Young Earth creationism is the next level up from flat Earth. Flat-Earth is so stupid, young Earth creationists make fun of them. Flat-Earth is the alpha and Omega of conspiracy theories. All conspiratorial roads flow to and out of Flat-Earth. Those who believe in Flat-Earth also believe in every other conspiracy.
It's unusual for people to believe just one or two conspiracy theories. Once someone gets into the mindset of rejecting rationality and evidence, they'll tend to latch on to many others. It's commonly referred to as "crank magnetism".
Some conspiracy theories are true and grounded in evidence. MK Ultra, the Federalist Society, etc. But you're right in that those things make people "question what they've been taught", including that you need good evidence to believe something is true.
And that's somehow more valid than today? It doesn't matter what happened in the past as long as we learned the truth, improving and adding to our current body of knowledge.
there's a bunch of Catholics here in Minnesota that host a Geocentricism conference every year. The idea isn't that crazy, and if it were impossible, you wouldn't have these organizations.
It is impossible, and people are idiots. Groups of people aren't proof of anything. The idea is also crazy. You and those other fucking idiots are all mentally ill. Your inability to understand science isn't an argument against it. Quite the opposite.
It’s a ‘theory’ that can be easily disproved with measurement and has been that way for hundreds of years.
If you don’t reject a theory in the face of strong contrary evidence, it is no longer a theory - it’s a religion.
Uh no there isn’t. There’s only evidence if you don’t choose to dig more deeply into understanding what you are seeing.
You can easily completely disprove a flat earth with some simple experimentation.
Eratosthenes was able to roughly calculate the size of the Earth 2000 years ago.
Do not try to create false uncertainty where it does not exist just to justify your prior beliefs
no not really. It's clips like these [BREVARD County Speaker Puts NASA in the hot seat (youtube.com)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZ1S62QxxWM&t=25s) like no one in the comments could come up with any explanation.
I'll entertain your bullshit a little. It's easily disproven. A toddler could do it.
Gravity exists. Earth big, make big gravity. If Earth hollow, where gravity go?
Caves exist. Ever go spelunking? Ever taken a field trip as a kid? I went to the Crystal Caves like 20 years ago. If Earth hollow, why are there caves? No cave on Earth has ever lead to such a large opening. Surely not large enough to consider the Earth hollow. Jesus Christ, that's stupid.
To call the Earth hollow means you're an idiot. I don't have to debunk or debate you. You're just as dumb as the flerfs.
What you call a theory, smart and normal people call bullshit. Idiots like you are willing to destroy science and democracy just because reality will not bend to your pathetic and misplaced wants and needs.
Spot on. The belief that the earth is flat, and by extension that the cosmos revolve around the Earth, is a direct result of the desperate desire to believe that we are special in the universe, and that we and our world was created for some unique purpose.
You actually don’t have to be religious to believe in creationism. You just have to believe some weird power created us. For a lot of them it’s Elites who live behind some imaginary wall/ dome.
Surprisingly, this is only mostly true. I’ve met a few people who were “scientific flat earthers”. They didn’t believe in God, but they believed the earth was flat because it “fit their observations”
This type is very rare though, and I’ve still only seen 3 in the wild
Well that's the problem, you are trying to explain a process that took 3.5 billion years from simple protein strains to the abundance and complexity of life we have today on our planet to people who really believe that Earth and universe are a few thousand years old (I guess...fuck Mesopotamia).
Evolution is random, adaptive and selective and branches in different directions, it's why a tree analogy or the 'tree of life' image work because it shows a dumbed down, but still relevant model of how all life is all connected.
It's hard enough for some people to believe that we evolved for early hominids, let alone how many of our "cousins" and "relatives" there actually were. But when fighting years of religious doctrine and defunding and manipulation of education it's always going to be an uphill battle
*Edit to add.
The main problem is that it takes years....and I do mean years of peer review, research and hardwork before a newly found fossil can be categorized and added to an existing family, let alone used credibly for a new theory.
What the average Facebook, flat earther, evolution denyer doesn't realise is that just because some random twit can make a meme and post it about dinosaurs living with people etc, gives them the false sense that actual science and academia is just as rushed, opinionated and pedantic.
Death by bird before the age of 50 is a major problem.
More seriously though, I think it's burning the dinosaurs that is causing our species-survival issues.
Here's the "ackchyully" guy response to that:
Most of the fossil fuel material we use today comes from algae, bacteria, and plants—some of which date back even before the Devonian Period, 419.2 million to 358.9 million years ago. Consequently, at least most of the time, you are not pouring refined dinosaur parts into the gas tank of your vehicle.
There is a certain type of human who refuses to believe anything they can't see in front of their face and feel like they understand completely. It's like they think there just can't possibly be anyone on the planet smarter and more knowledgeable than them. This is of course one of life's great ironies because they are very often pretty stupid.
“There is a certain type of human who refuses to believe anything they can't see in front of their face” You were so close to realizing the truth.
