# Why Darwinists call non-Darwinists "Flat Earthers"



## Seymour Flops (Feb 5, 2022)

It's wishful thinking.

They wish that the untestable quasi-scientific hypothesis promulgated by Darwin could be as easily proven as the round Earth model.

That Earth is round, and travels around the sun while rotating, can be demonstrated to middle school kids through simple experiments that they can understand.  They can even perform many of these experiments themselves, any day of the week, any time of year, and get the same results confirming the round Earth. 

Not so with Darwinism.  Darwinism is untestable.  No experiment could prove it is false, so of course no experiment can prove it is true.  

Judging from their childish insults, many of the fanatical Darwinists here are either still in middle school or have never outgrown the middle school mentality.

So, if a genuine flat earther came on this forum, they would simply recite the proofs of the round Earth that they learned in middle school.*  Obviously accompanies by a lot of name calling, because that's what middle schoolers do.  

But when it comes to defending Darwinian theory, name calling is their main "argument," along with demanding that non-Darwinists _prove_ that their untestable and non-falsifiable hypothesis is false.

*I may be giving them too much credit.  Likely many of the Darwinists on here paid no attention to subjects like Math and Science, and are now googling "experiments to prove the earth is round," to see what I'm talking about.


----------



## Ringtone (Feb 5, 2022)

Evolution is a myth, a fairytale.


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 5, 2022)

Evolution is a FACT
God is a Theory


----------



## Hollie (Feb 5, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> It's wishful thinking.
> 
> They wish that the untestable quasi-scientific hypothesis promulgated by Darwin could be as easily proven as the round Earth model.
> 
> ...


As the model of Darwinian evolution (change in species over time), has been proven, yours is just another of the frantic, anti-science tirades that typifies so much of the religionist agenda.


----------



## DudleySmith (Feb 5, 2022)

Yes. From the very beginning, Darwinism was just a political tool for sociopaths to use against Da Evul Xians and their annoying morality and principles getting in the way of greed and good times. As for the 'Flat Earth' rubbish, even one of their own Darwinists called them out on that lie.

The *myth of the flat Earth*, or the *flat earth error*, is a modern historical misconception that European scholars and educated people during the Middle Ages believed the Earth to be flat.[1][2]

The earliest clear documentation of the idea of a spherical Earth comes from the ancient Greeks (5th century BC). The belief was widespread in the Greek world when Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of Earth around 240 BC. This knowledge spread with Greek influence such that during the Early Middle Ages (~600–1000 AD), most European and Middle Eastern scholars espoused Earth's sphericity.[3] Belief in a flat Earth among educated Europeans was almost nonexistent from the Late Middle Ages onward, though fanciful depictions appear in art, such as the exterior panels of Hieronymus Bosch's famous triptych _The Garden of Earthly Delights_, in which a disc-shaped Earth is shown floating inside a transparent sphere.[4]

According to Stephen Jay Gould, "there never was a period of 'flat Earth darkness' among scholars, regardless of how the public at large may have conceptualized our planet both then and now. Greek knowledge of sphericity never faded, and all major medieval scholars accepted the Earth's roundness as an established fact of cosmology."[5] Historians of science David Lindberg and Ronald Numbers point out that "there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [Earth's] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference".[6]

*Historian Jeffrey Burton Russell says the flat-Earth error flourished most between 1870 and 1920, and had to do with the ideological setting created by struggles over biological evolution. Russell claims "with extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the Earth was flat", and ascribes popularization of the flat-Earth myth to histories by John William Draper, Andrew Dickson White, and Washington Irving.*[2][7][8]









						Myth of the flat Earth - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




The evolution cultists have been lying from the start.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 5, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> Evolution is a myth, a fairytale.


You used the wrong link to your Flat Earth Society meeting,


----------



## alang1216 (Feb 5, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> It's wishful thinking.
> 
> They wish that the untestable quasi-scientific hypothesis promulgated by Darwin could be as easily proven as the round Earth model.
> 
> ...


I'm not in favor of insulting anyone (though I'm hardly perfect).  What may get 'Darwinists' irate at non-Darwinists is that the mantra of the non-Darwinists is 'where is the proof'.  No matter how much evidence there is for evolution the demand is for proof.  What is equally frustrating for Darwinists is there is never evidence for an alternative theory offered, let alone one that meets this requirement for 'proof'.


----------



## Seymour Flops (Feb 5, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> I'm not in favor of insulting anyone (though I'm hardly perfect).  What may get 'Darwinists' irate at non-Darwinists is that the mantra of the non-Darwinists is 'where is the proof'.  No matter how much evidence there is for evolution the demand is for proof.  What is equally frustrating for Darwinists is there is never evidence for an alternative theory offered, let alone one that meets this requirement for 'proof'.


Notice how you shift gears in two sentences:

*What may get 'Darwinists' irate at non-Darwinists is that the mantra of the non-Darwinists is 'where is the proof'.  No matter how much evidence there is for* *evolution** the demand is for proof. *


So what is there evidence for, evolution or Darwin?

If there is evidence for Darwinism, please present it.


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 5, 2022)

Evolution occurs, that is a proven fact
How and why it occurs are subject to theories. But evolution occurring is a FACT

Simple creatures evolved into complex creatures
That is undeniable


----------



## Ringtone (Feb 5, 2022)

Most evolutionists don't know dick about the theory of evolution, not really.  Most are not even cognizant of the real reason they believe the theory is true.


----------



## Ringtone (Feb 5, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> I'm not in favor of insulting anyone (though I'm hardly perfect).  What may get 'Darwinists' irate at non-Darwinists is that the mantra of the non-Darwinists is 'where is the proof'.  No matter how much evidence there is for evolution the demand is for proof.  What is equally frustrating for Darwinists is there is never evidence for an alternative theory offered, let alone one that meets this requirement for 'proof'.


That's a flat-out lie.  Shame on you.


----------



## westwall (Feb 5, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Evolution is a FACT
> God is a Theory





They are both theories.  Uneducated dolts, like you, don't seem to understand.


----------



## Seymour Flops (Feb 5, 2022)

DudleySmith said:


> Yes. From the very beginning, Darwinism was just a political tool for sociopaths to use against Da Evul Xians and their annoying morality and principles getting in the way of greed and good times. As for the 'Flat Earth' rubbish, even one of their own Darwinists called them out on that lie.
> 
> The *myth of the flat Earth*, or the *flat earth error*, is a modern historical misconception that European scholars and educated people during the Middle Ages believed the Earth to be flat.[1][2]
> 
> ...


Yes, these myths are still taught to school children.  It makes a good story, the dumb ol' people of hundreds of years ago who thought Earth was flat.  Kids love stories of stupid grownups so it keeps their attention.

As a child, I heard stories of people warning Columbus that his ships would fall off the edge of the Earth.  In fact, as I learned as an adult, he was told by astronomers of the day that his voyage would take longer than he realized because they had estimated the size of Earth with considerable accuracy.  Some of them told him that a space that large was unlikely to be empty, so he would likely find previously uncharted land masses as he tried to sail to India from western Europe.

For those Darwinists who did not pay attention to their world history class, Columbus _did_ find the predicted land masses, which were the Americas.  Because he did not accept the advice of the intelligent astronomers, he believed that he had proved them wrong by landing in India much sooner than they predicted he would.  He called the people he met "Indians," due to this error.

True story, bruh . . .


----------



## Seymour Flops (Feb 5, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Evolution occurs, that is a proven fact
> How and why it occurs are subject to theories. But evolution occurring is a FACT
> 
> Simple creatures evolved into complex creatures
> That is undeniable


Your evidence for this is literally your all caps and your flat statement that it is undeniable?


----------



## Seymour Flops (Feb 5, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> Most evolutionists don't know dick about the theory of evolution, not really.  Most are not even cognizant of the real reason they believe the theory is true.


Correct.  They are followers.

They notice that Darwinists constantly insult anyone who questions that theory, and they want to avoid being on the receiving end of the insults.


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 5, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> Your evidence for this is literally your all caps and your flat statement that it is undeniable?


Evolution occurs
There is no denying it

God is just a theory
A theory without any supporting facts


----------



## Hollie (Feb 5, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> Most evolutionists don't know dick about the theory of evolution, not really.  Most are not even cognizant of the real reason they believe the theory is true.


Not so. The responses from the science-minded types are typically precise, accurate and sourced in response to creationers and their falsehoods about evolutionary biology. 

You must have missed the litany of threads opened by the really, really, angry creationer who refuses to support his claims to designer gods yet insists his claims are true until disproven.

That’s ridiculous.


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 5, 2022)

This video will explain it all to you


----------



## alang1216 (Feb 5, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> Notice how you shift gears in two sentences:
> 
> *What may get 'Darwinists' irate at non-Darwinists is that the mantra of the non-Darwinists is 'where is the proof'.  No matter how much evidence there is for* *evolution** the demand is for proof. *
> 
> ...


Maybe I don't know what 'Darwinism' is.  Please enlighten us.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 5, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> I'm not in favor of insulting anyone (though I'm hardly perfect).  What may get 'Darwinists' irate at non-Darwinists is that the mantra of the non-Darwinists is 'where is the proof'.  No matter how much evidence there is for evolution the demand is for proof.  What is equally frustrating for Darwinists is there is never evidence for an alternative theory offered, let alone one that meets this requirement for 'proof'.


I suspect for many creationers, even a perfectly preserved chain of fossil evidence for every intermediary species of every species that ever existed would not meet their standard of proof.

The re-branding of what was once “Biblical Creationism" which became “Scientific Creationism”, later changed to “Intelligent Design Creationism”, later becoming “Intelligent Design” has always been a product of fundamentalist Christianity.

You can take the fundamentalist out of the church but you can’t take the church out of the fundamentalist.


----------



## alang1216 (Feb 5, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> That's a flat-out lie.  Shame on you.


Would you be more specific?


----------



## Ringtone (Feb 5, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Would you be more specific?


I've given you an alternative explanation for the evidence on a number of occasions.  ID and Creationism constitute alternative explanations.  Nobody denies adaptive radication.  What's in doubt is the evolutionary transmutation of species from a common ancestry.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 5, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> I've given you an alternative explanation for the evidence on a number of occasions.  ID and Creationism constitute alternative explanations.  Nobody denies adaptive radication.  What's in doubt is the evolutionary transmutation of species from a common ancestry.


Does that mean only slight changes have occurred to species since stepping off the Ark?


----------



## DudleySmith (Feb 5, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> equally frustrating for Darwinists is there is never evidence for an alternative theory offered, let alone one that meets this requirement for 'proof'.



Why should producing an alternative be required for Darwinists to provide what they claim are facts? That makes no sense.


----------



## DudleySmith (Feb 5, 2022)

Hollie said:


> I suspect for many creationers, even a perfectly preserved chain of fossil evidence for every intermediary species of every species that ever existed would not meet their standard of proof.
> 
> The re-branding of what was once “Biblical Creationism" which became “Scientific Creationism”, later changed to “Intelligent Design Creationism”, later becoming “Intelligent Design” has always been a product of fundamentalist Christianity.
> 
> You can take the fundamentalist out of the church but you can’t take the church out of the fundamentalist.


 All that describes the mindless parroting from 'evolutionists'. And, one doesn't have to be a 'creationist' to see 'evolutionists' are full of shit and are following a political agenda, not a scientific one.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 5, 2022)

DudleySmith said:


> All that describes the mindless parroting from 'evolutionists'. And, one doesn't have to be a 'creationist' to see 'evolutionists' are full of shit and are following a political agenda, not a scientific one.


