Why Darwinists call non-Darwinists "Flat Earthers"

[alang1216]

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

Would you be more specific?

 

[Ringtone]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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'.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

Are Flat-Earthers Being Serious?

Flat-earthers believe one of the most curious conspiracy theories on the internet. Here's a look at what they believe and why.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

“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]

Are Flat-Earthers Being Serious?

Flat-earthers believe one of the most curious conspiracy theories on the internet. Here's a look at what they believe and why.

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?

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]

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.