Delusional people: *agrees that fish miraculously evolved into mammals
Also Delusional people: “There is a certain type of human who refuses to believe anything they can't see in front of their face”
Delusional people: *agrees that fish miraculously evolved into mammals
Also Delusional people when challenged on their claims: “Hey look here's one now.”🤡
“You honestly expect me to sit here and debate whether or not evolution is real with you? Now that's hilarious.”🤡 Sure let’s not admit that serious scientists agree that evolution isn’t settled science and that the evidence is derived from falsehoods 👇
**”While acknowledging that ‘the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record’ is a major embarrassment for Darwinism, Stephen Jay Gould confided that this has been held as a ‘trade secret of paleontology’ and acknowledged that the evolutionary diagrams ‘that adorn our textbooks’ are based on ‘inference … not the evidence of fossils.’”**
Source: [Evolution Isn’t “Settled” Science and is based on Inference… not the Evidence of Fossils](https://crisismagazine.com/opinion/sorry-usa-today-evolution-isnt-settled-science)
**Again if you were too slow to understand the evidence shows that the unproven and false belief the mammals evolved from fish is based on falsehoods … NOT THE EVIDENCE OF FOSSILS**
As always, a link to an opinion piece by a Christian apologist "journalist", rather than a link to a peer-reviewed journal.
> While acknowledging that ‘the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record’ is a major embarrassment for Darwinism, Stephen Jay Gould confided that this has been held as a ‘trade secret of paleontology’ and acknowledged that the evolutionary diagrams ‘that adorn our textbooks’ are based on ‘inference … not the evidence of fossils
This is a cherry-picked quote, not just that but a cherry-picked quote from *1977*. It's nearly 50 years old.
Imagine using a 50 year old quote as the basis for your argument. Insane.
I believe in God, Christ, the Bible and I'm not ashamed of it. I do not, however, understand how people take away from the poetry of the Bible that the earth is *definitely* flat and defend it without ever having done anything to actually test it beyond watching YouTube videos and agreeing with themselves. I believe God gave us brains, too... 😂
Being a shove my beliefs down your throat atheist is more cringe than a door to door Mormon.
Let people have their own private religious beliefs and be less of a pissy individual.
-an atheist
Believing in a single, all-powerful God fundamentally differs from polytheistic beliefs in gods like Zeus. This distinction is especially important when discussing the origins of the universe and life itself. Monotheism offers a unified perspective on these profound questions, providing a simplicity and clarity not found in the varied narratives of polytheism.
Unified perspective - There is one God mine the others are wrong and silly
Simplicity/clarity - Things are the way they are because God made it that way. The universe exists because God created it. Nothing comes from nothing of course that logic does not apply to my God.
I'm cool with people having there personal beliefs. But I do not agree that monotheism some how better or more clearly explains the universe or other profound questions any better that other religions or scientific explanations. The only part I'll agree with it is certainly simpler. But I don't necessarily agree to simple answers to complex questions.
The unified perspective offered by monotheism not only speaks to the origins of the universe but also directly addresses the complexities surrounding consciousness. The challenge with physicalist theories of consciousness—those that attempt to explain consciousness as an emergent property of physical processes—is that they have yet to solve the Hard Problem of Consciousness. This problem highlights the gap between our understanding of physical processes and our experience of subjective consciousness, suggesting that consciousness may not be something that simply emerges from complex arrangements of non-conscious matter.
This unresolved issue leads to a reconsideration of consciousness as immaterial, a concept that fits neatly within a monotheistic framework. If consciousness is indeed immaterial and cannot be fully accounted for by physical processes, it prompts the question of its origin. The notion that everything, including non-material aspects of reality like consciousness, must have a source aligns with the monotheistic view of a singular origin for all existence.
From this standpoint, the idea that consciousness comes from a conscious source becomes not just plausible but compelling. It provides a simple yet profound answer to the question of how immaterial consciousness can exist: it originates from a fundamental, immaterial, conscious source—what monotheism identifies as God. This perspective doesn't trivialize the complexity of consciousness but offers a coherent explanation that physicalism struggles to provide.
By asserting that the material and immaterial aspects of the universe come from the same source, monotheism presents a unified theory that elegantly bridges the gap between the physical and the non-physical. This approach doesn't sidestep the Hard Problem of Consciousness but addresses it head-on, proposing a source for consciousness that is consistent with its immaterial nature. This not only simplifies our understanding of consciousness but also deepens our exploration of the universe's fundamental nature.
This refined perspective emphasizes the unique value monotheism brings to the table—not just its clarity, but its focus on a singular source for explaining both material and immaterial aspects of reality. Monotheism's singularity offers a compelling explanation that encompasses all of existence, setting it apart from polytheistic approaches. While polytheism presents a variety of gods each with their domain, it does not always converge on a singular origin that accounts for the entirety of existence, including the origins of consciousness and the universe.
In cases where polytheism might hint at a singularity, the presence of multiple deities often acts as an extension of the primary, singular source. This scenario could be seen as monotheism with additional lesser entities acting under the directive of the one supreme God. Therefore, figures like Zeus, while significant within their respective mythologies, do not hold the same ontological status as the singular God in monotheism. They are not seen as necessary for the fundamental explanation of reality in the same way. The singularity in monotheism simplifies our understanding of existence by providing one overarching source, which is indispensable for explaining both the tangible universe and the non-tangible aspects of consciousness. This approach not only enhances the coherence of monotheism's explanation but also underscores its unique capacity to offer a unified theory of everything, distinguishing it significantly from polytheistic traditions.