That makes no sense. Evilutionist atheist scientists do actual research and publish their work for peer review.

Has AIG published anything in the journal _Nature_?


----------



## Likkmee (Feb 5, 2022)

DudleySmith said:


> Yes. From the very beginning, Darwinism was just a political tool for sociopaths to use against Da Evul Xians and their annoying morality and principles getting in the way of greed and good times. As for the 'Flat Earth' rubbish, even one of their own Darwinists called them out on that lie.
> 
> The *myth of the flat Earth*, or the *flat earth error*, is a modern historical misconception that European scholars and educated people during the Middle Ages believed the Earth to be flat.[1][2]
> 
> ...


Beinz I got me some scoolin in them thar middle ages I dunn finded flat urth to be troo.
Climb a montin and look ! Mothufukka flat !


----------



## alang1216 (Feb 5, 2022)

Re: What is equally frustrating for Darwinists is there is never evidence for an alternative theory offered, let alone one that meets this requirement for 'proof'.


Ringtone said:


> I've given you an alternative explanation for the evidence on a number of occasions.  ID and Creationism constitute alternative explanations.  Nobody denies adaptive radication.  What's in doubt is the evolutionary transmutation of species from a common ancestry.


You may have given me an alternative explanation (ID or Creationism) for the evidence (of evolution) on a number of occasions (I honestly don't recall).  What I have yet to see is evidence to SUPPORT ID and Creationism.  Picking holes in evolution is fine but you must have evidence to support the alternatives or just come out and say that the alternatives are supernatural and have no evidence beyond faith.


----------



## DudleySmith (Feb 5, 2022)

Hollie said:


> That makes no sense. Evilutionist atheist scientists do actual research and publish their work for peer review.
> 
> Has AIG published anything in the journal _Nature_?


 lol a bunch of cultists 'peer reviewing' each other's work. And of course my point is indeed valid; nobody is required to provide an alternative in order for a theory to be utter bullshit and as highly improbable as evolution is. Where you get that idea from is certainly not from any science class.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 5, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> It's wishful thinking.
> 
> They wish that the untestable quasi-scientific hypothesis promulgated by Darwin could be as easily proven as the round Earth model.
> 
> ...


What stupid twaddle. Every cell in your body contains DNA that shows that you evolved together with the rest of life presently on Earth.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 5, 2022)

DudleySmith said:


> Yes. From the very beginning, Darwinism was just a political tool for sociopaths to use against Da Evul Xians and their annoying morality and principles getting in the way of greed and good times. As for the 'Flat Earth' rubbish, even one of their own Darwinists called them out on that lie.
> 
> The *myth of the flat Earth*, or the *flat earth error*, is a modern historical misconception that European scholars and educated people during the Middle Ages believed the Earth to be flat.[1][2]
> 
> ...











						Are Flat-Earthers Being Serious?
					

Here's a look at what flat-earthers believe and why they think our planet is a disc surrounded by an icy wall.




					www.livescience.com
				




A 2017 national poll by Public Policy Polling found that only 1% of Americans believed the Earth was flat, with an additional 6% saying they weren't sure. There was very little evidence of differences in this belief by political affiliation, with any differences between Trump voters, Clinton voters and third-party voters falling within the poll's margin of error of 3.2%.



Did you know the Flat Earthers have an international conference?


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 5, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> Correct.  They are followers.
> 
> They notice that Darwinists constantly insult anyone who questions that theory, and they want to avoid being on the receiving end of the insults.


Insult all you want, that will not change the fact of evolution as demonstrated in the fossil record and in every cell in your body. It is not an insult to state that the people that refuse to see that evolution has happened, is happening, and will continue to happen as long as there is life, are stupid, it is stating fact.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 5, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> Notice how you shift gears in two sentences:
> 
> *What may get 'Darwinists' irate at non-Darwinists is that the mantra of the non-Darwinists is 'where is the proof'.  No matter how much evidence there is for* *evolution** the demand is for proof. *
> 
> ...


My, apparently you know nothing of science. Proof is for mathematics, not science. The best that science can do is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.


----------



## Seymour Flops (Feb 5, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Maybe I don't know what 'Darwinism' is.  Please enlighten us.


Glad to.  Thanks for admitting that you don't know the difference.  You are not alone on this forum, I assure you.

*Evolution* is the theory that species evolved from each other, which explains fossils of species no longer seen living on Earth.

*Darwinism* is an explanation for _*how*_ species evolved from each other.  It consists of four main parts:

Variation, inheritance, selection, and time.

*Variation: * while most offspring will be very similar to their parents, occasionally an individual is born/hatched/seeded that has a slight or significant difference.  For example, an animal similar to the giraffe, but with a much shorter "normal-sized" neck, might give birth to a mutated calf with a longer neck.

*Inheritance:*  That mutation is passed on the offspring of that mutated individual, and in turn to their offspring.  So more and more slightly longer-necked animals appear.

*Selection: * The mutation is beneficial to the mutated individual and his progeny in that it allows it to survive and reproduce more so than its non-mutated peers (because he gets more leaves!).   So much so that the mutated offspring take over the habitat, move to another habitat, or force the original short-necked animals to find another habitat.

*Time:*  Given enough time, similar neck-elongating mutations occur (each independent of the one before it), and lead the modern giraffe.  It was similar processes that led to the origin of all species on Earth.

If any Darwinists thinks that is inaccurate, I welcome them to give their own explanation.


----------



## DudleySmith (Feb 5, 2022)

Old Rocks said:


> What stupid twaddle. Every cell in your body contains DNA that shows that you evolved together with the rest of life presently on Earth.



And more and more evidence is coming out that all that 'potential' is already present in DNA; it doesn't 'evolve', it's already present. Like most cultists, you don't understand the difference between mutations and adaptations. But you learned to parrot what has been marketed to you as 'what duh smart peeple think', i.e. a pseudo-intellectual fad. That's a lot easier than thinking for yourself, especially if you're some sort of sociopath or deviant outlier who resents Da Evul Xians n Joos.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 5, 2022)

DudleySmith said:


> lol a bunch of cultists 'peer reviewing' each other's work. And of course my point is indeed valid; nobody is required to provide an alternative in order for a theory to be utter bullshit and as highly improbable as evolution is. Where you get that idea from is certainly not from any science class.



“Cultists peer reviewing”. This seems to more of the conspiracy theory that is promoted by an identifiable group.

I hope you have visited Ken Ham’s Ark Park. Kinda’ like that pilgrimage to Mecca for Moslems, the club has rules.


----------



## Seymour Flops (Feb 5, 2022)

Old Rocks said:


> My, apparently you know nothing of science. Proof is for mathematics, not science. The best that science can do is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.


Then please give the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Darwinian evolution actually took place.  To save a step, "We're here, aren't we?" is not evidence for how we came to be here.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 5, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> Glad to.  Thanks for admitting that you don't know the difference.  You are not alone on this forum, I assure you.
> 
> *Evolution* is the theory that species evolved from each other, which explains fossils of species no longer seen living on Earth.
> 
> ...



“Evolution is the theory that species evolved from each other, which explains fossils of species no longer seen living on Earth.”

It seems Darwinism applies to the gods, also. Most of them are no longer seen on Earth.


----------



## DudleySmith (Feb 5, 2022)

Hollie said:


> Are Flat-Earthers Being Serious?
> 
> 
> Here's a look at what flat-earthers believe and why they think our planet is a disc surrounded by an icy wall.
> ...



Did you know Democrats get by far the most votes from the uneducated and illiterate? But thanks for outing yourself as merely parroting for a political agenda, not 'science n stuff'.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 5, 2022)

DudleySmith said:


> Did you know Democrats get by far the most votes from the uneducated and illiterate? But thanks for outing yourself as merely parroting for a political agenda, not 'science n stuff'.


There is no political agenda in accepting the fact that science cures disease, increases crop yields, offers retirement benefits to various gods as their job descriptions are downsized.


----------



## alang1216 (Feb 5, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> *Evolution* is the theory that species evolved from each other, which explains fossils of species no longer seen living on Earth.


Not quite.  Evolution is the process of descent from a common ancestor.  Extinction explains fossils of species no longer seen living on Earth.  Evolution explains the presence of species that appear in the fossil record at various times.



Seymour Flops said:


> *Variation: * while most offspring will be very similar to their parents, occasionally an individual is born/hatched/seeded that has a slight or significant difference.  For example, an animal similar to the giraffe, but with a much shorter "normal-sized" neck, might give birth to a mutated calf with a longer neck.


Again, not quite.  Populations consist of a variety of slightly different genes in various proportions in that population.  If the environment changes and forests disappear, forest animals that can survive on a savannah will reproduce and the gene pool of that population will be changed


----------



## Seymour Flops (Feb 5, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Not quite.  Evolution is the process of descent from a common ancestor.  Extinction explains fossils of species no longer seen living on Earth.  Evolution explains the presence of species that appear in the fossil record at various times.


Ok.


alang1216 said:


> Again, not quite.  Populations consist of a variety of slightly different genes in various proportions in that population.  If the environment changes and forests disappear, forest animals that can survive on a savannah will reproduce and the gene pool of that population will be changed


So, does that lead to new species?

What you describe is changes within a species, like Darwin's finches.


----------



## alang1216 (Feb 5, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> So, does that lead to new species?
> 
> What you describe is changes within a species, like Darwin's finches.


It seems that is not a simple question and depends on how you define species.  It is probably best to say they are on their way to becoming different species.  They can interbreed but generally don't.  Are horses and donkeys separate species?   Same thing.

The consensus I see is that, if nothing changes, they will be separate species in the future.  Lots of little changes add up to a big one.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 5, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> Glad to.  Thanks for admitting that you don't know the difference.  You are not alone on this forum, I assure you.
> 
> *Evolution* is the theory that species evolved from each other, which explains fossils of species no longer seen living on Earth.
> 
> ...


Leaving you to your own creationer devices was predictable. Your first attempt to define evolution was a disaster. When you steal from creationer websites, you become an accomplice to fraud. Don’t be an accomplice to fraud. You really should advise the industry of creationer charlatans that they need an intro course in biology. Species no longer seen living on earth has some obvious explanations.

The natural world (as opposed to the supernatural creationer world), is largely symbiotic in function. The removal of one species from an ecosystem can cause the entire ecosystem to collapse. There is observational data concerning this. Loss of habitat can cause extinction of one of more species. Changes in climate such as has occurred over the timespan of the planet can cause individual species to disappear in turn causing species sharing that habitat to disappear. Predator and prey?
Identifiable mass extinction events on the planet?

Blank stare? Just say duh?


----------



## ding (Feb 5, 2022)

Hollie said:


> Your first attempt to define evolution was a disaster.


Evolution is when anything moves from a less advanced state to a more advanced state.  It's more than just biological evolution.  Evolution has been occurring since the universe was created.


----------



## Ringtone (Feb 6, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Re: What is equally frustrating for Darwinists is there is never evidence for an alternative theory offered, let alone one that meets this requirement for 'proof'.
> 
> You may have given me an alternative explanation (ID or Creationism) for the evidence (of evolution) on a number of occasions (I honestly don't recall).  What I have yet to see is evidence to SUPPORT ID and Creationism.  Picking holes in evolution is fine but you must have evidence to support the alternatives or just come out and say that the alternatives are supernatural and have no evidence beyond faith.


False.  The evidence evinces that adaptive radiation occurs and, generally, that different species of increasing variety and complexity have appeared over geological time.  Given that this evidence is perfectly compatible with both ID and creationism, how the hell do you figure that an evolutionary transmutation of species from a common ancestry necessarily follows.

