during their mountain excursions only to replace them with new species? Were the old ones of faulty design?
​


----------



## Hollie (Mar 7, 2022)

james bond said:


> No, it doesn't.  It's an _evolution_ website and at least it recognizes that mountains were caused by catastrophism.
> 
> What the cause was is the global flood catastrophe.  What else could cause all the mountains to form at once?


Why would floods cause mountains?


----------



## alang1216 (Mar 7, 2022)

james bond said:


> No, it doesn't.  It's an _evolution_ website and at least it recognizes that mountains were caused by catastrophism.
> 
> What the cause was is the global flood catastrophe.  What else could cause all the mountains to form at once?


I still don't understand why you think all the mountain formed at once?  The Appalachians and Rockies are very different ages.


----------



## james bond (Mar 7, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> I still don't understand why you think all the mountain formed at once?  The Appalachians and Rockies are very different ages.


Why do you think these two mountain ranges are very different ages?

Anyway, the website has been updated and maintained.  It didn't have "Mountains were built in catastrophic instants, and in the process whole groups of animals became extinct and were replaced by new species" before.

It should be mountains were built in _a catastrophic instant by a global flood_.  If creationists were teaching creation science in public schools, then this would be accepted theory.  The catastrophic instant fits the global flood and replaced by new species, Alfred Wegener's continental drift theory, plate tectonics, one land mass breaking into seven, the mountains and fountains of the deep or the Mid-Atlantic Ridge.  The argument for short vs. long-time would go on, but more dino fossils should be found with soft tissue and C-14 remaining.

I said you're too focused on one thing and miss the forest.  You have lost sight of the forest and what I've been telling you with catastrophism.  All 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?


----------



## james bond (Mar 7, 2022)

Hollie said:


> Why would floods cause mountains?


Just let it go.  You have water on the brain.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 7, 2022)

james bond said:


> Just let it go.  You have water on the brain.


That was quite a sidestep. How would a flood just a few thousand years ago account for mountain ranges we see today? Water erosion doesn't cut through tens of thousands of feet of rock in one month.

How do you account for the vast diffences in ages of various mountain ranges across the the globe flat earth?


----------



## james bond (Mar 7, 2022)

Grumblenuts said:


> That's sad. I learned about it at home and in grade school, mid 60s. It's often difficult to imagine just how backward so much of this country remains. Actually, small wonder you're such a mess.


It goes to show your knowledge is stuck in the 60s while I'm going over the updates here.  I've said I'll use my website versus the evolutionists here who I thought were wrong about evolution.  Now, it's evo vs evo.

I bet you didn't even know about the exoplanets.


----------



## james bond (Mar 7, 2022)

Hollie said:


> That was quite a sidestep. How would a flood just a few thousand years ago account for mountain ranges we see today? Water erosion doesn't cut through tens of thousands of feet of rock in one month.
> 
> How do you account for the vast diffences in ages of various mountain ranges across the the globe flat earth?


I'll open this up to discussion as you had the misfortune of being water logged in the brain.

"In such cases, we can date the fossil-bearing layers relative to one another using other lines of evidence and reasoning. For example, in the vast majority of strata studied, rock layers containing ammonite fossils are found beneath rock layers containing dinosaur fossils. Because of this, scientists are quite confident that ammonites died out before dinosaurs arose."

What are ammonite fossils?  They're marine fossils.






Where's Grumblenuts?  What's his explanation from the 60s?


----------



## Hollie (Mar 7, 2022)

james bond said:


> I'll open this up to discussion as you had the misfortune of being water logged in the brain.
> 
> "In such cases, we can date the fossil-bearing layers relative to one another using other lines of evidence and reasoning. For example, in the vast majority of strata studied, rock layers containing ammonite fossils are found beneath rock layers containing dinosaur fossils. Because of this, scientists are quite confident that ammonites died out before dinosaurs arose."
> 
> ...


When you cut and paste material, it's in good form to attribute the source. 

We're back to my earlier questions you tried to sidestep.

"How would a flood just a few thousand years ago account for mountain ranges we see today? Water erosion doesn't cut through tens of thousands of feet of rock in one month.

How do you account for the vast diffences in ages of various mountain ranges across the the globe flat earth?"


----------



## Grumblenuts (Mar 7, 2022)

james bond said:


> I'll open this up to discussion as you had the misfortune of being water logged in the brain.
> 
> "In such cases, we can date the fossil-bearing layers relative to one another using other lines of evidence and reasoning. For example, in the vast majority of strata studied, rock layers containing ammonite fossils are found beneath rock layers containing dinosaur fossils. Because of this, scientists are quite confident that ammonites died out before dinosaurs arose."
> 
> ...


Sorry, young fella, still not seeing anything relating to "How would a flood just a few thousand years ago account for mountain ranges we see today? Water erosion doesn't cut through tens of thousands of feet of rock in one month."

Far as making giant presumptive leaps based upon one type of fossil, how do you account for the immortal, ubiquitous nature of tardigrades? Kleiner Wasserbär! {Not to mention, a flat Earth?}


----------



## Grumblenuts (Mar 7, 2022)

james bond said:


> What are ammonite fossils? They're marine fossils.


No idea, but that _thing_ appears to have formed much like a marine shell or landlubber snail -- growing in accord with Nature's golden ratio, i.e. Aether driven. Otherwise.. I see precious little even suggestive of "Intelligence" behind the "Design," nor of "life" for that matter.


----------



## james bond (Mar 7, 2022)

Grumblenuts said:


> Sorry, young fella, still not seeing anything relating to "How would a flood just a few thousand years ago account for mountain ranges we see today? Water erosion doesn't cut through tens of thousands of feet of rock in one month."
> 
> Far as making giant presumptive leaps based upon one type of fossil, how do you account for the immortal, ubiquitous nature of tardigrades? Kleiner Wasserbär! {Not to mention, a flat Earth?}


As usual, you have no explanation, flat Earther.

What _about_ tardigrades Kleiner Wasserbar?

The flood is not explained in my evo website as I've already said.  Do you have water in the brain, too?