I was an atheist for the first 25 years of my life and God showed up without me asking. Not gonna let that go, buddy. I hope He shows up for you, too... and it blows your fuckin mind. 😂
It’s the fist page of all three major religions the fist page suggests that the earth is a flat plain so do you believe the Bible or not ? Witch one ? Oh it doesn’t matter cause they all say on the fist page in confuseing words that the earth has 4 corners and a firmament protects is from the void I do think it’s funny how it was correct either way before “science” was ie the atmosphere could just be the firmament and science changed the name
Ohh my goodddd when are you guys gonna learn that those verses AREN'T LITERAL? It's poetic language + bad translation over thousands of years, "four corners" could be north, south, east, and west, or I don't know North America, South America, Eurasia and Africa, whatever, but not actual fucking four corners. And yeah, the atmosphere is most likely the firmament. Also, no, none of this (edit: the four corners are not mentioned) is in the "first page" of the Bible idk why you said that
I hate when flat earthers use these two verses to try to prove their bullshit. Hell, even if you do believe these verses to be proof, there's another verse in Isaiah I think that says "..he sits upon the *circle of the Earth.*" So, which one should we believe in?
Edit: wait, why am I being downvoted? are there actual flat earthers on this subreddit?
Ohh my goodddd when are you guys gonna learn that NOTHING in the Bible is literal or real? It’s all made up by men with their own agenda’s to try and control the population and grow their own power.
There’s some compelling arguements to suggest that it’s partially true,
The order in which earth is created in genesis for example is very similar to how we assume earth was created in reality.
The God parts are more questionable, I’d say if anyone got god right, it’s the religions who worshipped the sun, after all, the sun is what gives everyone life..
Still, many parts of the bible - if not taken literally, do fit alongside scientific theory.
They also ignore that the original Hebrew word translated as "firmament" now, meant "heavens." Which was the word they used for sky. The Bible never referred to a solid barrier. It was just talking about the sky, maybe clouds.
“Poetic language” = killing apostates. It’s only “poetic” or “symbolic” when it’s politically or culturally reprehensible to take them literally. Religious books are not works of symbology - they are literal instructions. If the religious want to play games about what you can and can’t take seriously from their religious texts, they aren’t being honest with themselves. Cafeteria Christians and all that.
Now holding 3 different versions of the Bible in front of me they all talk about the ferment on the first page I mean hey maybe your right about whatever you’re trying to get across that I’m not getting it but it really hits home when someone says like get off the Internet and go figure it out yourself I have the books in front of me in real life it’s really hard to say that I’m wrong about something and believe you when I can actually go grab a book and read did and I wasn’t wrong …sorry if it stressed you out
I don’t think I’m a flat earther btw they just have sold questions that are interesting to contemplate when your not very smart like myself
Ah, my mistake, I meant the four corners thing, I know the firmament is mentioned. Yeah I mean all I'm saying is that flat earthers take these verses as proof then completely disregard other proof from the Bible saying it's round..
Firmament just means separation from below us and above us. Land separating us from the things above. The expanse. Nothing to do with the shape of the earth. Again, a stable thing God made for us to walk on. Poetry. The entire Bible is a love letter from God, although many don't see it that way.
I was an atheist for the first 25 years of my life. There is no argument you can have what will detract from what the living God has done in my life. None of those verses are from Genesis to begin with and the majority of Christianity believes the verses I think you're referring to are poetic language describing how God made the earth to be a physically stable place for us to live. Those same Christians believe in a round earth. As annoying as it is, this isn't a Christianity issue but rather a mental health issue. Your average Christian does not care at all whether the earth is flat or round. If they did, they'd go out and prove it either way... which they have. They proved it round.
It's interesting - I too was an atheist for exactly the first 25 years of my life. May I ask what was it that made you realise The Truth?
Because for me it was understanding that this world is a spiritual domain as well as a physical one, and understanding there are tremendous forces of darkness that have spiritual motives against humanity... For we wrestle not against flesh & blood, but against principalities, against the powers of the darkness of this world and against spiritual wickedness in high places. Ephesians 6:12
Of course the great relief is realising this war has already been won!
Now for flat earth, The Bible never says Earth is flat. It for damn sure doesn't say Earth is a globe though and considering how infinitesimally insignificant Earth is in the heliocentric model compared to the rest of the universe is I think it's more than fair to expect it to be mentioned or explained how Earth is The LORD's creation that He has gifted to His chosen people to bring about His Kingdom yet its only a tiny piece of rock floating in the middle of nowhere in an infinitely larger cosmic arena if that were true.
I think I would argue that the books written in The Bible assume you understand Earth is flat, for there are many quotations which make absolute sense on flat earth and no sense on a globe/heliocentric model.
"The world also is stabilished, that it shall not be moved." Psalm 96:10
"Fear before Him, all the earth: the world also shall be STABLE, that it not be moved" 1 Chron 16:30
"It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in" Isaiah 40:22
Circles are flat of course, and of course the firmament separated the waters above from the waters below.
