Why Darwinists call non-Darwinists "Flat Earthers"

[AMart]

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 . . .

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]

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]

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?

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.

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?

What if it's not?

Then I'd expect to see some evidence.

 

[alang1216]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

"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]

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]

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

They do? Why?

 

[surada]

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]

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

 

[westwall]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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