'*Numerical dating* relies on radioactive elements, such as uranium, potassium, rubidium and carbon. Radioactive elements decay, or convert to a non-radioactive form, at rates that scientists have carefully observed. If you know how long it takes for a radioactive element to decay, and you measure how much of the element is left in a sample, you can work out how old the sample is. Fossils less than about 50,000 years old can be dated directly using their radioactive carbon content, but for the most part, fossils themselves cannot be dated directly based on radioactive elements. However, we can use this method to date volcanic ashes or other igneous rocks (rocks that form directly from the crystallization of molten rock) to constrain the age of older fossils. For example, by dating volcanic ash layers both above and below a fossil-bearing layer, as shown in the diagram at the top of the page, you can determine that the fossil trilobites are “older than 520, but younger than 545 million years.” Geologists have assembled the ages for the geological timescale on the basis of numerical dating of rocks from around the world.'









						Chronology - Understanding Evolution
					

The timing of many evolutionary and geologic events on Earth has been determined through two complementary lines of evidence: relative dating and absolute (numerical or radiometric) dating. This evidence makes it clear that life is very old and places a timescale on the pace of evolutionary...




					evolution.berkeley.edu


----------



## Grumblenuts (Mar 7, 2022)

Far more interesting than imagining how warm, gooey gobs of inorganic material may have "grown" into snail-suggestive rocks over perhaps millennia:








						Icy waters of 'Snowball Earth' may have spurred early organisms to grow bigger
					

A new study tackles one of the oldest questions in the history of the planet: How did living organisms get so big?




					www.colorado.edu
				





> Simpson said that modern-day bacteria and other single-celled organisms move around in aquatic environments using two different sets of tools: There are cilia—which are wavy, hair-like projections—and flagella—think the “tails” on sperm cells. Both of these tools would have been painfully slow in frigid ocean conditions, his results show.
> 
> If individual cells joined forces to make a bigger organism, in contrast, they could produce a lot more swimming power while keeping the energy needs of each cell low.


That goes a long way toward answering why snails may bother growing at all. But one might then wonder why snails only get so big? One answer could be that a crab inevitably happens along, dips its claw into the snail's milkshake, and sucks it up,.. sometimes even stealing its shell for protection from bigger threats,.. like lobsters..


----------



## Hollie (Mar 7, 2022)

james bond said:


> As usual, you have no explanation, flat Earther.
> 
> What _about_ tardigrades Kleiner Wasserbar?
> 
> ...





james bond said:


> As usual, you have no explanation, flat Earther.
> 
> What _about_ tardigrades Kleiner Wasserbar?
> 
> ...


I'm sure you're looking to address how it is that a month long flood carved through hundreds of thousands of feet of rock ( the flat earth is very thick, apparently), but in the mean time, from the site you linked to:

"The timing of many evolutionary and geologic events on Earth has been determined through two complementary lines of evidence: relative dating and absolute (numerical or radiometric) dating. This evidence makes it clear that life is very old and places a timescale on the pace of evolutionary change, diversification, and extinction."







Did you notice the time scales used? How can life be very old?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Mar 7, 2022)

james bond said:


> As usual, you have no explanation, flat Earther.


Explanation? For you? No. And sorry, "flat Earther" best describes a Bible thumping literalist like you.


james bond said:


> What _about_ tardigrades Kleiner Wasserbar?


Indeed!


> They have been found everywhere in Earth's biosphere, from mountaintops to the deep sea and mud volcanoes,[8] and from tropical rainforests to the Antarctic.[9] Tardigrades are among the most resilient animals known,[10][11] with individual species able to survive extreme conditions — such as exposure to extreme temperatures, extreme pressures (both high and low), air deprivation, radiation, dehydration, and starvation — that would quickly kill most other known forms of life.[12] Tardigrades have survived exposure to outer space.[13][14] There are about 1,300 known species[15] in the phylum Tardigrada, a part of the superphylum Ecdysozoa consisting of animals that grow by ecdysis such as arthropods and nematodes. The earliest known true members of the group are known from Cretaceous (145 to 66 million years ago) amber, found in North America, but are essentially modern forms, and therefore likely have a significantly earlier origin, as they diverged from their closest relatives in the Cambrian, over 500 million years ago.


----------



## james bond (Mar 7, 2022)

Grumblenuts said:


> Sorry, young fella, still not seeing anything relating to "How would a flood just a few thousand years ago account for mountain ranges we see today? Water erosion doesn't cut through tens of thousands of feet of rock in one month."
> 
> Far as making giant presumptive leaps based upon one type of fossil, how do you account for the immortal, ubiquitous nature of tardigrades? Kleiner Wasserbär! {Not to mention, a flat Earth?}


As usual, you have no explanation, flat Earther.

The mountains ranges are made of marine fossils and we have them at the top such as clam fossils on top of Mt. Everest.

I found a Mr. Nicholas Steno, the father of paleontology in my website.  He was a creationist.  Just can't keep a great scientist down.

"
Fossils and the Birth of Paleontology: Nicholas Steno​


If one day in history had to be picked as the birth of paleontology, it might be the day in 1666 when two fishermen caught a giant shark off the coast of Livorno in Italy. The local duke ordered that this curiosity be sent to Niels Stensen (better known as Steno), a Danish anatomist working at the time in Florence. As Steno dissected the shark, he was struck by how much the shark teeth resembled “tongue stones,” triangular pieces of rock that had been known since ancient times.

Today, most people would instantly wonder whether the tongue stones were giant petrified shark teeth, but in 1666 such a presumption was a tremendous leap. Few could imagine how living matter could be turned to stone, and beyond that, encased in solid rock—especially if the rock were well above sea level and contained remnants of a marine organism. Fossils were instead thought to have fallen from the sky, or to be “sports of nature”—peculiar geometrical shapes impressed on the rocks themselves."









						Fossils and the Birth of Paleontology: Nicholas Steno - Understanding Evolution
					

If one day in history had to be picked as the birth of paleontology, it might be the day in 1666 when two fishermen caught a giant shark off the coast of Livorno in Italy. The local duke ordered that this curiosity be sent to Niels Stensen (better known as Steno), a Danish anatomist working




					evolution.berkeley.edu


----------



## Colin norris (Mar 8, 2022)

Blackrook said:


> 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 haven't seen any scientists as a whole debating the godbotherers.  