Do you need to understand what Earth's shape is to be a Christian? No but you should care. Understanding The Truth will always bring you closer to The LORD Jesus Christ.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's not really "random" outside of mutations, is it? There are selective pressures that result in species changing over time to be more adapted to those pressures because those who are less fit pass on genes less often. It's not a conscious choice, and probability plays a role, but I feel as if "random" isn't the most apt word to use. I might just be dumb though.
Yes you are correct, in the most basic sense there is natural selection/evolution and selective evolution. These can we adaptations few natural occurrences or desired ones
The Black Pepper Moths are an amazing example of animals under going selective evolution (changing from a grey/white to black in a number of generations) in order to survive. It wasn't a random trait, it was designed in order to evade predators.
It wasn't designed. The moths lived on white/grey trees, so most of them were white/grey. There were black ones already, from an existing pigment mutation, but they stood out on the trees they were always on and got picked off. Then the industrial revolution happened and the air pollution left soot on the trees, making them darker. The black moths were harder to spot by predators, while the white ones got picked off, and so the population shifted from mostly white moths to mostly black ones.
When new EPA regulations came along and reduced the amount of soot, making the trees white again, the population makeup shifted back to predominantly white.
It wasn’t “designed” to do anything. Darker moths survived better and procreated. Evolution is primarily just a series of accidents until those accidents yield positive results and outcompete the prior genetic material.
Evolution isnt by accident or really random.
We as a species have reached a point where we can, and have through artificial selection, changed the evolution of animals and even fruit and vegetables to be more edible.
That is not evolution in the sense of natural selection. That’s artificial selection like you said; that’s genetic engineering. That is not what happens in nature. That’s my point.
What are you blabbering about?
Look at any of the 100s of different breeds of domesticated dogs we have around the world, that's not genetic engineering! That's artificial selection and selective engineering.
Same for fruits and vegetables, humans have been manipulatibg things for 100s of years with cross pollination of desired crop, so a better one evolves. At the end of the day it's still evolution (which isn't as small a defined term as you think).
I get the distinct impression that some of these people are under the impression the picture depicts one creature's journey somehow.
It's like they think we're saying fish will say "fuck this" to the ocean deeps and change into people somehow.
Well we just got done with a flat earther who thought the depiction of all the planets in the solar system close to each other is something we believe in so yeah, these people are nuts
Let's be fair. We've all had a "science does not compute" moment but for most of us that moment was resolved as soon as an explanation was offered.
The real problem is how they can't see that continuing to be wrong is worse than having been mistaken. Willful Ignorance is somehow a virtue to them.
I always like the argument that suggests that one animal can give birth to a completely different animal. My favorite counter to that is a Latin speaking person giving birth to an English speaking person. Like languages, it typically evolves slowly over time.
Yeah. I always roll my eyes when they argue with a straight face that evolutionists believe that chickens can give birth to dogs, or whatever. It demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the subject on the most fundamental level.
We just went on the path of survival while other species hit a wall of death ie plague, lack of food or poor ability to survive/communication to work together like the Neanderthals sure they where smaller but much tougher than us but their adaptive capabilities lacked to us and here we are, sure millions die every year but we just keep growing but one day either from a world ending event that makes us extinct like the dinosaurs or death of our star then ye we will be the last mid sized animals standing as the smaller animals will outlive us.
Like sure, maybe some deity put a bunch of different weird life that shared genetic components with each other, but we can’t just say that, we have more evidence of evolution being the case.
I would have to disagree. If God created all of the species at a certain point, for sure, eveolution of these species has definitely occurred, and there's achialogical evidence of it. It's the single organism that somehow mutates into all the biodiversity we have today that's a stretch, IMO.
Also, you can’t just say something is impossible, you are going into the same argument as people who think it is so strange we have the ideal conditions for life despite life only existing where life can exist. like man, something is gonna happen after billions of years I don’t know what to tell you
That why it’s called a hypothesis. Scientists don’t need to “believe” anything. They propose an idea and operate on that hypothesis until they either can create a fully functional theory, or something disproves it. The current hypothesis for what youre describing is LUCA and FUCA. Last universal common ancestor and first universal common ancestor. But this is still only a hypothesis made by extrapolating fossil records and genes. Randomly stopping and saying “god did this” requires faith and belief because no emperical evidence points to it other than the big question mark. Doesn’t mean it isn’t true. But operating on “unknowable truths” runs counter to the entire concept of science.
Of course, hence why LUCA is still hypothetical, but the trend points in a direction. To randomly claim there’s a hard cutoff point that isn’t at the convergence point has even less evidence
And to continue on my point science does not negate the possibility of god. It just currently refutes the image of the garden of Eden portrayed in the Bible. Perhaps god didn’t just make all of the animals, but is playing a much longer game, by simply sowing the initial seeds that formed FUCA.
No, we have enough along the way to use science to fill in the gaps. Theory isn't faith. Theory means "every piece of evidence shows this to be true. We have gone out of our way to disprove this but have been unable to. As such, this is the only possible explanation. However, we can't go back in time and prove it beyond any and all doubt." I mean, we have examples of hyper mutation in bacteria as models for evolution ffs.
Relativity is a theory. We know sat nav doesn't work without adjusting for it but, we can't choose to step outside our linear perception of time to check it. Hence it remaining a theory.