What is the name of the hocus pocus you unwittingly and gratuitously impose on the evidence as you unwittingly beg the question?   

Holly and rightwinger are mindless, slogan-spouting zombies.  Their minds are as closed as slammed shut doors.  I think you're smarter than they are.   But are you intellectually honest enough to acknowledge the obvious potentiality that flies right over their heads?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Feb 6, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> It's wishful thinking.
> 
> They wish that the untestable quasi-scientific hypothesis promulgated by Darwin could be as easily proven as the round Earth model.
> 
> ...


The earth is not round


----------



## Hollie (Feb 6, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> False.  The evidence evinces that adaptive radiation occurs and, generally, that different species of increasing variety and complexity have appeared over geological time.  Given that this evidence is perfectly compatible with both ID and creationism, how the hell do you figure that an evolutionary transmutation of species from a common ancestry necessarily follows.
> 
> What is the name of the hocus pocus you unwittingly and gratuitously impose on the evidence as you unwittingly beg the question?
> 
> Holly and rightwinger are mindless, slogan-spouting zombies.  Their minds are as closed as slammed shut doors.  I think you're smarter than they are.   But are you intellectually honest enough to acknowledge the obvious potentiality that flies right over their heads?


Nonsense. There is nothing about the natural world that supports the intervention of your particular polytheistic gods. You need to make a defendable case for you gods before you can use them as conscripts. See how that works? You can’t use the hocus pocus of magic and supernaturalism with your usual, ‘’…… because I say so”, nonsense and expect to be taken seriously.

When you have finished making a defendable case for your gods, we can move on to requiring that you support a 6,000 year old planet. How is the diversity of life on the planet compatible with a 4,000 year timeframe after the claimed global flood?

It is evident in all of biological evolution, just as we see in human evolution, that there is not a straight line from species to sub-species to another but a diverse "splitting tree" as described and supported by Charles Darwin’s observation with many different branches. What we see in nature is not supermagical design as claimed by the hyper-religious but numerous starts and stops, and sometimes complete dead ends. You god's "talents" as a designer are in fact inept and incompetent. I pointed out elsewhere that biological systems collapse easily, they can face extinction if basic elements relied on by a species is destroyed, they are susceptible to diseases (which were also "designed" by your gods so let’s have a round of applause for the gods' blueprints for any number of diseases.

 It is curious to note that ID’iot creationists make such a fuss regarding our understanding of human ancestry, which of course has been adjusted over time to accommodate new fossil evidence. They deny it even exists. There is an ID’iot creationer in these forums who insists the entirety of the fossil record is a grand, worldwide conspiracy theory.  And yet, the ID’iot creationers never seem to notice that if creationism were true, there _shouldn't be any _of that fossil evidence to require explanation by the reality challenged.


----------



## alang1216 (Feb 6, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> False.  The evidence evinces that adaptive radiation occurs and, generally, that different species of increasing variety and complexity have appeared over geological time.  Given that this evidence is perfectly compatible with both ID and creationism, how the hell do you figure that an evolutionary transmutation of species from a common ancestry necessarily follows.


So you rightly see adaptive radiation, isn't that another term for transmutation of species from a common ancestry?  Are ID and creationism continuous and still going on?  Were Homo Sapians, Devisonians, and Neanderthals created or related?  Seems like there is a continuous lineage of all species that you're trying to put arbitrary lines around to keep man's place unique.



Ringtone said:


> What is the name of the hocus pocus you unwittingly and gratuitously impose on the evidence as you unwittingly beg the question?


Occam's razor?



Ringtone said:


> Holly and rightwinger are mindless, slogan-spouting zombies.  Their minds are as closed as slammed shut doors.  I think you're smarter than they are.   But are you intellectually honest enough to acknowledge the obvious potentiality that flies right over their heads?


Thanks but I think you're wrong about all of us.  Most on this board approach this topic already knowing the answer, either from science or from religion.


----------



## Ringtone (Feb 6, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> So you rightly see adaptive radiation, isn't that another term for transmutation of species from a common ancestry?  Are ID and creationism continuous and still going on?  Were Homo Sapians, Devisonians, and Neanderthals created or related?  Seems like there is a continuous lineage of all species that you're trying to put arbitrary lines around to keep man's place unique.
> 
> 
> Occam's razor?
> ...


No it's not.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 6, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> No it's not.


“… because I say so,”

Stunning.


----------



## Ringtone (Feb 6, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> So you rightly see adaptive radiation, isn't that another term for transmutation of species from a common ancestry?  Are ID and creationism continuous and still going on?  Were Homo Sapians, Devisonians, and Neanderthals created or related?  Seems like there is a continuous lineage of all species that you're trying to put arbitrary lines around to keep man's place unique.
> 
> 
> Occam's razor?
> ...


*So you rightly see adaptive radiation, isn't that another term for transmutation of species from a common ancestry? *​
No!  Adaptive radiation occurs within species.  Evolutionary transmutation would be interspeciation.  

*Are ID and creationism continuous and still going on? *​
You're asking if God is going to create more new species?!

*Were Homo Sapiens, Devisonians, and Neanderthals created or related? *​
Related.

*Seems like there is a continuous lineage of all species *​
Really?  You're manifestly arguing evolution is true because evolution is true.  You're repeating yourself.


----------



## Seymour Flops (Feb 6, 2022)

Wyatt earp said:


> The earth is not round


Correct, it's an ellipsoid.  But, I'm dealing with simple folk here, who were shown hoax drawings in elementary school and never gave the issue of evolution another thought.

They're going to get lost if I try to explain the difference between a sphere and an ellipsoid.  In simplespeak, the Earth is called "round."


----------



## Hollie (Feb 6, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> Correct, it's an ellipsoid.  But, I'm dealing with simple folk here, who were shown hoax drawings in elementary school and never gave the issue of evolution another thought.
> 
> They're going to get lost if I try to explain the difference between a sphere and an ellipsoid.  In simplespeak, the Earth is called "round."


That's good to know because it was the supernatural creationer minded church folks who literally held back humanity for 800 years by crushing scientific inquiry.

Creationers don't have that power of coercion anymore so let's see if we can convince them to drop their quaint "science is a conspiracy" mindset.

Another 800 years? I would say not that long because the current crop of gods will likely be replaced by newer, more user friendly gods. That is after all, the history of gods.


----------



## alang1216 (Feb 7, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> *So you rightly see adaptive radiation, isn't that another term for transmutation of species from a common ancestry? *​
> No!  Adaptive radiation occurs within species.  Evolutionary transmutation would be interspeciation.


Is there a limit on how much a species can radiate from its initial form?  Could a therapod dinosaur radiate into a bird?



Ringtone said:


> *Are ID and creationism continuous and still going on? *​
> You're asking if God is going to create more new species?!


No, I'm asking if he has created every new species on earth?



Ringtone said:


> *Were Homo Sapiens, Devisonians, and Neanderthals created or related? *
> 
> Related.


So they 'radiated' into different species?



Ringtone said:


> *Seems like there is a continuous lineage of all species *​
> Really?  You're manifestly arguing evolution is true because evolution is true.  You're repeating yourself.


No, I'm arguing that there is evidence that all species are descended from an ancestral species and that is the definition of evolution.


----------



## Ringtone (Feb 7, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Is there a limit on how much a species can radiate from its initial form?  Could a therapod dinosaur radiate into a bird?
> 
> 
> No, I'm asking if he has created every new species on earth?
> ...


Yes.  I know what you're arguing, but you're mistaken.  The range of adaptive radiation is cyclically limited and fixed for each species.  God's design is ingenious.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 7, 2022)

DudleySmith said:


> Did you know Democrats get by far the most votes from the uneducated and illiterate? But thanks for outing yourself as merely parroting for a political agenda, not 'science n stuff'.


Do you know you are a bullshitter and a liar. Most of the red states have the lowest educational levels in the nation. 












						Blue States Barack Obama Won In 2012 Are More Educated Than Red States
					

The least educated states of the union vote red.




					time.com


----------



## alang1216 (Feb 7, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> Yes.  I know what you're arguing, but you're mistaken.  The range of adaptive radiation is cyclically limited and fixed for each species.  God's design is ingenious.


So you're arguing that all new species are created by God?  OK, there are no scientific arguments for or against that.  

My only question is, if God creates all new species, why can't he utilize evolution?


----------



## Hollie (Feb 7, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> Yes.  I know what you're arguing, but you're mistaken.  The range of adaptive radiation is cyclically limited and fixed for each species.  God's design is ingenious.


Heart disease is one of the “gods design is ingenious”, platitudes. The cancer was pretty good, too.


----------



## Ringtone (Feb 7, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> So you're arguing that all new species are created by God?  OK, there are no scientific arguments for or against that.
> 
> My only question is, if God creates all new species, why can't he utilize evolution?


So a fossil record overwhelmingly exhibiting the sudden appearances of fully formed species sans intermediate forms over geological time doesn't support intelligent design or creationism, eh?

Evolutionary speciation cannot be observed.

So now we come to the real reason that you believe evolution is true.  You assume the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism, begging the question!

See how that works?  Like I said, most evolutionists are not even cognizant of the real reason they belive the theory of evoluton is true:  they unwittingly assume that all of biological history is necessarily an unbrokent chain of natural cause and effect.  What if it's not?


----------



## AMart (Feb 7, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> Yes, these myths are still taught to school children.  It makes a good story, the dumb ol' people of hundreds of years ago who thought Earth was flat.  Kids love stories of stupid grownups so it keeps their attention.
> 
> As a child, I heard stories of people warning Columbus that his ships would fall off the edge of the Earth.  In fact, as I learned as an adult, he was told by astronomers of the day that his voyage would take longer than he realized because they had estimated the size of Earth with considerable accuracy.  Some of them told him that a space that large was unlikely to be empty, so he would likely find previously uncharted land masses as he tried to sail to India from western Europe.
> 
> ...


India is just about the exact same longitude as Panama, so if it didn't connect with Colombia then sailing west you would run right into it. Likely too far of distance without restocking supplies.


----------



## Seymour Flops (Feb 7, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> So you're arguing that all new species are created by God?  OK, there are no scientific arguments for or against that.
> 
> My only question is, if God creates all new species, why can't he utilize evolution?


God could do that, if God is a god.

Makes more sense than Darwin.


----------



## alang1216 (Feb 7, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> So a fossil record overwhelmingly exhibiting the sudden appearances of fully formed species sans intermediate forms over geological time doesn't support intelligent design or creationism, eh?


A "God of the Gaps" argument?  And not even an accurate one.  There were feathered dinos and now we have feathered birds.  What would an "intermediate" form look like?  A bird with teeth?  A bird with a long tail?



Ringtone said:


> Evolutionary speciation cannot be observed.


Creationism can not be observed and no known mechanism exists for it.  Not what I'd call a viable alternative theory.



Ringtone said:


> So now we come to the real reason that you believe evolution is true.  You assume the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism, begging the question!
> 
> See how that works?  Like I said, most evolutionists are not even cognizant of the real reason they belive the theory of evoluton is true:  they unwittingly assume that all of biological history is necessarily an unbrokent chain of natural cause and effect.


I've lived many years and have never encountered anything obviously supernatural.  Should I believe you or my lying eyes?



Ringtone said:


> What if it's not?


Then I'd expect to see some evidence.


----------



## alang1216 (Feb 7, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> God could do that, if God is a god.
> 
> Makes more sense than Darwin.


