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

[Seymour Flops]

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.

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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?

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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?

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]

I said nothing like that.

What answer do they give?

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

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

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]

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.

Ok, then. No evidence = nothing to discuss.

Buh-bye.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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]

Ok, then. No evidence = nothing to discuss.

Buh-bye.

More pigeon logic.

 

[james bond]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

>>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.