Why Darwinists call non-Darwinists "Flat Earthers"

[alang1216]

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]

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

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

star dust

And what is the age of the Earth lol?

Science say 4.5 by. What do you say?

 

[alang1216]

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.

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]

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

 

[james bond]

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]

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]

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]

View attachment 689821
And Silly Leftist Girl's

Still hiding behind ''quotes''?

Such are the deflections of craven Flat Earthers.

 

[beautress]

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]

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]

star dust

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

 

[Hollie]

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

We know that Jimmy Swaggert wannabes are an embarrassment.

 

[alang1216]

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.