Darwin theorized a mechanism, can you?  Saying "God did it" is really not an answer.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 7, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> So you're arguing that all new species are created by God?  OK, there are no scientific arguments for or against that.
> 
> My only question is, if God creates all new species, why can't he utilize evolution?


It’s worth noting that we have no compelling reason to think that existence would be any different than it is with or without the Christian gods or any other gods. Biological evolution presents a consistent, rational, linear progression of theories and facts that form a coherent argument. Nothing about supernatural gods of any persuasion forms a coherent argument.

It’s expected that creationers in the west would default to the gods that are common in the west. What the creationers have not done is make the effort to actually understand evolution. The theory is a _descriptive_ theory in that it describes the ways in which populations of biological organisms change over time.

Nothing about creation is descriptive. None of the creationers can describe anything about how their particular gods supernaturally *poofed* existence into the world we know. In an objective sense, belief systems pleading to supernaturalism are simply _prescriptive._


----------



## alang1216 (Feb 7, 2022)

Hollie said:


> It’s worth noting that we have no compelling reason to think that existence would be any different than it is with or without the Christian gods or any other gods. Biological evolution presents a consistent, rational, linear progression of theories and facts that form a coherent argument. Nothing about supernatural gods of any persuasion forms a coherent argument.
> 
> It’s expected that creationers in the west would default to the gods that are common in the west. What the creationers have not done is make the effort to actually understand evolution. The theory is a _descriptive_ theory in that it describes the ways in which populations of biological organisms change over time.
> 
> Nothing about creation is descriptive. None of the creationers can describe anything about how their particular gods supernaturally *poofed* existence into the world we know. In an objective sense, belief systems pleading to supernaturalism are simply _prescriptive._


If you ask a Christian what is a Christian you'll never get a complete answer, but they all know who is NOT a Christian.  It is the same with creationism, the creationists can tell you how life came to be, they can only tell you how it DID NOT come into being.


----------



## Seymour Flops (Feb 7, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Darwin theorized a mechanism, can you?  Saying "God did it" is really not an answer.


Sure.

Evolution.

I'll await your proof that Natural Selection and not a designer was the impetus for evolution.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 7, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> Sure.
> 
> Evolution.
> 
> I'll await your proof that Natural Selection and not a designer was the impetus for evolution.



Nature is a demonstrable force as the impetus for evolution.

Why insist on the need for supernatural designers who you can’t provide evidence for, have no ability to identify and provide no mechanism whereby supernaturalism can be a viable mechanism.

Maybe a nice hot cup of tea and a coma?


----------



## alang1216 (Feb 8, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> Sure.
> 
> Evolution.
> 
> I'll await your proof that Natural Selection and not a designer was the impetus for evolution.


Proofs are for math.  Natural Selection is a good, scientific, falsifiable theory to explain what we see and does not violate natural laws or require any supernatural interventions.  Until there is any evidence for the existence of a designer I'd say the choice is clear.  I'll await your proof that a designer exists.


----------



## Seymour Flops (Feb 8, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Proofs are for math.  Natural Selection is a good, scientific, falsifiable theory to explain what we see and does not violate natural laws or require any supernatural interventions.  Until there is any evidence for the existence of a designer I'd say the choice is clear.  I'll await your proof that a designer exists.


How is natural selection falsifiable?  What experiment could prove it false?

If you can answer that one (with a valid answer) you will be the first and you should write a book.

Natural selection violates logic and common sense.  Natural selection has parts that do nothing if they are not working together evolve independently of each other.  That could happen, but not with only natural selection as the impetus.  

Design theory isn’t falsifiable either.  Any study of evolution is doomed to be not science in the strict sense of experimental science in which the researcher seeks to disprove their own hypothesis.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 8, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> How is natural selection falsifiable?  What experiment could prove it false?
> 
> If you can answer that one (with a valid answer) you will be the first and you should write a book.
> 
> ...


"How is natural selection falsifiable? What experiment could prove it false?"

If you have cohesive set of ideas (sometimes called a theory) and results of experimentation to submit for peer review that provides a workable mechanism to test for supernaturalism you should submit that to the journal Nature or the National Science Foundation.

Provide the data showing bacterial resistance to antibiotics is the result of your gods' intervention. Provide the data refuting the observed instances of speciation. If speciation is an act of your partisan gods, show us the magic. 

You have that, right? No. Obviously you don't. What you have are Disco'tute charlatans such as Behe who are no less carnival barkers like Harun Yaha.

Otherwise, there is no such thing as "design theory". Biblical creationism is the term you're substituting for design theory.

Post the religious fundamentalist "*General Theory of Supernatural Design" *

This should be fun.


----------



## surada (Feb 11, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> I've given you an alternative explanation for the evidence on a number of occasions.  ID and Creationism constitute alternative explanations.  Nobody denies adaptive radication.  What's in doubt is the evolutionary transmutation of species from a common ancestry.


Many creationists believe there were no mountains until after Noah's flood.


----------



## Ringtone (Feb 11, 2022)

surada said:


> Many creationists believe there were no mountains until after Noah's flood.


They do?  Why?


----------



## surada (Feb 11, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> They do?  Why?


The bible says the highest mountains were covered by 22 feet of water so creationists say the earth was flat until the global flood.


----------



## Muhammed (Apr 1, 2022)

I'm a cement mason/concrete finisher who specializes in concrete flatwork. The Earth is not flat until I get done with it.


----------



## westwall (Apr 1, 2022)

surada said:


> The bible says the highest mountains were covered by 22 feet of water so creationists say the earth was flat until the global flood.





I've never heard of that convoluted crap you just presented from anyone in my 75 years.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 1, 2022)

surada said:


> The bible says the highest mountains were covered by 22 feet of water so creationists say the earth was flat until the global flood.


If the highest mountains were covered by 22 feet of water how could the Earth have been flat?


----------



## surada (Apr 1, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> If the highest mountains were covered by 22 feet of water how could the Earth have been flat?


Creationists say the topography was flat until the flood pushed up the mountains .


----------



## surada (Apr 1, 2022)

westwall said:


> I've never heard of that convoluted crap you just presented from anyone in my 75 years.


Have you read the Bible? Try Genesis 7:20.


----------



## surada (Apr 1, 2022)

__





						Genesis 7:20 says the water stood more than 22 feet above the highest peaks.  Doesn't this draw into question the inerrancy of the Bible unless it is literally true? – Evidence for Christianity
					






					evidenceforchristianity.org


----------



## westwall (Apr 1, 2022)

surada said:


> Have you read the Bible? Try Genesis 7:20.






Where does it say the Earth was flat?  Specifically.  Which line?


----------



## westwall (Apr 1, 2022)

surada said:


> Creationists say the topography was flat until the flood pushed up the mountains .






Who.  Name them.


----------



## surada (Apr 1, 2022)

__





						Genesis 7:20 says the water stood more than 22 feet above the highest peaks.  Doesn't this draw into question the inerrancy of the Bible unless it is literally true? – Evidence for Christianity
					






					evidenceforchristianity.org
				





westwall said:


> Where does it say the Earth was flat?  Specifically.  Which line?


----------



## westwall (Apr 1, 2022)

surada said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> ...






That doesn't say the Earth was flat.  That merely says the water stood higher than the mountains.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 1, 2022)

surada said:


> Creationists say the topography was flat until the flood pushed up the mountains .


Well, such an event would most certainly cause seismic-tectonic plate activity but I know of no reason to believe that the Earth was necessary flat before the Flood.


----------



## surada (Apr 1, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> Well, such an event would most certainly cause seismic-tectonic plate activity but I know of no reason to believe that the Earth was necessary flat before the Flood.


I don't believe the earth was flat or the flood myth.


----------



## westwall (Apr 1, 2022)

surada said:


> I don't believe the earth was flat or the flood myth.






What you believe is not relevant.  There are flood myths from EVERY culture throughout the world.  Thus, there WAS a great flood.  Think back to 10,000 years ago.  As now, people lived along the coastlines and rivers.  Also 10,000 years ago, the ocean levels were at least 200 feet lower than they are now.  So, yes, as the oceans rose, there was indeed a great flood as the populations were forced to leave their homes for higher ground.

This is born out by the discovery of dozens of flooded villages found along the continental shelf in the Black Sea.

Your problem is you are ignorant of both science, and history.


----------



## alang1216 (Apr 1, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> How is natural selection falsifiable?  What experiment could prove it false?
> 
> If you can answer that one (with a valid answer) you will be the first and you should write a book.


 Simple, take a population that multiplies quickly, say a virus, and determine the distribution of the genes in the population.  Then introduce a toxin that kills a good percent of the population or inhibits the virus' reproduction.  Wait a few generations and determine the distribution of the genes in the population again.  If there was no change, natural selection is false.  Happily this experiment has been done and in every case the population genetics will change.  COVID is just the latest example.



Seymour Flops said:


> Natural selection violates logic and common sense.  Natural selection has parts that do nothing if they are not working together evolve independently of each other.  That could happen, but not with only natural selection as the impetus.


Wrong.



Seymour Flops said:


> Design theory isn’t falsifiable either.  Any study of evolution is doomed to be not science in the strict sense of experimental science in which the researcher seeks to disprove their own hypothesis.


The difference between the two theories is that evolution has a mechanism, ID does not.


----------



## Hollie (Apr 1, 2022)

westwall said:


> What you believe is not relevant.  There are flood myths from EVERY culture throughout the world.  Thus, there WAS a great flood.  Think back to 10,000 years ago.  As now, people lived along the coastlines and rivers.  Also 10,000 years ago, the ocean levels were at least 200 feet lower than they are now.  So, yes, as the oceans rose, there was indeed a great flood as the populations were forced to leave their homes for higher ground.
> 
> This is born out by the discovery of dozens of flooded villages found along the continental shelf in the Black Sea.
> 
> Your problem is you are ignorant of both science, and history.


There is nothing to indicate there was a flood as described in the Noah fable. Civilizations such as the Chinese, Maya and others have no accounts of a globe wiping flood from just 4,000 or so years ago.


----------



## westwall (Apr 1, 2022)

Hollie said:


> There is nothing to indicate there was a flood as described in the Noah fable. Civilizations such as the Chinese, Maya and others have no accounts of a globe wiping flood from just 4,000 or so years ago.






No one knows how old the legends date from.  But the fact that ALL cultures worldwide have the great flood in their legends is proof that one did indeed happen.  I have given you the most simple and straightforward explanation for why that is.  Either you follow science, or you don't.  But the scientific support for the great flood is solid.


----------



## Hollie (Apr 1, 2022)

westwall said:


> No one knows how old the legends date from.  But the fact that ALL cultures worldwide have the great flood in their legends is proof that one did indeed happen.  I have given you the most simple and straightforward explanation for why that is.  Either you follow science, or you don't.  But the scientific support for the great flood is solid.


There is no science support for the Noah flood fable. I do follow science which is why I reject the notion of that fable. 

Either you follow science or you dont so please identify the science data that supports a global flood a few thousand years ago.


----------



## westwall (Apr 1, 2022)

Hollie said:


> There is no science support for the Noah flood fable. I do follow science which is why I reject the notion of that fable.
> 
> Either you follow science or you dont so please identify the science data that supports a global flood a few thousand years ago.






Yes.  There is.  Mankind settles on coastlines and rivers.  Ten thousand years ago all of that land was being lived on because the oceans were far lower than they are today.  The oceans rose, and ancient man had to leave.  It is obvious as hell.  I am not saying God did it.  I am saying the end of the last continental glacial period IS the cause of it.  That is well documented in science.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 2, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> It's wishful thinking.
> 
> They wish that the untestable quasi-scientific hypothesis promulgated by Darwin could be as easily proven as the round Earth model.
> 
> ...