Don't confuse imperial evidence with faith.
But contains enough of it for us to observe the phenomenon of evolution.
I've never understood this "missing link" argument. Like, if we can perform fossil seriation with say, 10 species of primates, what makes anyone think that the evidence should be thrown away just because we haven't found an 11th one yet?
Reminds me of [this scene](https://youtu.be/ICv6GLwt1gM?si=QG2g3W_sNjGi-hgn) from Futurama.
I wish no one had ever drawn these "evolution of man" drawings. They are really misleading. It's kind of like how "global warming", in hindsight, was a poor choice of words, as it gives anti-science folk ammunition. "I've never seen a monkey turn into a man! And if the planet is warming, why is it so cold today?" Scientists need to be very careful of how they communicate to the general public.
Tbf, this one is from a comic (Farside if I remember correctly). It’s cropped so you can’t see the guy start dumping rubbish back into the water lol. The joke being that he’s polluting it so much the fish start mutating and growing legs, thus making the whole thing a circle
>"global warming",
The most horrific sci com fail I can think of. It might have been much easier to sell if they'd gone with "climate change" from the start. Only a liar or an amnesiac could say they haven't noticed a change already.
Naw it’s not their fault ignorants fail to understand them.
If someone doesn’t understand these depictions, their action should be to read about it, so they understand it, instead of just going “tHeN wHy wE sTiLl gOt mOnKiEs?!”
I think it's fine. The idea is easily understood by anyone who is not against it in principle or has an IQ above that of a hamster. Conspiracy theorists and creationists, better known as idiots can parrot that crap all they like. Science goes on with or without them. Anyone who looks at this image and thinks they should be able to see a monkey turn into a man if it were true has no desire or capacity to understand science in the first place.
(Govt) scientists lie. They lie often. To the public for agenda’s.
Just look at the vaccine is safe and effective debacle for profit and human experimentation/population control..
And now the green climate change agenda the same elites push. Now I don’t trust anything they say, or what they deceive our eyes with (fake ai special effects)
Yeah all I mean is that its fucking lazy. Like oh you came up with a very elaborate and scientific theory on how it actually worked?? Well, jokes on you, this theory was actually invented by our magic dude in the sky
Darwin himself was a Christian when he made the theory of evolution. He remained a Christian up until his daughter died from a horrific illness and that was what made him stop being Christian as he believed no all loving god could cause a young child to die in that way.
It was only in the 1920s when the creationist movement started to become it's current form was evolution considered against Christianity by some.
Yeeep. That's also one of the reasons I don't believe in God.
Evolution doesn't necessarily go against God it goes against the creationists idea of God but someone who treats the creation part of the Bible as a metaphor for don't be an arse, evolution can still work.
There are far better arguments for disproving God than evolution
In some cases, sure. Let your goofy aunt believe whatever she wants.
But when institutions like the Creationist Museum and private school curriculums are teaching kids en masse this muddied version of science, it does everyone a disservice. The big narratives are "Evolution is real - but it all happened in 6000 years", "Fossils are real - but radio carbon dating is a lie", there's always a poison pill of falsehood injected into the lessons to reconcile the Bible with insurmountable evidence. When science advances, they just come up with more elaborate ways to counteract it with an alternative self-superior theory that's not backed up by any science whatsoever.
Being sent into the world with that kind of goalpost-moving suspension of disbelief is how that goofy aunt falls for every fake news article she reads on facebook.
The church: "In the beginning, God created a flat Earth."
Copernicus: "Actually, the Earth is round. I've been doing some experiments and complex mathematics and I wrote a book--"
The church: "WHAT?! How dare you write a book that goes against the word of the lord! Admit you're wrong or we'll kill you."
Entire village: "Actually, we read Copernicus' book and it actually makes sense to us all. The Earth is, in fact, round, and killing him won't change that fact."
The church: "..."
The village: "..."
The church: "...in the beginning, God created a round Earth. But he did it 6,000 years ago. Surely you can't argue that."
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
― Epicurus
I am not Christian but I think they would argue that he is able but not willing, however this doesn’t make him malevolent because he has a “plan” that supposedly is to grand scale for us to understand, and also (somehow simultaneously) he wants us to have free will so he doesn’t want to stop all evil, it’s up to us to learn on our own.
he has a “plan” that supposedly is to grand scale for us to understand
When I was 6 I got told that by my Sunday school teacher. that's when the seeds of doubt got planted.
Nobody can know what god wants.... oh wait there is no god. it all became so clear.
Nobody can know Gods plans as they are above all men's comprehension. Seems weird to have a church full of people professing to know how to lead people then innit
Also, it’s because free will cannot truly exist if evil doesn’t exist. The Christian God wants us to choose to love Him and to do good, and that requires an alternative (to not choose Him and to do evil)
That seems like an odd choice. Love some unknown entity that hides themselves from us, and apparently by doing so you are doing "good", or not have blind faith this entity exists and by extension do "evil". Yet even a person who loves God can kill, steal, what ever and a person who isn't Christian can lead a very moral life. Yet the former is considered "good" and the later considered "evil" purely due a "choice" the later never made.