Blackrook said:


> I think not.
> 
> Imagine there was a religion that taught that God had made the world flat.


There was at one time  


Blackrook said:


> Would planetologists spend time debating with the proponents of the Flat Earth religion?
> 
> No, they would not.


Why wouldn't they if they knew different? 


Blackrook said:


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


I'm not sure if there ever was but it wouldn't be beyond those delusional jesus junkies. 


Blackrook said:


> Would astronomers spend time debating with the proponents of the Moon is Cheese religion?
> 
> Absolutely, no.





Blackrook said:


> Imagine there was a religion that taught that the entire universe was nothing more than an imaginary construct in the Mind of God?


No.  Can't imagine anyone that silly.  


Blackrook said:


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


No because they don't seek out anyone. They simply find and test their finds, release it to the public and you can  believe it or not. They don't care. 


Blackrook said:


> 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?


There is no doubt evolution is a fact and can be proven with DNA and fossils. 
Darwinists do not engage in those debates. Its the creationists who feel they are doing gods work to recruit all those recalcitrant intelligent atheists. 
Its pointless alright. Science and physics are not wrong about evolution but you nuts won't believe it. Thats the problem  


Blackrook said:


> 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,


its not a theory. The testing if Darwins findings is way past that silly suggestion. 
Again  they don't have to defend fact. I don't care if you  believe a lie for the rest of your life. Knock yourself out son but its still a lie. 


Blackrook said:


> 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.


Not me comrade.  You ask me anything you chose about religious facts and ill prove you wrong. 


Blackrook said:


> So -- what's really at stake in this debate?
> 
> It's not about science. Not at all.


It us about the truth and religion doesn't get a ticket. Its absurd for mature human beings in the 21st century to believing in some celestial dictatorship that could troll everything.  Its bloody kid stuff  


Blackrook said:


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


You cannot name one instance with irrefutable evidence that God had any input into the creation of the universe. I'll wait here. 


Blackrook said:


> 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.


Thats correct and until you can prove Darwin findings  wrong, there is no god. Not only is there no god, there is no reason for one. 


Blackrook said:


> 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.


Your problem is faith based. Faith does not equate to fact and never will. 


Blackrook said:


> 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,


That is not true.  Evolution is a very cruel taskmaster, inferior species not adapted to their surroundings will succumb to that environment and die out. The opposite will progress to breeding superior offspring. 


Blackrook said:


> 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.


That is your biggest piece of bullshit so far. There is no connection between Darwinism and Hitler whatsoever. Dont attempt to link the two because of your filthy religion. WE up to yourself. 


Blackrook said:


> I believe there is a middle ground.
> 
> Darwinism is true, but God exists and had a hand in the universe's creation.


There is ample evidence for evolution buy no evidence for the existence of a god nor is it needed. 
science can give the ONLY plausible explanation why we are here and God does not get a look in because it doesn't exist. 


Blackrook said:


> 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.


What you call religious truths have been found to be bullshit from the start. 
No one believes in immaculate conceptions etc and the religious books are full of impossible scenarios. 
When those lies were written they didn't know what a universe was. Next you'll be saying gid helped build the internet. 



Blackrook said:


> Social Darwinism is a wicked philosophy when applied to relationships between humans, and the role of government in the lives of humans.


its got nothing to do with any government. In fact evolution proceeded any government on earth. Humans are a child of evolution.  Just because you can't accept it, there's is no reason to fabricate scenarios where it damages human life etc  tgsts ridiculous.  


Blackrook said:


> Social Darwinism inspired a genocide that cost the lives of millions of humans under the Nazi regime.


That is a complete ignorant lie and you know it. You are becoming delusional with the God crap and obviously are of low iq. 


Blackrook said:


> That, I believe, is the correct position.


no doubt you do but its nobody's fault you are wrong. You had your chance to research facts but your inherited ignorance forbids you.  Youre still frightened some ghost will punish you for straying from the fold. Get a grip on yourself. 


Blackrook said:


> 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."


Science and mankind have been tolerating stupid godbotherers since time began to argue about this. 
Religion still rely on a 2000 year old book full of proven myths and lies.  The only thing in it which is correct are the page numbers. 
In years to come Science will discover things you gave never dreamt of about the universe and beyond. New medici es and equipment to help mankind. 
But not religion.  Youre still stuck on that filthy bible and Virgin births etc. 
Youve never received one benefit in your life from Religion, not even life itself. That was evolution.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 8, 2022)

james bond said:


> As usual, you have no explanation, flat Earther.
> 
> The mountains ranges are made of marine fossils and we have them at the top such as clam fossils on top of Mt. Everest.
> 
> ...


Why are you adding the ''creationist'' label to Nicholas Steno? Did he ever use that term to define himself?

Why do you find the need for such dishonesty? Why are you attempting to force your religious beliefs on someone else?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Mar 8, 2022)

Nothing fishy about ancient marine fossils on Everest - Australian Associated Press
					

A widely shared meme claims "skeletons of fish" found on Mount Everest's peak are proof the earth once experienced a great flood.




					www.aap.com.au


----------



## alang1216 (Mar 8, 2022)

james bond said:


> Why do you think these two mountain ranges are very different ages?


Have you see them?  One is high, sharp and angular, the other is low and well rounded.  One is growing, one is eroding.



james bond said:


> All the animals living died such as dinosaurs and new or younger species took their place.


Where did these new or younger species come from?



james bond said:


> Your previous Chicxulub wasn't enough of a catastrophe.  Was it the only asteroid or large meteor of such significance to hit the Earth?


A crater over 100 miles across wasn't enough of a catastrophe?  What's that based on, the fact it isn't mentioned in the Bible?  
As a history book, the Bible is very incomplete, no ice ages, no drying up of the Mediterranean Sea, etc.


----------



## james bond (Mar 8, 2022)

Grumblenuts said:


> No idea, but that _thing_ appears to have formed much like a marine shell or landlubber snail -- growing in accord with Nature's golden ratio, i.e. Aether driven. Otherwise.. I see precious little even suggestive of "Intelligence" behind the "Design," nor of "life" for that matter.


We find more evidence to back the Bible and I for the global flood, but from my evo website.  Haven't I been saying that since I've been here?  And now I am using the evo website that has been updated.