Well that's all wrong and nothing but a depressed, defeated freak soothing himself.

We call you flat earthers to mock you for being intransigent and aggressively ignorant the face of overwhelming evidence.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 2, 2022)

westwall said:


> Yes.  There is.  Mankind settles on coastlines and rivers.  Ten thousand years ago all of that land was being lived on because the oceans were far lower than they are today.  The oceans rose, and ancient man had to leave.  It is obvious as hell.  I am not saying God did it.  I am saying the end of the last continental glacial period IS the cause of it.  That is well documented in science.


None of that is evidence for a global flood. You didn't even describe a global flood.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 2, 2022)

westwall said:


> What you believe is not relevant. There are flood myths from EVERY culture throughout the world.


Which is also not evidence for a global flood.

There are flood myths because floods happen and people exaggerate.


----------



## Tinhatter (Jun 20, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> It's wishful thinking.
> 
> They wish that the untestable quasi-scientific hypothesis promulgated by Darwin could be as easily proven as the round Earth model.
> 
> ...


Darwin's theory of evolution is as good as any other, and waaaay better than Creationism. The problem with Darwinists is their overt hypocrisy. Anyone that has read the *unexpurgated* books of Darwin well knows how they pick and choose what suits them, and quickly sweep under the 'scientific racism' carpet all that is inconvenient. Same with Linnaeus. Many (if not most) are blissfully unaware that he actually did add mankind to his taxonomic classification system, but that part was expunged by later so-called scientists that decided it hurt their fee-fees, and was 'divisive'.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jun 20, 2022)

westwall said:


> No one knows how old the legends date from. But the fact that ALL cultures worldwide have the great flood in their legends is proof that one did indeed happen


The elementary lie. A false premise, adopted and regurgitated, because even this embarrassing lie is better than "because mah Bible says so ".


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jun 20, 2022)

Tinhatter said:


> Darwin's theory of evolution is as good as any other, and waaaay better than Creationism. The problem with Darwinists is their overt hypocrisy. Anyone that has read the *unexpurgated* books of Darwin well knows how they pick and choose what suits them, and quickly sweep under the 'scientific racism' carpet all that is inconvenient. Same with Linnaeus. Many (if not most) are blissfully unaware that he actually did add mankind to his taxonomic classification system, but that part was expunged by later so-called scientists that decided it hurt their fee-fees, and was 'divisive'.


Which was easily demonstrated by more science. It is not the case that the same can happen in reverse.


----------



## surada (Jun 20, 2022)

westwall said:


> What you believe is not relevant.  There are flood myths from EVERY culture throughout the world.  Thus, there WAS a great flood.  Think back to 10,000 years ago.  As now, people lived along the coastlines and rivers.  Also 10,000 years ago, the ocean levels were at least 200 feet lower than they are now.  So, yes, as the oceans rose, there was indeed a great flood as the populations were forced to leave their homes for higher ground.
> 
> This is born out by the discovery of dozens of flooded villages found along the continental shelf in the Black Sea.
> 
> Your problem is you are ignorant of both science, and history.



The Jews borrowed the flood myth of Sumer which were based on real floods in the Euphrates river basin around 2900 BC. These floods built up the delta south of Basra. There's flood sediment 150 miles wide and 350 miles south to the Persian Gulf. The floods were fed by spring snowmelt from the Zagros mountains and spring rains. They lasted four days and disrupted shipping by barges downriver to sell livestock, grain and beer.

The Black Sea breech was thousands of years earlier and was very slow moving so there was plenty of time to move families and livestock to higher ground.. months to move.


----------



## Ringtone (Jun 20, 2022)

Tinhatter said:


> *Darwin's theory of evolution is as good as any other, and waaaay better than Creationism.* The problem with Darwinists is their overt hypocrisy. Anyone that has read the *unexpurgated* books of Darwin well knows how they pick and choose what suits them, and quickly sweep under the 'scientific racism' carpet all that is inconvenient. Same with Linnaeus. Many (if not most) are blissfully unaware that he actually did add mankind to his taxonomic classification system, but that part was expunged by later so-called scientists that decided it hurt their fee-fees, and was 'divisive'.


Total nonsense!

Only the most intellectually shallow and ill-formed persons would make such a claim in the first place.  Creationism in and of itself or ID theory are infinitely superior to the pseudoscientific, metaphysical presupposition on which Evolution is gratuitously predicated.  I seriously doubt that you're even consciously aware of why you believe this ridiculous claim to be true.


----------



## Ringtone (Jun 20, 2022)

surada said:


> The Jews borrowed the flood myth of Sumer which were based on real floods in the Euphrates river basin around 2900 BC. These floods built up the delta south of Basra. There's flood sediment 150 miles wide and 350 miles south to the Persian Gulf. The floods were fed by spring snowmelt from the Zagros mountains and spring rains. They lasted four days and disrupted shipping by barges downriver to sell livestock, grain and beer.
> 
> The Black Sea breech was thousands of years earlier and was very slow moving so there was plenty of time to move families and livestock to higher ground.. months to move.


Bull! 

The Herzogian-Finkelsteinian calculi on which surada*'s* claim is ultimately predicated presupposes that the Exodus story was concocted between the 10th and 9th Centuries BC.  But there is ample evidence that the Exodus is historical and occurred during the 13th Century just as the Bible asserts.

*surda* merely subscribes to the lack of decisive evidence available from the later period and the "scholarship" thereof while arbitrarily disregarding what is in fact a growing body of evidence from the period depicted by the Bible.









						The Exodus: Fact or Fiction?
					

Is the Biblical Exodus fact or fiction? Scholars and archaeologists argue about aspects of Israel’s Exodus but many agree it occurred.




					www.biblicalarchaeology.org
				












						Is the Bible's story of the Jewish exodus from Egypt accurate?
					

How authentic is the Biblical account of the Jewish people’s departure from Egypt for the Promised Land?




					www.jpost.com
				









						The Archaeology of Exodus - Archaeology Review
					

Archaeology Review is the place to get news about archaeology, particularly that which exposes fake, fraudulent, and fantastic archaeological claims.




					ahotcupofjoe.net
				












						Google Earth Discovers Evidence Exodus Was Via Saudi Arabia...Or Does It?
					

Some scholars believe the mysterious structures found in Saudi Arabia are signs that the Children of Israel strayed far from the Sinai after leaving Egypt.




					www.israel365news.com
				












						Did Archaeologists Find First Ever Evidence of Biblical Exodus?
					

Archaeologists have long disputed whether the Exodus described in the Bible was a factual, historical account of the Jews’ arrival from Egypt or whether the evidence points toward a non-Biblical version – an internal social development in the region. A recent discovery that may prove Iron Age...




					www.israel365news.com
				












						Archaeology and the Exodus - Aish.com
					

What role does archaeology play in verifying Biblical events?




					aish.com


----------



## Quasar44 (Jun 24, 2022)

Darwin is one of the greats


----------



## ChemEngineer (Aug 28, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> God's fingerprints are all over the universe. _—_Michael Rawlings



*Indeed.  I describe a few of them here:*


----------



## james bond (Aug 28, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Evolution is a FACT
> God is a Theory


Lol you being an IDIOT is FACT.

How can spacetime, universe, sun, moon, planets, etc. just come to be?  You don't have any evidence of ape-humans, too?


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 28, 2022)

james bond said:


> Lol you being an idiot is FACT.



I am NOT an Idiot
Mother had me tested

The man said I was Special


----------



## james bond (Aug 28, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> I am NOT an Idiot
> Mother had me tested
> 
> The man said I was Special


I know things about people.  You're an IDIOT.  Just from the things you post here.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 28, 2022)

ChemEngineer said:


> *Indeed.  I describe a few of them here:*
> 
> View attachment 688504
> 
> View attachment 688505


*Indeed. A used car book salesman pimping a book as opposed to a Chevy with the odometer rolled back. *


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 28, 2022)

james bond said:


> I know things about people.  You're an IDIOT.  Just from the things you post here.


I have been tested

Have you?


----------



## james bond (Aug 28, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> I have been tested
> 
> Have you?


Let's see the evidence.  I can accept that you're a flat Earther.

I have a bachelor of science and an MBA from a reputed university and believe in a spherical Earth and created universe.  Nothing could pop up like the universe and be of the same age.

ETA:  If you're so special, then tell us the age of the different planets.


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 28, 2022)

james bond said:


> I have a bachelor of science and an MBA from a reputed university


You should demand a refund and get your degrees from a university that definitely exists.



james bond said:


> Nothing could pop up like the universe and be of the same age.
> 
> ETA:  If you're so special, then tell us the age of the different planets.


Does anyone dispute the planets were formed at the same time?


----------



## james bond (Aug 29, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> You should demand a refund and get your degrees from a university that definitely exists.


Creation science is the truth and real science.  This is why science backs it up.  It is more than religion.  Of course, the university can't teach that so one has to learn evolution today.  However, one should think for themselves and figure out there isn't any science behind evolution.  Light, spacetime, universe, Earth, animals, humans, etc. just can't come into being or one species become another.  Otherwise, science would back up evolution.

Maybe more people should go to Christian schools.



alang1216 said:


> Does anyone dispute the planets were formed at the same time?


Sure, evolution.  It is creation that says the universe and the heavenly bodies were formed at the same time (different days) -- What happened on each of the days of Creation? | GotQuestions.org.


----------



## surada (Aug 29, 2022)

james bond said:


> Creation science is the truth and real science.  This is why science backs it up.  It is more than religion.  Of course, the university can't teach that so one has to learn evolution today.  However, one should think for themselves and figure out there isn't any science behind evolution.  Light, spacetime, universe, Earth, animals, humans, etc. just can't come into being or one species become another.  Otherwise, science would back up evolution.
> 
> Maybe more people should go to Christian schools.
> 
> ...



Christian schools tend to be poor in the sciences...and new. Established Christian schools don't teach creation science.


----------



## james bond (Aug 29, 2022)

surada said:


> Christian schools tend to be poor in the sciences...and new. Established Christian schools don't teach creation science.


First, you don't discuss much science here.  I can't remember one post you made regarding it.  I assume you don't have much of an education, maybe HS graduate, and don't know about Christian schools let alone secular ones.  Secular ones have trouble with morality and discipline.  Is it any wonder we are going to hell in a hand basket.


----------



## surada (Aug 29, 2022)

james bond said:


> First, you don't discuss much science here.  I can't remember one post you made regarding it.  I assume you don't have much of an education, maybe HS graduate, and don't know about Christian schools let alone secular ones.  Secular ones have trouble with morality and discipline.  Is it any wonder we are going to hell in a hand basket.



I went to excellent schools. We didn't have problems with morality and discipline. My episcopal school had vespers every day. They didn't teach creation science or Bible myths. We studied Job and Jonah as literature... for the message not as history. The crappy little Christian schools that popped up in the 1970s after desegregation were fundamentalist and very poor in academics.

Have you ever worked as a chemical engineer?


----------



## james bond (Aug 29, 2022)

surada said:


> I went to excellent schools. We didn't have problems with morality and discipline. My episcopal school had vespers every day. They didn't teach creation science or Bible myths. We studied Job and Jonah as literature... for the message not as history. The crappy little Christian schools that popped up in the 1970s after desegregation were fundamentalist and very poor in academics.
> 
> Have you ever worked as a chemical engineer?


Are you saying you were a chem engineer?  What did you create/work on?