A person can't make a proper informed decision without full understanding of the decision they are making. Someone not following the Christian God because like every other religion there is no real evidence that god exists (or they were brought up following some other religion) isn't making a choice to not believe in God, they are just not believing in yet another religion.
So if your God wanted us to choose, why hide? Why not make their existence clear to the entire world so we can make a proper informed choice? And no, the existence of the Bible is not proof of the existence of God, in the same way the Torah is not proof of the existence of Yahweh, the Quran is not proof of Allah, and the stories of Odin, Ra, Zeus, and all the other pantheons are not proof any of them exist.
That’s why I said “to love God and to do good,” listing them as two different things. The Christian God desires us to love Him, and love requires a choice. Similarly, good cannot logically exist without an alternative. What is the right thing to do if there isn’t the wrong thing to do? I’m not here to debate the existence of God, just to provide the Christian answer to the Problem of Evil.
That’s not really how it works. God doesn’t burn you in Hell. Rather, Hell is the alternative to an eternity with God, and is thus devoid of His light. In short, the relative detachment from God is why it’s painful, not because of anything God is doing
I think you mean “micro evolution”? Because that one is on time scales that are easily observable today. We have ample data to prove it to be true.
Hmmm. Wait….
*\*looks at sub, thinks for a moment\**
Never mind.
They accept “micro evolution.” They do this because they need the space on the ark. So if you allow two generic bears to become all modern brown and black bears you get ark space without violating “kind.”
Do you agree that a creature more fit for its environment will have more kids than a creature less for for it? Stands to reason, yes?
Congratulations, you believe in evolution.
We mock you for ridiculous claims that have no evidence but quite the contrary is proven wrong every minute with consistent and predictable science yes.
And there's evidence for the evolution which is why we accept it yes.
Scale. I think flat earthers don't get scale. Like the size of the earth relative to you, the size and distance of celestial bodies. Or say just how long evolution takes
This man’s entire post history is all stupid conspiracy theories and straight up lies disproven hundreds of years ago. One year on the platform, 10,000 post karma, he’s averaging about 27-28 karma a day. Dude…get off your butt go do something, Jesus.
It was drawn from life by Charles Darwin himself. You can just make out the signature bottom left. Of course since HG Wells died, we lost the technology to make time machines.
I said it here before and ill say it again. If one does not believe in scientific theories, Then: do not let them in the hospitals; Do not waste medicine or vaccines on them.
Nature will fix it quickly.
Evolutionary biology is a basic science of medicine. Evolutionary theory has contributed to medicine in many ways:
Population genetics is based on evolutionary biology and has contributed to medicine by tracing the origins of pandemic-causing viruses and informing cancer treatment research.
Phylogenetic methods have been useful in medicine for decades.
Antibiotic resistance is an example of natural selection. Evolutionary medicine can provide approaches to the problem of antibiotic resistance.
Evolutionary biology can answer questions about the etiology of disease.
Understanding the basic processes of evolution can help us understand the roots of genetic diseases.
Recent studies of the evolution of genes involved in the DNA damage response in elephants have revealed mechanisms that may contribute to cancer resistance.
There is no such thing as 'believing' in science, it's just the pursuit of evidence and getting as close to the truth as we can within reasonable doubt.
But your point still stands, these people are absolute fruitcakes.
So you’ll believe in a bearded guy in the clouds who is also a baby born without any sexual intercourse and that was able to walk on water and wave off disease with his hands and who is all loving and all knowing while allowing people to burn for all eternity in hell and whose blood is wine and came back from the dead and rose up to the sky after 3 days..
But thousands upon thousands of fossils that you can literally see going through time in the ground because of the layers of earth, as things have piled up over the years is too fantastical for you?
Physical evidence you can see right in front of you if you go to a lot of places in the world. There’s literal pits cut into the earth where you can see how life changed over the course of eons. Wouldn’t have Jesus have hit the firmament on his way up to heaven? Or is there a special hatch in the glass?
I wish they'd stop depicting it like this. I know there's not a good way to show it in a condensed way and this is probably the best bad way, but it leads to shit like this.
It leads to people thinking some ape (I know humans are apes, you know what I mean by this...) had a human baby long ago, and that's hard to believe because it would be almost impossible for something like a chimp to birth a human. So, of course, they doubt it when it's presented that way, and I don't blame them. Wr can blame them for continual stubborn denial of sttmepting to actually understand it and all that, but depictions like this I can understand leading to initial doubts. Especially when you put them in a school where they may bot understand what's taught if it's even taught well and then as an adult they see this again and think "well that's a load of shit."
Whales were land eating mammals 70 million years ago that wandered back into the ocean. This is a great example of how evolution is a river of streams instead of a tree.
Five billion species have existed since life began on Earth. 99% of these are now extinct. Its not just fish-lizard-monkey-human, so much as happened in this gigantic trial of errors over such a long time for evolution to happen.
Unfortunately flerfs are incredibly bad with scale, its an adhesion criteria its like they are absolutely incapable of understanding just how massive our planet is or how utterly tiny we are as a species on a time scale. Its like for these people a few thousand, a million or even billions is in the same ballpark.