Here's another famous creation scientist, Carolus Linnaeus -- Nested Hierarchies, the Order of Nature: Carolus Linnaeus - Understanding Evolution.

"
Nested Hierarchies, the Order of Nature: Carolus Linnaeus​


Linnaeus’ system diverged from Aristotle’s vision of a Great Chain of Being, above.
_Homo sapiens_, _Tyrannosaurus rex_, _Escherichia coli_—our English conversation is littered with pairs of Latin names for animals, plants, and microbes. How did a dead language find this renewed life? It is the 250-year-old legacy of a Swedish naturalist’s quest to discover God’s handiwork in nature.


Image courtesy of the Swedish Museum of Natural History.
Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1798) was far from the first thinker to try to classify life. Aristotle, for example, argued that each species had a unique form and could be classified by some of its key characteristics. In the process, he organized life in a ladder-like hierarchy, with plants on the bottom, animals in the middle, and humans on top (figure, right). Medieval European scholars were guided by both Aristotle and the Bible, and they believed that nature—including all of the species on Earth—reflected God’s benevolent organization of the world."









						Nested Hierarchies, the Order of Nature: Carolus Linnaeus - Understanding Evolution
					

Homo sapiens, Tyrannosaurus rex, Escherichia coli—our English conversation is littered with pairs of Latin names for animals, plants, and microbes. How did a dead language find this renewed life? It is the 250-year-old legacy of a Swedish naturalist’s quest to discover God’s handiwork in nature...




					evolution.berkeley.edu
				




What do you think of his realm of Being?  Did you learn that in the 60s lol?


----------



## james bond (Mar 8, 2022)

Grumblenuts said:


> Nothing fishy about ancient marine fossils on Everest - Australian Associated Press
> 
> 
> A widely shared meme claims "skeletons of fish" found on Mount Everest's peak are proof the earth once experienced a great flood.
> ...


"Instead, they support the theory of plate tectonics, with the presence of ancient sedimentary rock and marine life evidence parts of the mountain were once sea floor."

Tut, tut.  We know plate tectonics from another famed creationist, Alfred Wegener, and we found _clam fossils_ on the top of Mt. Everest. Anyway, your link admits what was once sea floor is part of the mountain which was my evidence for a global flood. The BIG ONES are 3/4 water covering Earth partly from the fountains of the deep or oceans of water from below Earth. Did you learn that in the 60s?


----------



## james bond (Mar 8, 2022)

Grumblenuts said:


> Far more interesting than imagining how warm, gooey gobs of inorganic material may have "grown" into snail-suggestive rocks over perhaps millennia:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This is what I found on my website for "Snowball Earth."  It just seems like made up malarky.  No one has any evidence _billions of years ago_ unless they're lying. Someone made up "Snowball Earth" and someone else ran with it.







			https://evolution.berkeley.edu/chronozoom/CZ%20UCMP%20p.%209%20%20Earth%20and%20Life%20%20Chart%20Panel%202.pdf


----------



## Hollie (Mar 8, 2022)

james bond said:


> We find more evidence to back the Bible and I for the global flood, but from my evo website.  Haven't I been saying that since I've been here?  And now I am using the evo website that has been updated.
> 
> Here's another famous creation scientist, Carolus Linnaeus -- Nested Hierarchies, the Order of Nature: Carolus Linnaeus - Understanding Evolution.
> 
> ...


It never occurred to you that science knowledge has increased since the 18th century?

You didn't notice that your "evo website" actually contradicts what you claim?


----------



## james bond (Mar 8, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Have you see them?  One is high, sharp and angular, the other is low and well rounded.  One is growing, one is eroding.
> 
> 
> Where did these new or younger species come from?
> ...


Why is one growing and one eroding?  Are you saying from that, we know one is young and one is old?  Why don't you post a link that I can look at?  Do you want to me to try and find them on my evo website?

The Bible isn't being updated and isn't a history book.  It's God's autobiography and explains why we are here and still here for now.  The big events were 6 days of creation, original sin, the global flood, the Resurrection and the end of times.  , At least, it gives us human history unlike evolution with those atheist papers people have written.


----------



## james bond (Mar 8, 2022)

Hollie said:


> It never occurred to you that science knowledge has increased since the 18th century?
> 
> You didn't notice that your "evo website" actually contradicts what you claim?


It never occurred to you that creationists invented science.  There is no doubt that we have the greatest scientists in history and still do.

What occurred to me is the atheists here know very little about evolution.  I think I've proved this is true using my website.  The site began in 2004.

If there are contradictions to the Bible, then the website is wrong.  Pick out a few of them.


----------



## alang1216 (Mar 8, 2022)

james bond said:


> Why is one growing and one eroding?  Are you saying from that, we know one is young and one is old?  Why don't you post a link that I can look at?  Do you want to me to try and find them on my evo website?


Go measure them.  That is but one piece of evidence.  Yes, try and find them on your evo website?



james bond said:


> The Bible isn't being updated and isn't a history book.  It's God's autobiography and explains why we are here and still here for now.  The big events were 6 days of creation, original sin, the global flood, the Resurrection and the end of times.


Lots of history and genealogy in the Bible.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 8, 2022)

james bond said:


> It never occurred to you that creationists invented science.  There is no doubt that we have the greatest scientists in history and still do.
> 
> What occurred to me is the atheists here know very little about evolution.  I think I've proved this is true using my website.  The site began in 2004.
> 
> If there are contradictions to the Bible, then the website is wrong.  Pick out a few of them.


Creationers didn't "invent science". Your extremist religionism creates some strange notions. 

"Your website" contradicts your religionism. It's really odd using "your website" to refute your extremist views.


----------



## james bond (Mar 8, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Go measure them.  That is but one piece of evidence.  Yes, try and find them on your evo website?
> 
> 
> Lots of history and genealogy in the Bible.


I still don't understand what you are saying?  So you can't find any links or people with the same opinion as you?  There is no point for me to do anything with the Cal website if you can't explain what you are saying.  Show me some pics and areas.  What do you have as evidence for their ages besides looks?  How much age difference between them are you saying?  Anyway, what's your point anyway with comparing two mountain ranges?  You were shown to be wrong with the other mountain ranges and never provided anything to back up what you said before.  I won OVERWHELMING victory and you were embarrassed beyond belief.  Two mountain ranges doesn't mean much to me.