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 29, 2022)

james bond said:


> Creation science is the truth and real science.  This is why science backs it up.  It is more than religion.  Of course, the university can't teach that so one has to learn evolution today.  However, one should think for themselves and figure out there isn't any science behind evolution.  Light, spacetime, universe, Earth, animals, humans, etc. just can't come into being or one species become another.  Otherwise, science would back up evolution.






james bond said:


> Sure, evolution.  It is creation that says the universe and the heavenly bodies were formed at the same time (different days) -- What happened on each of the days of Creation? | GotQuestions.org.


I missed that lecture in evolution school.  Where does the theory say the planets were NOT made concurrently?


----------



## james bond (Aug 30, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> I missed that lecture in evolution school.  Where does the theory say the planets were NOT made concurrently?


You should wag that finger to yourself in the mirror.  Evolution doesn't know.  You can't even explain the age of the planets.  It's creationists like I who know.


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 30, 2022)

james bond said:


> You should wag that finger to yourself in the mirror.  Evolution doesn't know.  You can't even explain the age of the planets.  It's creationists like I who know.


You're confusing evolution with astrophysics.  News flash, they are not the same.  So what do creationists know about the age of the planets that others do not?


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Aug 30, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> So what do creationists know about the age of the planets that others do not?


I'm not a creationist but:
That the ability to put a number on the age of creation is not possible if the means to do so were not available until the 4th day.
Since then [4th day] a day has consisted of how long it takes the earth to rotate from point "A" back to point "A" in coordination with the sun [24 hours], but with no sun, the first three days have no reference of time and would be indefinite.

I'm an atheist who does believe in evolution, but the deeper I get into the origin of species and the origin of the universe the easier it is to see how evolution works in just as many mysterious and unexplainable ways as does a supreme being.


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Aug 30, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Evolution occurs, that is a proven fact
> How and why it occurs are subject to theories. But evolution occurring is a FACT


TRANSLATION: evolution is a fact, there is just no proof that it is a fact.


rightwinger said:


> Simple creatures evolved into complex creatures
> That is undeniable


which easily could have been their/our creators intent...and they actually evolved into things like sponges and cuttlefish and efts/newts ...all sorts of things along the way, if of course that really did happen


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 30, 2022)

Frankeneinstein said:


> TRANSLATION: evolution is a fact, there is just no proof that it is a fact.


What sort of proof would convince you?  I'm willing to settle for overwhelming evidence from multiple sciences.



Frankeneinstein said:


> which easily could have been their/our creators intent...and they actually evolved into things like sponges and cuttlefish and efts/newts ...all sorts of things along the way, if of course that really did happen


Do you have an alternative theory about why the fossil record looks as it does?


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 30, 2022)

Frankeneinstein said:


> TRANSLATION: evolution is a fact, there is just no proof that it is a fact.
> 
> which easily could have been their/our creators intent...and they actually evolved into things like sponges and cuttlefish and efts/newts ...all sorts of things along the way, if of course that really did happen



Evolution is a fact……simple creatures evolved into more complex creatures

If you want to credit your God for that, nobody is stopping you


----------



## james bond (Aug 30, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> You're confusing evolution with astrophysics.  News flash, they are not the same.  So what do creationists know about the age of the planets that others do not?


Whether its astrophysics or not, secular estimates are all human assumptions.  Thus, they may be error.  Instead, creationists know they are of the _same age_ based on experimental evidence of Earth rocks and the Bible.


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Aug 30, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Maybe I don't know what 'Darwinism' is. Please enlighten us.


amongst other things, and true or not true it is a default belief system for those who reject religion, it works on the very same principles and disguises itself to its followers by being the anti-religion religion...just try and shake their "faith" in it.

"Origin Of Species" is the book of "Genesis" It's as unshakeable to the Congregation of Darwin as "Genesis" is to a Christians.

The communist manifesto needed an everyday doctrine like Christianity had with the bible...

Marxism needed a Jesus to wean the world off religion, "the opiate of the masses", it got Darwin

Climate change is Armageddon, the rallying call to save earth from a burning hell

Taxes are involuntary church offerings and are the only thing that will stave off Armageddon

Public schools serve the same function as a church, to preach the good word.

Most everything that makes religion a religion can be found in marxist ideology... Darwinism included


----------



## james bond (Aug 30, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Evolution is a fact……simple creatures evolved into more complex creatures


Why do you keep saying that it is a fact without any evidence?  Evolution is based on human _assumptions_ that there was no Creator.  There is no evidence that "simple creatures evolved into more complex creatures."


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Aug 30, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Evolution is a fact……simple creatures evolved into more complex creatures


yeah you said that, and then ya claimed there was just no proof of it


rightwinger said:


> If you want to credit your God for that, nobody is stopping you


TRANSLATION: Hey, it could be anything, ya just gotta have faith.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 30, 2022)

Frankeneinstein said:


> yeah you said that, and then ya claimed there was just no proof of it
> 
> TRANSLATION: Hey, it could be anything, ya just gotta have faith.


There are reams of Biological, Geologic, Fossil and DNA proof that simple creatures evolved into more complex creatures

The how’s and why’s are debatable
Not that it occurred


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 30, 2022)

james bond said:


> Whether its astrophysics or not, secular estimates are all human assumptions.  Thus, they may be error.  Instead, creationists know they are of the _same age_ based on experimental evidence of Earth rocks and the Bible.


But astrophysicists say the same thing??  I'm more curious to hear about the experimental evidence of Earth rocks.


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 30, 2022)

Frankeneinstein said:


> amongst other things, and true or not true it is a default belief system for those who reject religion


No, it is the default belief system for those who accept science and the evidence they see around them.  They only reject your assertion that science and religion can be in conflict.


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 30, 2022)

james bond said:


> Why do you keep saying that it is a fact without any evidence?  Evolution is based on human _assumptions_ that there was no Creator.  There is no evidence that "simple creatures evolved into more complex creatures."


Why are only simple creatures found in very old rocks and more complex creatures only found in (relatively) younger rocks?


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Aug 30, 2022)

Your understanding of my post seems to be lacking, you referred to and asked questions that, more than anything else, seemed to be avoiding what I posted, lets see if I cannot straighten this all out for you.


alang1216 said:


> What sort of proof would convince you? I'm willing to settle for overwhelming evidence from multiple sciences.


Convince me of what?
are you talking about my spot on translation of what RW said?


alang1216 said:


> Do you have an alternative theory about why the fossil record looks as it does?


Why would I? as I clearly stated I believe evolution to be correct, I just am not religious about it the way fanatical zealots are, and allow that it is really just a theory and may yet have a better scientific reason.


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Aug 30, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> No, it is the default belief system for those who accept science and the evidence they see around them.


and no one will ever shake your faith in it? because it is the one real truth? it is the way?



alang1216 said:


> They only reject your assertion that science and religion can be in conflict.


can be in conflict? when have they not been?


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 30, 2022)

Frankeneinstein said:


> as I clearly stated I believe evolution to be correct, I just am not religious about it the way fanatical zealots are, and allow that it is really just a theory and may yet have a better scientific reason.


I'm not sure 'religious', 'fanatical', or 'zealot' are the correct terms.  I think it is more accurate to say, at least for me, all the evidence I've ever seen point to evolution being a fact.  Is there evidence I haven't seen?  Possibly but after almost 150 years of study, I'd be very surprised.


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 30, 2022)

Frankeneinstein said:


> and no one will ever shake your faith in it? because it is the one real truth? it is the way?


Can't speak to the future but I find the evidence overwhelming and doubt there is convincing evidence to the contrary.



Frankeneinstein said:


> can be in conflict? when have they not been?


If there is a God who made this world, this world is his Bible, a record of his works.  Creationist can't say how God made the world but they claim they know how he did NOT make it.  If your interpretation of the Bible is in conflict with what your eyes tell you, it is your interpretation that is flawed.


----------



## ChemEngineer (Aug 30, 2022)

*“And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field.” Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.

In 1978, Gareth Nelson of the American Museum of Natural History wrote: “The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.”

“I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When that happens, many people will pose the question, ‘How did that happen?’ – (Dr Soren Luthrip, Swedish embryologist)


“My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed…..It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts…The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief.”(Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, noted Swedish botanist and geneticist, of Lund University)*


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 30, 2022)

ChemEngineer said:


> *“I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When that happens, many people will pose the question, ‘How did that happen?’ – (Dr Soren Luthrip, Swedish embryologist)*


Religious creationists are known for quote mining Løvtrup's book, usually the following single line:


“”I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science.[6]
The quote is taken out of context. Whilst it is true Løvtrup was a non-Darwinian and a critic of the neo-Darwinian synthesis, he was not rejecting the fact of evolution. His book _Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth_ (1987) is a discussion on the mechanisms on evolution, not denying or questioning the fact of evolution like the creationists claim. Unfortunately creationists are known for setting up a straw man definition of evolution and erroneously equating evolution with "Darwinism".

There are many creationist articles and books which distort the views of Løvtrup on evolution.[7] Løvtrup has been quote mined by Jerry Bergman and Ray Comfort[8] and has been cited in hundreds of other creationist publications. Løvtrup was not anti-evolution and did not dispute the fact of evolution, but no matter how many times this is stated, the creationists still continue to quote mine his book.



ChemEngineer said:


> *“My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed…..It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts…The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief.”(Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, noted Swedish botanist and geneticist, of Lund University)*


Reasons _not_ to quote Heribert Nilsson[edit]​The reasons for _not_ quoting Heribert Nilsson in the discussion of evolution are manifold. They range from the obvious to the more subtle:

Generally you shouldn't quote anyone whose work you don't know beyond the actual quote.[9]
The older the quote, the more important the scientist has to be to justify the quotation (the converse of this sentence is not true). Creationists try to sidestep this problem by inflating the importance of Nilsson: in their texts, he becomes _well-known_, or at least _noted_, and the number of his professional positions seems to be increased in each copied text. This is necessary because the quotes are more than *sixty* years old - and Nilsson was in his seventies when he wrote the quoted book, so his time as an active scientist was pretty much over.
If you read the book - or at least a summary[10] by someone who actually has done so - you'll find that Nilsson subscribes to some outrageous (and very outdated) ideas, e.g., that enzymes are genes.


----------



## james bond (Aug 30, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> But astrophysicists say the same thing??  I'm more curious to hear about the experimental evidence of Earth rocks.


Wrong again.  Your astrophysicists do not agree.

This is how I know you don't know.  Otherwise, you would have given me the facts.  What you have are assumptions.  It was 13.8 B yrs old and now it's supposed to 12.6 B yrs old.

On the other hand, creationists answers haven't changed.  It's the same as age of the Earth.  Facts don't change.


----------



## james bond (Aug 30, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> They only reject your assertion that science and religion can be in conflict.


It's in conflict not because of science.  It's in conflict because the seculars do not believe in God/creation.  They assume it from the beginning.

I can see why people who assume there is no God would end up in hell.  There is price to pay.


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 30, 2022)

james bond said:


> Wrong again.  Your astrophysicists do not agree.
> 
> This is how I know you don't know.  Otherwise, you would have given me the facts.  What you have are assumptions.  It was 13.8 B yrs old and now it's supposed to 12.6 B yrs old.


Wrong again.  You asked about when the planets were formed and no one believes it was12+ bya.  The accepted theory is that all the planets formed at the same time as the Sun, about 4.5 bya.



james bond said:


> On the other hand, creationists answers haven't changed.  It's the same as age of the Earth.  Facts don't change.


So what is the age of the earth?