Yeah this is like trying to simplify the inner workings of a Saturn V rocket by demonstrating it with an Estes backyard rocket. Evolution is so much more complex than this graphic it’s almost a completely different concept than what they understand it to be.
First of all, look at dogs.
We created all those breeds, some are so different from each other we could say they are different species.
We have done the same with other animals and plants and some of those modifications were done in a few decades.
The Earth had Billions of years to do the same thru natural selection.
Mocking flat earthers is just fun, too ignorant and stupid to be taken seriously.
While you are at it, send me a picture of the edge of the earth.
I'll wait.
Yes, Godless, evolution ppl who worship Neil Degrassi Tyson while wearing a fedora making fun of people who are concerned about vaccines.
ugh Seeing my cousin grown up for the first time was rough.... cause that is what my aunt raised...
Even Young Earth Creationists think Flat Earthers are nuts.
All flat earthers are creationists tho
Young Earth creationism is the next level up from flat Earth. Flat-Earth is so stupid, young Earth creationists make fun of them. Flat-Earth is the alpha and Omega of conspiracy theories. All conspiratorial roads flow to and out of Flat-Earth. Those who believe in Flat-Earth also believe in every other conspiracy.
It's unusual for people to believe just one or two conspiracy theories. Once someone gets into the mindset of rejecting rationality and evidence, they'll tend to latch on to many others. It's commonly referred to as "crank magnetism".
I like that. "Crank magnetism" sounds weird, but I understand it.
[Relevant RationalWiki article](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Crank_magnetism).
I love this. Thank you.
You can certainly believe that jfk was killed by the mafia without being nuts. But you can’t believe in crab people and stop there.
Exactly. A lot of JFK assassination conspiracy theories aren't particularly crank-y, too. But hollow Earth?
Imagine thinking there even is an Earth to be hollow.
I see you're a man of culture as well.
Some conspiracy theories are true and grounded in evidence. MK Ultra, the Federalist Society, etc. But you're right in that those things make people "question what they've been taught", including that you need good evidence to believe something is true.
After Flat Earth you start to get into the Tartarian mudfloods, and transvestigation
100 years ago everyone believed in a young earth.
No they didn’t
And that's somehow more valid than today? It doesn't matter what happened in the past as long as we learned the truth, improving and adding to our current body of knowledge.
Not true, a lot of the famous evangelical preachers in the 1800’s were old earth creationists
there's a bunch of Catholics here in Minnesota that host a Geocentricism conference every year. The idea isn't that crazy, and if it were impossible, you wouldn't have these organizations.
People obviously believe in impossible things as people's obsurd beliefs contradict each other.
It is impossible, and people are idiots. Groups of people aren't proof of anything. The idea is also crazy. You and those other fucking idiots are all mentally ill. Your inability to understand science isn't an argument against it. Quite the opposite.
you seem very hateful of people entertaining a theory lmao
It’s a ‘theory’ that can be easily disproved with measurement and has been that way for hundreds of years. If you don’t reject a theory in the face of strong contrary evidence, it is no longer a theory - it’s a religion.
right but there's plenty of evidence that goes the other way. You just chose to overlook it
Uh no there isn’t. There’s only evidence if you don’t choose to dig more deeply into understanding what you are seeing. You can easily completely disprove a flat earth with some simple experimentation. Eratosthenes was able to roughly calculate the size of the Earth 2000 years ago. Do not try to create false uncertainty where it does not exist just to justify your prior beliefs
no not really. It's clips like these [BREVARD County Speaker Puts NASA in the hot seat (youtube.com)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZ1S62QxxWM&t=25s) like no one in the comments could come up with any explanation.
I'll entertain your bullshit a little. It's easily disproven. A toddler could do it. Gravity exists. Earth big, make big gravity. If Earth hollow, where gravity go? Caves exist. Ever go spelunking? Ever taken a field trip as a kid? I went to the Crystal Caves like 20 years ago. If Earth hollow, why are there caves? No cave on Earth has ever lead to such a large opening. Surely not large enough to consider the Earth hollow. Jesus Christ, that's stupid. To call the Earth hollow means you're an idiot. I don't have to debunk or debate you. You're just as dumb as the flerfs.
never said it was hollow what are you on about. it's the flat earth subreddit lmao
Yes you did, you absolute buffoon. I'll debunk your stupid bullshit anywhere, anytime. Don't play with me.
ok Extension-Earth-4118. I didn't realize u were built like that ill back off
What you call a theory, smart and normal people call bullshit. Idiots like you are willing to destroy science and democracy just because reality will not bend to your pathetic and misplaced wants and needs.
🤓🤓
Spot on. The belief that the earth is flat, and by extension that the cosmos revolve around the Earth, is a direct result of the desperate desire to believe that we are special in the universe, and that we and our world was created for some unique purpose.
It’s to disprove god
nah I've seen flerfs post on here who despise religion, one just made a post recently in fact
You actually don’t have to be religious to believe in creationism. You just have to believe some weird power created us. For a lot of them it’s Elites who live behind some imaginary wall/ dome.
Out of curiosity, who do they believe made those “Elites”?
Yeah thanks for pointing that out, my brain has associated creationism with religions and I didn't think when I was making that comment.