----------



## alang1216 (Mar 8, 2022)

james bond said:


> I still don't understand what you are saying?  So you can't find any links or people with the same opinion as you?  There is no point for me to do anything with the Cal website if you can't explain what you are saying.  Show me some pics and areas.  What do you have as evidence for their ages besides looks?  How much age difference between them are you saying?  Anyway, what's your point anyway with comparing two mountain ranges?  You were shown to be wrong with the other mountain ranges and never provided anything to back up what you said before.  I won OVERWHELMING victory and you were embarrassed beyond belief.  Two mountain ranges doesn't mean much to me.


I love how you ignore evidence and then declare victory.  I don't have the patience to give you a High School level geology course.  Maybe Google can help.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Mar 8, 2022)

james bond said:


> What are ammonite fossils? They're marine fossils.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hey, here's another idea! Let's examine your image source! What's its explanation?

 "Evolution 101" -- LOL 



> *Numerical dating* relies on radioactive elements, such as uranium, potassium, rubidium and carbon. Radioactive elements decay, or convert to a non-radioactive form, at rates that scientists have carefully observed. If you know how long it takes for a radioactive element to decay, and you measure how much of the element is left in a sample, you can work out how old the sample is. Fossils less than about 50,000 years old can be dated directly using their radioactive carbon content, but for the most part, fossils themselves cannot be dated directly based on radioactive elements. However, we can use this method to date volcanic ashes or other igneous rocks (rocks that form directly from the crystallization of molten rock) to constrain the age of older fossils. For example, by dating volcanic ash layers both above and below a fossil-bearing layer, as shown in the diagram at the top of the page, you can determine that the fossil trilobites are “older than 520, but younger than 545 million years.” Geologists have assembled the ages for the geological timescale on the basis of numerical dating of rocks from around the world.



Gee, so not news to anyone sane and truthful who's been *paying attention!*
{or hey, what's 2 or 3 decimal places between friends?}


----------



## Grumblenuts (Mar 8, 2022)

> The idea that the presence of marine fossils in mountains proves the earth was once flooded has been associated with literal readings of the Biblical story of Noah and the flood, included in the book of Genesis.
> 
> However, that account flies in the face of scientific evidence, Dr Buckman said, adding that *the Himalayas’ were formed millions of years before the first humans appeared on earth. It is also worth noting that many of the fossils found in the Himalayas are of long-extinct species.*


Noah wasn't human?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Mar 8, 2022)

Hollie said:


> Did you notice the time scales used? How can life be very old?


Contradicts his own source. Belligerently oblivious. James Belligerivious.


----------



## james bond (Mar 8, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> I love how you ignore evidence and then declare victory.  I don't have the patience to give you a High School level geology course.  Maybe Google can help.


We were discussing the ages of ALL the mountain ranges and I provided that they were the same 300 myo caused by the global flood.  Also, provided the simple experiment to show how the mountains were folded up due to plate tectonics.  It explains how all the mountain ranges were formed by marine fossils on the seafloor and how the water came up from below to flood the surface, i.e. fountains of the deep.  The one huge land mass called Pagea was broken into seven continents as described in the Bible. 

We found thru my evo website that new and younger species of animals emerged from the flood.

In response, you provided nothing but two mountain ranges with supposedly different ages.  It's cheap and flimsy like your sciene.  I'm sick of your bogus claims, goobye.


----------



## james bond (Mar 8, 2022)

Grumblenuts said:


> Contradicts his own source. Belligerently oblivious. James Belligerivious.


How can I be "Belligerivious?"  As ultimate victor, I'll claim victory that you did not know about evolution.  You, alang1216 and Hollie can claim hollow victory on how it contradicts the Bible, but it doesn't.  It just does not acknowledge the global flood and its catastrophic effects on the Earth (but it does mention the _catastrophism_).  That's where the FALLACIOUS billions of years old came in.  No billions of years means no evolution.  I bet my everything on God and the global flood while you bet yours on evolution or _evilution lies_ created by Satan.

Don't forget Carolus Linnaeus and his contribution.


----------



## alang1216 (Mar 8, 2022)

james bond said:


> We were discussing the ages of ALL the mountain ranges and I provided that they were the same 300 myo caused by the global flood.


So the Flood took place 300 million years ago?  Not very YEC of you.



james bond said:


> It explains how all the mountain ranges were formed by marine fossils on the seafloor and how the water came up from below to flood the surface, i.e. fountains of the deep.


New wrinkle here.  Where did this water come from?



james bond said:


> The one huge land mass called Pagea was broken into seven continents as described in the Bible.


Does the Bible explain how or when Pangea was formed from older continental plates?



james bond said:


> We found thru my evo website that new and younger species of animals emerged from the flood.


We did?  I thought all species were created in the first 6 days?



james bond said:


> In response, you provided nothing but two mountain ranges with supposedly different ages.  It's cheap and flimsy like your sciene.  I'm sick of your bogus claims, goobye.


Sorry to see you go.


----------



## james bond (Mar 8, 2022)

I have to LMAO at the weak atheists here.

"Darwin was not the first naturalist to propose that species changed over time into new species—that life, as we would say now, evolves. In the eighteenth century, Buffon and other naturalists began to introduce the idea that life might not have been fixed since creation."









						Early Concepts of Evolution: Jean Baptiste Lamarck - Understanding Evolution
					

Image courtesy of Dennis O'Neil, Palomar College. Darwin was not the first naturalist to propose that species changed over time into new species—that life, as we would say now, evolves. In the eighteenth century, Buffon and other naturalists began to introduce the idea that life might not have...




					evolution.berkeley.edu
				




Prior to Darwin (as well as Hutton and Lyell), the evos believed origin of life and creation.  Darwin just made up his lie and led people down the wrong path of evolution to EVILution.  There you go.  I suppose I can call it EVILution from now on lol.

ETA:  If you need an example of SAF & POS, then just look at post #263.  After awhile, one has to give up hope for someone like that.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Mar 8, 2022)

james bond said:


> Don't forget Carolus Linnaeus and his contribution.