----------



## james bond (Aug 30, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Wrong again.  You asked about when the planets were formed and no one believes it was12+ bya.  The accepted theory is that all the planets formed at the same time as the Sun, about 4.5 bya.
> 
> 
> So what is the age of the earth?


Jeez, you don't keep up with your astrophysicists.  The alternative view is 12.6 B yrs and 4.5 BYA is the Earth haha.  You lose and I win once again.


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 30, 2022)

james bond said:


> Jeez, you don't keep up with your astrophysicists.  The alternative view is 12.6 B yrs and 4.5 BYA is the Earth haha.  You lose and I win once again.


I thought we were talking about the solar system not the universe.  You realize they are not the same I trust.  

Did you say the age of the earth?  I must have missed it.


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Aug 31, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Can't speak to the future but I find the evidence overwhelming and doubt there is convincing evidence to the contrary.


all someone need do to change your mind is add the name of your religion to whatever evidence it is they want to convince you exists....whether it exists or not


alang1216 said:


> If there is a God who made this world, this world is his Bible, a record of his works. Creationist can't say how God made the world but they claim they know how he did NOT make it. If your interpretation of the Bible is in conflict with what your eyes tell you, it is your interpretation that is flawed.


What is this? to what are you referring?


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Aug 31, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> I'm not sure 'religious', 'fanatical', or 'zealot' are the correct terms.


Do defense mechanisms click in your mind when your beliefs are challenged, will you defend them endlessly? what is different about you than other zealous defenders of their beliefs.


alang1216 said:


> I think it is more accurate to say, at least for me, all the evidence I've ever seen point to evolution being a fact. Is there evidence I haven't seen? Possibly


and that is why you are no different than others who believe their version of the truth is the correct one.



alang1216 said:


> but after almost 150 years of study, I'd be very surprised.


Really? bible study is over 1500-2000 years old, does that make it a trump card vs. your 150 years?


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Aug 31, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> I'm not sure 'religious', 'fanatical', or 'zealot' are the correct terms.


I've also never heard of a "zealot" or "fanatical" refer to themselves as such, most probably because they cannot see it in themselves.


----------



## james bond (Aug 31, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> I thought we were talking about the solar system not the universe.  You realize they are not the same I trust.
> 
> Did you say the age of the earth?  I must have missed it.


Look, you can't even explain how the solar system got here let alone the universe and spacetime.  And what is the age of the Earth lol?


----------



## Hollie (Aug 31, 2022)

james bond said:


> Look, you can't even explain how the solar system got here let alone the universe and spacetime.  And what is the age of the Earth lol?


The age of your Flat Earth. 6,000 years, obviously.


----------



## james bond (Aug 31, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> I thought we were talking about the solar system not the universe.  You realize they are not the same I trust.
> 
> Did you say the age of the earth?  I must have missed it.


JWST proves there was no Big Bang lol.  You just took it up the rear end, but maybe that's how you do it.

"What do the James Webb images really show?



To everyone who sees them, the new James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) images of the cosmos are beautifully awe-inspiring.

But to most professional astronomers and cosmologists, they are also extremely surprising—not at all what was predicted by theory.

In the flood of technical astronomical papers published online since July 12, the authors report again and again that the images show surprisingly many galaxies, galaxies that are surprisingly smooth, surprisingly small and surprisingly old.  Lots of surprises, and not necessarily pleasant ones. One paper’s title begins with the candid exclamation: “Panic!”

Why do the JWST’s images inspire panic among cosmologists? And what theory’s predictions are they contradicting? The papers don’t actually say.


The truth that these papers don’t report is that the hypothesis that the JWST’s images are blatantly and repeatedly contradicting is the Big Bang Hypothesis that the universe began 14 billion years ago in an incredibly hot, dense state and has been expanding ever since.

Since that hypothesis has been defended for decades as unquestionable truth by the vast majority of cosmological theorists, the new data is causing these theorists to panic. “Right now I find myself lying awake at three in the morning,” says Alison Kirkpatrick, an astronomer at the University of Kansas in Lawrence, “and wondering if everything I’ve done is wrong.”

It is not too complicated to explain why these too small, too smooth, too old and too numerous galaxies are completely incompatible with the Big Bang hypothesis. Let’s begin with “too small”. If the universe is expanding, a strange optical illusion must exist. Galaxies (or any other objects) in expanding space do not continue to look smaller and smaller with increasing distance."

Do James Webb Telescope Images Disprove The Big Bang Theory? | Principia Scientific Intl.


----------



## james bond (Aug 31, 2022)

Hollie said:


> The age of your Flat Earth. 6,000 years, obviously.


And you are still nutty as a cuckoo bird.  They could make a clock out of ya.


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 31, 2022)

james bond said:


> Look, you can't even explain how the solar system got here


star dust


james bond said:


> And what is the age of the Earth lol?


Science say 4.5 by.  What do you say?


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 31, 2022)

james bond said:


> JWST proves there was no Big Bang lol.  You just took it up the rear end, but maybe that's how you do it.
> 
> "What do the James Webb images really show?
> 
> ...


Like Einstein built on Newton, JWST will build on Hubble.  The theories will evolve to become ever more accurate.  Alas, no such improvements in the Bible.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Aug 31, 2022)

Because denying evolution is as absurd as believing the Earth is flat. The mockery is well deserved.


----------



## james bond (Aug 31, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> star dust
> 
> Science say 4.5 by.  What do you say?


Hahahahahahahahahaha.  How does one get something from nothing?

ETA:  I have to think you atheists/evolutionists believe in fairy tales.  There is no evidence for evolution let alone beginning of spacetime, universe, formation of Earth, etc.

If it was just natural selection, then it just shows how one species changes.  A species doesn't just become another species.  There is no evidence for that either.  Anyway, I'll just let you believe in pixie dust and leave you for the funny farm to pick up.


----------



## james bond (Aug 31, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Because denying evolution is as absurd as believing the Earth is flat. The mockery is well deserved.


We were discussing the Big Bang and it has been proven false by the JWST.  The things one learns thru the news, but you are stuck on flatness.

The JWST news must've shook you up.  You have gone more cuckoo than usual.


----------



## ChemEngineer (Aug 31, 2022)

james bond said:


> And you are still nutty as a cuckoo bird.  They could make a clock out of ya. (Little Silly Leftist Girl)






*And Silly Leftist Girl's*


----------



## Hollie (Aug 31, 2022)

ChemEngineer said:


> View attachment 689821
> *And Silly Leftist Girl's*





*Still hiding behind ''quotes''? *

*Such are the deflections of craven Flat Earthers. *


----------



## beautress (Aug 31, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Evolution occurs
> There is no denying it
> 
> God is just a theory
> A theory without any supporting facts


A theory cannot replicate the creator who carved out suggestions onto a slab for Moses who needed a guide for people who needed a guide for behavior that would bring peace on earth and not war.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 31, 2022)

beautress said:


> A theory cannot replicate the creator who carved out suggestions onto a slab for Moses who needed a guide for people who needed a guide for behavior that would bring peace on earth and not war.



He did?
Where is that slab?


----------



## james bond (Sep 2, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> star dust


We know that the Big Bang didn't happen, so no star dust.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 2, 2022)

james bond said:


> We know that the Big Bang didn't happen, so no star dust.


We know that Jimmy Swaggert wannabes are an embarrassment.


----------



## alang1216 (Sep 2, 2022)

james bond said:


> We know that the Big Bang didn't happen, so no star dust.


The BB is not the source of star dust, that comes from stars dying.   We've seen that happen so it is undeniable.


----------



## james bond (Sep 2, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> The BB is not the source of star dust, that comes from stars dying.   We've seen that happen so it is undeniable.


As usual, you have no explanation for star dust.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 2, 2022)

james bond said:


> As usual, you have no explanation for star dust.


He literally just posted it to you. You should be less of an asshole, there are only about 4 people left who even read your posts or respond to you.


----------



## alang1216 (Sep 2, 2022)

james bond said:


> As usual, you have no explanation for star dust.


Supernova


----------



## james bond (Sep 2, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> He literally just posted it to you. You should be less of an asshole, there are only about 4 people left who even read your posts or respond to you.


Yet, how does one get the supernova, star dust and star from nothing?  That was my question and point.  No answer.


----------



## james bond (Sep 2, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You should be less of an asshole, there are only about 4 people left who even read your posts or respond to you.


That's okay.  I decided to leave the forum.  Hooray!!!

This will be my last post.  Yippie-ki-yay!!!


----------



## james bond (Sep 4, 2022)

james bond said:


> That's okay.  I decided to leave the forum.  Hooray!!!
> 
> This will be my last post.  Yippie-ki-yay!!!


It seems God has talked to me and wants me to stay.  He's said it before, too.  I just forgot, I guess.

Anyway, here's one reason:


Then, we're going to colonize the moon starting with the Artemis program.  We'll need God on the moon, but it remains to be seen if we can live there:









						What is Artemis?
					

Artemis: NASA's lunar exploration program




					www.nasa.gov
				












						Should humans colonize the Moon?
					

Should humans colonize the Moon?  Space colonization, on the Moon or elsewhere, is widely debated. Some argue that humans have a moral duty to save ou



					www.britannica.com


----------



## Hollie (Sep 4, 2022)

james bond said:


> That's okay.  I decided to leave the forum.  Hooray!!!
> 
> This will be my last post.  Yippie-ki-yay!!!



That's what happens when you self-medicate with prescription anti-psychotics. You hear voices.


----------



## james bond (Sep 4, 2022)

Hollie said:


> That's what happens when you self-medicate with prescription anti-psychotics. You hear voices.


You should know about _psychotics_  the way you talk around here.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 5, 2022)

james bond said:


> You should know about _psychotics_  the way you talk around here.


So, you lied when you wrote about leaving.


----------



## james bond (Sep 5, 2022)

Hollie said:


> So, you lied when you wrote about leaving.


It wasn't a lie at the time as I was going to leave, but changed my mind afterward.  It wasn't like POTUS Bill Clinton who was impeached.

You lie in your posts all the time about me.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 5, 2022)

james bond said:


> It wasn't a lie at the time as I was going to leave, but changed my mind afterward.  It wasn't like POTUS Bill Clinton who was impeached.
> 
> You lie in your posts all the time about me.


You should buy rakes and pitchforks at Home Depot, pass them out to those at your creation ministry and issue a fatwa.


----------



## james bond (Sep 6, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Supernova



You must've missed the JWST pictures and what they mean.

Big Bang was disproved because JWST photos of the most distant galaxies of 13 billion years ago are MATURE.  They aren't early galaxies that are forming.

The very first results from the JWST seem to indicate that massive, luminous galaxies had already formed within the first 250 million years after the Big Bang.

Many of these galaxies appear to be _more massive_ than the standard cosmological model that describes the universe’s composition and evolution.

It can mean only one thing.  God created a mature universe like he did with Earth and its living creatures.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 6, 2022)

james bond said:


> You must've missed the JWST pictures and what they mean.
> 
> Big Bang was disproved because JWST photos of the most distant galaxies of 13 billion years ago are MATURE.  They aren't early galaxies that are forming.
> 
> ...


The earth is not 6,000 years old.


----------



## alang1216 (Sep 6, 2022)

james bond said:


> You must've missed the JWST pictures and what they mean.
> 
> Big Bang was disproved because JWST photos of the most distant galaxies of 13 billion years ago are MATURE.  They aren't early galaxies that are forming.
> 
> ...


So you believe the universe is 13 billion years old or are you just cherry-picking whatever science you feel support the Bible?


