Why Darwinists call non-Darwinists "Flat Earthers"

[alang1216]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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?

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]

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?

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

can be in conflict? when have they not been?

 

[alang1216]

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]

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.

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]

“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]

“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.

“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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.