So your gods start off as nothing, acquire mineral-hood, then plant,.. and finally angel status before fully "Being" gods? What a pain in the keister!


----------



## james bond (Mar 8, 2022)

Grumblenuts said:


> So your gods start off as nothing, acquire mineral-hood, then plant,.. and finally angel status before fully "Being" gods? What a pain in the keister!


As usual, you atheists are wrong.  God starts off just where He is, but some of those below Him challenged Him and wanted His status as they _thought_ they had powers like Him. As punishment, the went to a special place created for them. As for humans, I would think it means you die and then either become in the Realm of Being or the other place as per the Bible. Right now, we're in the Realm of Becoming.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 8, 2022)

james bond said:


> I have to LMAO at the weak atheists here.
> 
> "Darwin was not the first naturalist to propose that species changed over time into new species—that life, as we would say now, evolves. In the eighteenth century, Buffon and other naturalists began to introduce the idea that life might not have been fixed since creation."
> 
> ...


Yes. Biological evolution was beginning to be understood before Darwin.

Your notions of a flat earth was abandoned long before Darwin presented his comprehensive theory.


----------



## james bond (Mar 8, 2022)

Hollie said:


> I'm sure you're looking to address how it is that a month long flood carved through hundreds of thousands of feet of rock ( the flat earth is very thick, apparently), but in the mean time, from the site you linked to:
> 
> "The timing of many evolutionary and geologic events on Earth has been determined through two complementary lines of evidence: relative dating and absolute (numerical or radiometric) dating. This evidence makes it clear that life is very old and places a timescale on the pace of evolutionary change, diversification, and extinction."
> 
> ...


You're just as flimsy as alang1216.  Now, I wonder are you as cheap?  I already explained the Bible does not mention the age of the Earth.  The ages based on Biblical history was used to counter evolutionary age.  Since everything is based on evolutionary age and long-time (which is wrong), the creationists have to play with the long time.  However, if we go by the global flood creating the layers and not the lie of uniformitariamism created by Satan, then we understand evolution is wrong (and a lie) and that the history of the Bible fits very well into that of the global flood.

As for the religious parts, all of the people and animals/organisms in the OT were destroyed by a global flood and ended up in the layers that were created.  They aren't millions and billions of years old, but where the animals/humans/organisms died.  Don't the layers have names for them?  The names have nothing to do with ages.  The evos or evils made up the millions of years layers in order to explain the lie of evilution and scientists fell for the lie.  Evilution is based on those atheist scientists papers such as the one I am showing with my Cal website.

Long story short is that the majority will eventually come to believe in the lie as predicted by God.  After that, we'll just have to wait for His wrath to destroy us all.  Then the believers and non-believers will rise again (Like zombies.  No wonder the sci-fi/horror of zombies are so popular).  However, the believers will experience The Rapture while you and the other atheists/sinners will experience:


----------



## james bond (Mar 8, 2022)

Hollie said:


> Yes. Biological evolution was beginning to be understood before Darwin.
> 
> Your notions of a flat earth was abandoned long before Darwin presented his comprehensive theory.


Lol, it's just like your false belief in flat Earthers.  After you die, then you'll realize that you were looking in the mirror at yourself as one of the flat Earthers.  Being destined for the other place is a great persuader.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 8, 2022)

james bond said:


> You're just as flimsy as alang1216.  Now, I wonder are you as cheap?  I already explained the Bible does not mention the age of the Earth.  The ages based on Biblical history was used to counter evolutionary age.  Since everything is based on evolutionary age and long-time (which is wrong), the creationists have to play with the long time.  However, if we go by the global flood creating the layers and not the lie of uniformitariamism created by Satan, then we understand evolution is wrong (and a lie) and that the history of the Bible fits very well into that of the global flood.
> 
> As for the religious parts, all of the people and animals/organisms in the OT were destroyed by a global flood and ended up in the layers that were created.  They aren't millions and billions of years old, but where the animals/humans/organisms died.  Don't the layers have names for them?  The names have nothing to do with ages.  The evos or evils made up the millions of years layers in order to explain the lie of evilution and scientists fell for the lie.  Evilution is based on those atheist scientists papers such as the one I am showing with my Cal website.
> 
> ...


That's an old, tired cut and paste image which typically accompanies your tirades aimed at the non hyper-religious. 

Do your various gods approve of your behavior?


----------



## Hollie (Mar 8, 2022)

james bond said:


> Lol, it's just like your false belief in flat Earthers.  After you die, then you'll realize that you were looking in the mirror at yourself as one of the flat Earthers.  Being destined for the other place is a great persuader.


I guess your religion is the source of your self-hate, fears and superstitions?

No one is suggesting you can't embrace a flat earth worldview. That may be common among those at the Jimmy Swaggert madrassah.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Mar 8, 2022)

james bond said:


> As usual, you atheists are wrong.  God starts off just where He is, but some of those below Him challenged Him and wanted His status as they _thought_ they had powers like Him. As punishment, the went to a special place created for them. As for humans, I would think it means you die and then either become in the Realm of Being or the other place as per the Bible. Right now, we're in the Realm of Becoming.


"As for humans, I would think it means"
Wow. So you post stuff, don't even know what it means, yet remain convinced "you atheists are wrong." What we are wrong about?.. You can't even say. Good luck with that!


----------



## james bond (Mar 8, 2022)

Hollie said:


> That's an old, tired cut and paste image which typically accompanies your tirades aimed at the non hyper-religious.
> 
> Do your various gods approve of your behavior?


Maybe the sign is repetitious, but it's a fave movie of mine.  Every time I see it, I think of the evils/atheists here.  Something they do is *offensive*. Is it as bad as eviseration? Yes (not in a physical sense but spiritual). But they'll never admit it.