----------



## james bond (Sep 6, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> So you believe the universe is 13 billion years old or are you just cherry-picking whatever science you feel support the Bible?


You do not believe nor understand real science.  JWST shows it is in steady state.  The evos assumed the universe is 13 B yrs old.  JWST shows that it isn't as it didn't evolve, i.e younger to 13 B yrs old.  Do you know what JWST is and what it photographed?  Do you know what steady state is?


----------



## james bond (Sep 6, 2022)

Hollie said:


> The earth is not 6,000 years old.


The Earth rocks still have C-14 remaining and were radiocarbondated to such.  JWST disproved the old universe theory, i.e. the early universe is the same as the current universe.  That's proof you science denier.


----------



## james bond (Sep 6, 2022)

Hollie said:


> The earth is not 6,000 years old.


The JWST proved that the early universe is the same as the present universe.  It means that the universe isn't billions of years old as there was no Big Bang.  The Earth and universe are likely 6,000 years old as the rocks on Earth still has C-14 remaining.

With the new data, it shows there was no evolution of the universe.

I realize that what you believed has been destroyed and you are speechless.  However, you are also brainless so you'll go as before as you do not understand how evolution has been destroyed forever, i.e. there was no star dust as alang1216 thought.


----------



## alang1216 (Sep 6, 2022)

james bond said:


> there was no star dust as alang1216 thought.








I've never been to your house so I don't know if you know what dust is.  Hint, there may be some in this JWST image.


----------



## james bond (Sep 6, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> I've never been to your house so I don't know if you know what dust is.  Hint, there may be some in this JWST image.


I predicted and knew you wouldn't get it.  Denial.  It must be quite a shock to realize that you were on the side of the devil and still are.  He has his hooks inside you like candyman.

All of those are mature heavenly bodies up close as God created.  No bodies that are forming.  None whatsoever.  You can see it.  No star dust.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 6, 2022)

james bond said:


> The Earth rocks still have C-14 remaining and were radiocarbondated to such.  JWST disproved the old universe theory, i.e. the early universe is the same as the current universe.  That's proof you science denier.


That rambling screed is not 'pwoof' of anything. You have a long history of cutting and pasting nonsense from creationer ministries.


----------



## james bond (Sep 6, 2022)

Hollie said:


> That rambling screed is not 'pwoof' of anything. You have a long history of cutting and pasting nonsense from creationer ministries.


My bad woman, those who believe in star dust are doomed.  You are in denial.  Science backs up the Bible, but you can't see it.


----------



## james bond (Sep 7, 2022)

After all, we knew the Earth was spherical.

Now, we have been shown the universe didn't come from star dust and there was no Big Bang.


----------



## alang1216 (Sep 7, 2022)

james bond said:


> I predicted and knew you wouldn't get it.  Denial.  It must be quite a shock to realize that you were on the side of the devil and still are.  He has his hooks inside you like candyman.


So you don't believe your own eyes?  Fine.


james bond said:


> All of those are mature heavenly bodies up close as God created.  No bodies that are forming.  None whatsoever.  You can see it.  No star dust.


This formed less than 1,000 years ago.  How does that fit your theology


----------



## Hollie (Sep 7, 2022)

james bond said:


> My bad woman, those who believe in star dust are doomed.  You are in denial.  Science backs up the Bible, but you can't see it.


Your silly "Science backs up the Bible" slogan is always absent facts. 

Where does science "back up" your flat earth?


----------



## james bond (Sep 8, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> So you don't believe your own eyes?  Fine.
> 
> This formed less than 1,000 years ago.  How does that fit your theology


As usual, you have no explanation.


----------



## james bond (Sep 8, 2022)

Hollie said:


> Your silly "Science backs up the Bible" slogan is always absent facts.
> 
> Where does science "back up" your flat earth?


You have a flat head to match you flat earth .  You shouldn't be in the science forum.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 8, 2022)

james bond said:


> You have a flat head to match you flat earth .  You shouldn't be in the science forum.


You tend to lash out like like a petulant child when your silky, Flat Earth arguments meet reality.


----------



## james bond (Sep 8, 2022)

Hollie said:


> You tend to lash out like like a petulant child when your silky, Flat Earth arguments meet reality.


I knew you had a flat head like your flat earth.  It shows in practically every post of yours.  You shouldn't be posting.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 8, 2022)

james bond said:


> I knew you had a flat head like your flat earth.  It shows in practically every post of yours.  You shouldn't be posting.


I'm helping to educate you.


----------



## abu afak (Sep 8, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> It's wishful thinking.
> 
> They wish that the untestable quasi-scientific hypothesis promulgated by Darwin could be as easily proven as the round Earth model.
> 
> ...


For the 100th time.
Science does not deal in "Proof,' only Math has absolute certainty of an abstract number system that would be called "proof" by a scientific standard.
Science deals in Theories affirmed by fact over time. In Evo's case 160 years withOUT contradiction, and every new relevant science has helped confirm it.
It's a FACT.

Men are convicted in court of murder and executed  on "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt" which is NOT 100% "Proof" that is necessary in Scientific terms.
Most cases are circumstantial, not eyewitness, which are less reliable than the overwhelming circumstantial EVIDENCE as we have FOR Evolution.

*That's why Dishonest and low IQ Fallacious Deists like the OP like to use 'proof' instead of EVIDENCE.
They can say ""god has no proof but neither does evolution"" thereby avoiding the HUGE Fact/Problem that Evo has overwhelming EVIDENCE while god/godS have NONE.*

`

`


----------



## james bond (Sep 8, 2022)

Hollie said:


> I'm helping to educate you.


Lol, I don't need YOUR kind of education, Flattie Hollie,  i.e. lies.


----------



## james bond (Sep 8, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> So you don't believe your own eyes? Fine.


My eyes seeing the JWST photos and my brain and Bible explaining a mature universe says it all.  That there was no Big Bang and the universe is mature throughout.


----------



## james bond (Sep 8, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Science does not deal in "Proof,'


Liar.  Science does prove the _negative_.  The JWST pictures just proved the Big Bang didn't happen.


----------



## alang1216 (Sep 8, 2022)

james bond said:


> As usual, you have no explanation.


So, according to your eyes and your Bible, do stars grow old and die?


----------



## alang1216 (Sep 8, 2022)

james bond said:


> My eyes seeing the JWST photos and my brain and Bible explaining a mature universe says it all.  That there was no Big Bang and the universe is mature throughout.


Then your eyes are lying to you and you are lying to us.  In fact, Kirkpatrick suggests that images from JWST "support the Big Bang model because they show us that early galaxies were different than the galaxies we see today – they were much smaller!"


----------



## james bond (Sep 8, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> So, according to your eyes and your Bible, do stars grow old and die?


The Bible tells us God stopped creating on day 6.  However, God could have made gas clouds already in the process of collapse to form stars or God could have ordained processes whereby stars occasionally form.  This includes the death of stars as sure as you will die and accept the consequences.


----------



## james bond (Sep 8, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Then your eyes are lying to you and you are lying to us.  In fact, Kirkpatrick suggests that images from JWST "support the Big Bang model because they show us that early galaxies were different than the galaxies we see today – they were much smaller!"


More wrong opinion, i.e. lies.  The Bible tells us Big Bang didn't happen.  Satan tells you the opposite.  The photo you posted could be fake haha.

ETA:  Kirkpatrick admits she could be wrong.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 8, 2022)

james bond said:


> Lol, I don't need YOUR kind of education, Flattie Hollie,  i.e. lies.



No need to be embarrassed by your Flat Earth proclivities. Embrace the horror.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 12, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> It's wishful thinking.
> 
> They wish that the untestable quasi-scientific hypothesis promulgated by Darwin could be as easily proven as the round Earth model.
> 
> ...



Science isn't so simple that any middle school child can understand it.  

Oh, and you are an idiot.  That should be simple enough for you to understand.


----------



## james bond (Sep 13, 2022)

Hollie said:


> No need to be embarrassed by your Flat Earth proclivities. Embrace the horror.


You're the Darwinist and Flat Earth caller.  I doubt you are embarrassed, but you should be.  You should embrace the horror.  Then, you may start to change your thinking.  That said, for your belief in lies, you will experience the horror in the afterlife.


----------



## james bond (Sep 13, 2022)

I have a challenge to the Darwinists.  Why haven't we found any life, even a microbe, on Mars, the moon or the planets we have explored?  We have these reports of UFOs, but no life whatsoever on any planet or moon that we know of and studied.  Does that mean evolution is a failure?  Surely, simple life should be everywhere if evolution is true.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 13, 2022)

james bond said:


> You're the Darwinist and Flat Earth caller.  I doubt you are embarrassed, but you should be.  You should embrace the horror.  Then, you may start to change your thinking.  That said, for your belief in lies, you will experience the horror in the afterlife.


Such silly bible thumping.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 13, 2022)

james bond said:


> I have a challenge to the Darwinists.  Why haven't we found any life, even a microbe, on Mars, the moon or the planets we have explored?  We have these reports of UFOs, but no life whatsoever on any planet or moon that we know of and studied.  Does that mean evolution is a failure?  Surely, simple life should be everywhere if evolution is true.


I have a challenge for the religionists. Why didn't Noah's yacht fall off the edge of the Flat Esrth?


----------



## james bond (Sep 13, 2022)

Hollie said:


> I have a challenge for the religionists. Why didn't Noah's yacht fall off the edge of the Flat Esrth?


Flattie Hattie, we can find microbes in the desert or the frozen tundra easily.  Why can't we find simple life on the moon or Mars if evolution happens?  This is the science forum and you Durwoods have a chance to show me, as a Christian, that life "evolved" elsewhere.  God says in the Bible that He created the angels and humans as moral beings.  He doesn't say He created life elsewhere besides Earth.  It doesn't mean He didn't provide for a way for simple life to appear such as EVOLUTION, but I think He would've told us.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 13, 2022)

james bond said:


> Flattie Hattie, we can find microbes in the desert or the frozen tundra easily.  Why can't we find simple life on the moon or Mars if evolution happens?  This is the science forum and you Durwoods have a chance to show me, as a Christian, that life "evolved" elsewhere.  God says in the Bible that He created the angels and humans as moral beings.  He doesn't say He created life elsewhere besides Earth.  It doesn't mean He didn't provide for a way for simple life to appear such as EVOLUTION, but I think He would've told us.


Why can't we find gods on the moon or Mars who have magically created men and women who spend their days riding dinosaurs?

Perhaps if the moon or Mars were flat as you believe the earth to be?


----------



## james bond (Sep 13, 2022)

Hollie said:


> Why can't we find gods on the moon or Mars who have magically created men and women who spend their days riding dinosaurs?
> 
> Perhaps if the moon or Mars were flat as you believe the earth to be?


That's it.  You're on my IGNORE.  You need me more than I need you lol.  Bye Flattie Hattie.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 13, 2022)

james bond said:


> That's it.  You're on my IGNORE.  You need me more than I need you lol.  Bye Flattie Hattie.



Run and hide.


----------



## james bond (Sep 13, 2022)

Hollie said:


> Run and hide.


Flattie, on your Flat Earth, one could easily see and find you to  at with a powerful telescope.

However, I live on a spherical Earth, so you would need multiple vantage points in the sky to find, see and admire me.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 13, 2022)

james bond said:


> Flattie, on your Flat Earth, one could easily see and find you to  at with a powerful telescope.
> 
> However, I live on a spherical Earth, so you would need multiple vantage points in the sky to find, see and admire me.


So... you lied when you claimed you had put me on ignore. You lied earlier when you claimed you were leaving this board.

You're a serial liar.


----------