"
Analysis​
In the years following its release, _The Silence of the Lambs_ was subject to much film criticism regarding its themes of human sexuality and sexual politics.[11] Throughout the film, Clarice Starling's gender is emphasized as a distinguishing feature as she is a minority amongst her numerous male peers, though film scholar Barry Forshaw notes that "any feminist agenda is never bluntly formulated verbally."[12]

Some gay male critics and feminists felt that the film's portrayal of Buffalo Bill negatively associated the LGBT community with deviance, psychopathy, and violence.[13] Despite this, Bill's sexual orientation is never explicitly stated in the film, and Lecter expressly states Bill is "not really transsexual".[14] Demme responded that Buffalo Bill "wasn't a gay character. He was a tormented man who hated himself and wished he was a woman because that would have made him as far away from himself as he possibly could be." Demme added that he "came to realize that there is a tremendous absence of positive gay characters in movies".[15]

In a 1992 interview with _Playboy_ magazine, the feminist and women's rights advocate Betty Friedan stated: "I thought it was absolutely outrageous that _The Silence of the Lambs_ won four [_sic_] Oscars. […] I'm not saying that the movie shouldn't have been shown. I'm not denying the movie was an artistic triumph, but it was about the *evisceration*, the skinning alive of women. *That is what I find offensive.* Not the _Playboy_ centerfold."[16]"

What did you think of the movie?


----------



## james bond (Mar 8, 2022)

Grumblenuts said:


> "As for humans, I would think it means"
> Wow. So you post stuff, don't even know what it means, yet remain convinced "you atheists are wrong." What we are wrong about?.. You can't even say. Good luck with that!


Where do you get that I "don't even know what it means, yet remain convinced?"  That's weird.

You are wrong about God not existing.  That I am 100% certain.  What I am also certain is that you'll suffer forever for it.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 9, 2022)

james bond said:


> Maybe the sign is repetitious, but it's a fave movie of mine.  Every time I see it, I think of the evils/atheists here.  Something they do is *offensive*. Is it as bad as eviseration? Yes (not in a physical sense but spiritual). But they'll never admit it.
> 
> "
> Analysis​
> ...


Odd that you spend your life looking for people to hate.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Mar 9, 2022)

james bond said:


> Every time I see it, I think of the evils/atheists here. Something they do is *offensive*. Is it as bad as eviseration? Yes (not in a physical sense but spiritual). But they'll never admit it.





james bond said:


> You are wrong about God not existing. That I am 100% certain. What I am also certain is that you'll suffer forever for it.


Nothing triggers like refusing to believe the useless crap someone else believes.


----------



## james bond (Mar 9, 2022)

Grumblenuts said:


> Nothing triggers like refusing to believe the useless crap someone else believes.


Can't the same be said of you?  If I am wrong, then you're let off the hook for any wrongdoing assuming you're not caught for it.  If I am wrong, then you still can be caught and brought to justice in the real world.  What makes you think I am wrong about the Father, Son and Holy Spirit when I am positive they exist?

If I am right, then you'll eventually pay for your sin(s) whether you are caught for your crimes or face the Creator at the end.  Thus, it's not _useless crap_.  Non-belief is a mortal sin or one that you will receive lifelong spiritual punishment.


----------



## james bond (Mar 9, 2022)

Hollie said:


> Odd that you spend your life looking for people to hate.


Huh?  All I can do is _warn_ them. God warns. Satan tempts. What's hateful about that?


----------



## Hollie (Mar 9, 2022)

james bond said:


> Huh?  All I can do is _warn_ them. God warns. Satan tempts. What's hateful about that?


You have assigned yourself as a messenger of the gods. Such a weighty burden you bear. Did the gods require that you threaten the heathen as a part of your mission?

Was your assignment a function of voices you heard or direct communications from the gods?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Mar 9, 2022)

james bond said:


> Can't the same be said of you?  If I am wrong, then you're let off the hook for any wrongdoing assuming you're not caught for it.  If I am wrong, then you still can be caught and brought to justice in the real world.  What makes you think I am wrong about the Father, Son and Holy Spirit when I am positive they exist?
> 
> If I am right, then you'll eventually pay for your sin(s) whether you are caught for your crimes or face the Creator at the end.  Thus, it's not _useless crap_.  Non-belief is a mortal sin or one that you will receive lifelong spiritual punishment.


And I've been attentive my entire life. Your ilk has yet to provide any compelling, evidence based reason for me to buy into your shit. Nothing personal, mind you. I think it's just what my momma said about shopping that's always stuck and never let me down.


----------



## james bond (Mar 9, 2022)

Grumblenuts said:


> Nothing fishy about ancient marine fossils on Everest - Australian Associated Press
> 
> 
> A widely shared meme claims "skeletons of fish" found on Mount Everest's peak are proof the earth once experienced a great flood.
> ...


My side isn't the one known for LYING.  It's why I'm _warning_ you and have been for some time that you believe in lies of EVILution. It all fits with the evidence as it's not just Mt. Everest but every mountain range and peak. I can't change your mind and heart, but only warn. Thus, the only way is for you to realize which side the truth is on is the after life.


----------



## james bond (Mar 9, 2022)

Grumblenuts said:


> And I've been attentive my entire life. Your ilk has yet to provide any compelling, evidence based reason for me to buy into your shit. Nothing personal, mind you. I think it's just what my momma said about shopping that's always stuck and never let me down.


No offense taken.  Nothing personal.

Lol, but you just don't get it.  It has to start with change in your faith first.  The evidence and science is intelligence behind the design, global flood evidence, the creator explains how he created in 6-days, i.e. created light and separated it and the darkness evenly to have day/night and beginning of spacetime.

What's weird is you have no scientific explanation of the universe, Earth and how it works.  How can some random process do the above?


----------



## james bond (Mar 9, 2022)

Hollie said:


> You have assigned yourself as a messenger of the gods. Such a weighty burden you bear. Did the gods require that you threaten the heathen as a part of your mission?
> 
> Was your assignment a function of voices you heard or direct communications from the gods?


I don't think I'm a messenger for God when I post creation science facts and findings and arguments against macroevolution such as humans from monkeys (already disproved birds from dinosaurs).  I think we should call it natural selection instead of microevolution since creationists discovered it first.


----------



## james bond (Mar 10, 2022)

Grumblenuts said:


> And I've been attentive my entire life. Your ilk has yet to provide any compelling, evidence based reason for me to buy into your shit. Nothing personal, mind you. I think it's just what my momma said about shopping that's always stuck and never let me down.


Now, you're getting upset for no reason.  I am 100% POSITIVE while you don't even know your odds.  Christianity doesn't work the way you think.  It is based on faith in God first.

If we were just gambling on evolution happening the way it has happened to the universe, Earth and everything in it due to randomness, then the odds would be very, very, very, very, very... long.  It would practically be near infinity.  Have you been to Las Vegas?  The odds of you becoming a millionaire by gambling $25,000 there is too distant, but not as distant as us being here now.  That's something you should be able to understand.  What your side needs are better odds like 2-to-1 for where we are today.  Then, I can accept what your side believes.  Even with those odds, half of us would end up being wrong or losers.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 10, 2022)

james bond said:


> I don't think I'm a messenger for God when I post creation science facts and findings and arguments against macroevolution such as humans from monkeys (already disproved birds from dinosaurs).  I think we should call it natural selection instead of microevolution since creationists discovered it first.


I've never seen any creationer science ''phacts''. 

What you falsely try to pass off as creationer science ''pwoofs'' are just rants of hyper-religious charlatans.


----------



## james bond (Mar 10, 2022)

Hollie said:


> I've never seen any creationer science ''phacts''.
> 
> What you falsely try to pass off as creationer science ''pwoofs'' are just rants of hyper-religious charlatans.


More proof that you cannot read nor reason lmao.  I just provided FACTS in post #284.  What's equally hilarious is abu afak is in the same boat as he gave his "thanks."

Evolution doesn't have one FACT.  How can they show we came from bacteria when they can't create a single cell?  Life cannot arise from non-life.  The universe just can't pop into existence and create light and spacetime.  Thus, the evos are crazy, non-scientific people like you and abu afak.


----------



## abu afak (Mar 10, 2022)

james bond said:


> More proof that you cannot read nor reason lmao.  I just provided FACTS in post #284.  What's equally hilarious is abu afak is in the same boat as he gave his "thanks."
> 
> Evolution doesn't have one FACT.  How can they show we came from bacteria when they can't create a single cell?  Life cannot arise from non-life.  The universe just can't pop into existence and create light and spacetime.  Thus, the evos are crazy, non-scientific people like you and abu afak.


I've told you NOT to tag me, yet you do so regularly.
Twice in one post is especially mentally disturbed.

I have threads on every possible phase of this topic you CAN respond to.
I now consider you fair game to tag on any post I make in the section... or related ones outside it.
*Certainly I've Answered the gist of this post many times over.
Including my last TWO late last night still at the end of the (now) 4th and 5th threads down.*

Get ready to be tagged in my every reply in the section you delusional street person.
`


----------



## james bond (Mar 10, 2022)

abu afak said:


> I've told you NOT to tag me, yet you do so regularly.
> Twice in one post is especially mentally disturbed.
> 
> I have threads on every possible phase of this topic you CAN respond to.
> ...


No reason for me to tag your posts as your slimy faith is 100% wrong and without any facts.  The chances of evolution being true is 0%.  Some of it is too SAF, so they deserve a lol.

I'll consider this as your unconditional surrender as I put my size 9 boot to your face and squeeze the trigger smoothly until "BANG!"  You are gone.


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 10, 2022)

Which is better

To only have conversations with people you agree with or to have conversations with people of differing view points?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Mar 10, 2022)

james bond said:


> Now, you're getting upset for no reason.


Says a guy replying to a post a second time that explicitly states, "Nothing personal, mind you."


james bond said:


> I am 100% POSITIVE while you don't even know your odds.


Not gambling. There are no such odds. Upon due consideration, I've long accepted that I'll eventually just die and rot like every other living thing, so simply lack belief in such widely shared childish fantasies. And Nature provides endless examples for us to appreciate what "odds" are really all about. It isn't just randomness. That's what natural selection demonstrates best. A built in bias toward species adaptation and survival clearly results quite naturally. Contrasted with your jawbones of asses, incredible floods, and flat earth dogma? No thanks. I'll stick with Mother Nature any day.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Mar 10, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Which is better
> 
> To only have conversations with people you agree with or to have conversations with people of differing view points?


It mostly depends on the person.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 10, 2022)

james bond said:


> More proof that you cannot read nor reason lmao.  I just provided FACTS in post #284.  What's equally hilarious is abu afak is in the same boat as he gave his "thanks."
> 
> Evolution doesn't have one FACT.  How can they show we came from bacteria when they can't create a single cell?  Life cannot arise from non-life.  The universe just can't pop into existence and create light and spacetime.  Thus, the evos are crazy, non-scientific people like you and abu afak.


You provided not a single fact. You misunderstand that peddling hyper-religious nonsense is taken seriously outside of your madrassah.


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 10, 2022)

Grumblenuts said:


> It mostly depends on the person.


I don't think it does.

I think it's always better to talk to people who challenge you


----------



## james bond (Mar 10, 2022)

Grumblenuts said:


> Says a guy replying to a post a second time that explicitly states, "Nothing personal, mind you."
> 
> Not gambling. There are no such odds. Upon due consideration, I've long accepted that I'll eventually just die and rot like every other living thing, so simply lack belief in such widely shared childish fantasies. And Nature provides endless examples for us to appreciate what "odds" are really all about. It isn't just randomness. That's what natural selection demonstrates best. A built in bias toward species adaptation and survival clearly results quite naturally. Contrasted with your jawbones of asses, incredible floods, and flat earth dogma? No thanks. I'll stick with Mother Nature any day.


Lol, I'm the one not gambling as 100% is on my side.  That's the best science anyone can get.  

Anyway, I gave you yours or 0% since you couldn't come up with a percentage.  I would've thought evolutionists would have something over 80% certainty.  Does that give me more credibility since natural selection could only provide you and the evos only around 20% certainty for the rest?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 10, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Which is better
> 
> To only have conversations with people you agree with or to have conversations with people of differing view points?


That depends.

When talking evolution, it is better to have conversations with people who understand and accept the basic tenets.

Unless your goal is to try and then fail to teach remedial science education to obstinate, childish, strident adults. Then knock yourself out.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 10, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> I don't think it does.
> 
> I think it's always better to talk to people who challenge you


These people aren't challenging anything, though.

Saying "nah uh!" is not a challenge. Refusing to learn basic facts to and repeating debunkedlies even after the debunk is not a challenge.it's just outbursts.


----------