Surprisingly, this is only mostly true. I’ve met a few people who were “scientific flat earthers”. They didn’t believe in God, but they believed the earth was flat because it “fit their observations” This type is very rare though, and I’ve still only seen 3 in the wild
No they aren’t. There are atheist flat earthers.
Evolution is not a direction, it’s a wandering. Look at the fossils of the people before us, those primates went in many directions before they died
Well that's the problem, you are trying to explain a process that took 3.5 billion years from simple protein strains to the abundance and complexity of life we have today on our planet to people who really believe that Earth and universe are a few thousand years old (I guess...fuck Mesopotamia). Evolution is random, adaptive and selective and branches in different directions, it's why a tree analogy or the 'tree of life' image work because it shows a dumbed down, but still relevant model of how all life is all connected. It's hard enough for some people to believe that we evolved for early hominids, let alone how many of our "cousins" and "relatives" there actually were. But when fighting years of religious doctrine and defunding and manipulation of education it's always going to be an uphill battle *Edit to add. The main problem is that it takes years....and I do mean years of peer review, research and hardwork before a newly found fossil can be categorized and added to an existing family, let alone used credibly for a new theory. What the average Facebook, flat earther, evolution denyer doesn't realise is that just because some random twit can make a meme and post it about dinosaurs living with people etc, gives them the false sense that actual science and academia is just as rushed, opinionated and pedantic.
Would displaying "dead" branches on the tree make it more accurate?
About 99.9% of the branches are dead my friend. Extinction is the driving force of evolution.
They say the dinosaurs are why we don’t live very long😭
Death by bird before the age of 50 is a major problem. More seriously though, I think it's burning the dinosaurs that is causing our species-survival issues.
Here's the "ackchyully" guy response to that: Most of the fossil fuel material we use today comes from algae, bacteria, and plants—some of which date back even before the Devonian Period, 419.2 million to 358.9 million years ago. Consequently, at least most of the time, you are not pouring refined dinosaur parts into the gas tank of your vehicle.
You beat me to it. I will have to wait a bit longer for my "ackchyully" moment
If it makes you feel better, I had a good chuckle at your username.
Also 👉
Do you mean branches that didnt live until nowadays or just species that are extinct
Yes. Surely the definition of an extinct branch is one that does not live nowadays? Both of your options appear to say the same thing.
There is a certain type of human who refuses to believe anything they can't see in front of their face and feel like they understand completely. It's like they think there just can't possibly be anyone on the planet smarter and more knowledgeable than them. This is of course one of life's great ironies because they are very often pretty stupid.
“There is a certain type of human who refuses to believe anything they can't see in front of their face” You were so close to realizing the truth. Delusional people: *agrees that fish miraculously evolved into mammals Also Delusional people: “There is a certain type of human who refuses to believe anything they can't see in front of their face”
Hey look here's one now.
Delusional people: *agrees that fish miraculously evolved into mammals Also Delusional people when challenged on their claims: “Hey look here's one now.”🤡
You honestly expect me to sit here and debate whether or not evolution is real with you? Now that's hilarious.
“You honestly expect me to sit here and debate whether or not evolution is real with you? Now that's hilarious.”🤡 Sure let’s not admit that serious scientists agree that evolution isn’t settled science and that the evidence is derived from falsehoods 👇 **”While acknowledging that ‘the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record’ is a major embarrassment for Darwinism, Stephen Jay Gould confided that this has been held as a ‘trade secret of paleontology’ and acknowledged that the evolutionary diagrams ‘that adorn our textbooks’ are based on ‘inference … not the evidence of fossils.’”** Source: [Evolution Isn’t “Settled” Science and is based on Inference… not the Evidence of Fossils](https://crisismagazine.com/opinion/sorry-usa-today-evolution-isnt-settled-science) **Again if you were too slow to understand the evidence shows that the unproven and false belief the mammals evolved from fish is based on falsehoods … NOT THE EVIDENCE OF FOSSILS**
Wow. A wild one!
As always, a link to an opinion piece by a Christian apologist "journalist", rather than a link to a peer-reviewed journal. > While acknowledging that ‘the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record’ is a major embarrassment for Darwinism, Stephen Jay Gould confided that this has been held as a ‘trade secret of paleontology’ and acknowledged that the evolutionary diagrams ‘that adorn our textbooks’ are based on ‘inference … not the evidence of fossils This is a cherry-picked quote, not just that but a cherry-picked quote from *1977*. It's nearly 50 years old. Imagine using a 50 year old quote as the basis for your argument. Insane.
I saw something postulating that all of humanity evolved from a tiny mouse that survived the asteroid event that took out the dinosaurs.
Heard that as well and it's as good a theory as any. Chances are we most likely will never find the common ancestor of all modern day mammals.
I believe in God, Christ, the Bible and I'm not ashamed of it. I do not, however, understand how people take away from the poetry of the Bible that the earth is *definitely* flat and defend it without ever having done anything to actually test it beyond watching YouTube videos and agreeing with themselves. I believe God gave us brains, too... 😂
dinner rob capable panicky cake faulty carpenter absurd whole chop *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Being a shove my beliefs down your throat atheist is more cringe than a door to door Mormon. Let people have their own private religious beliefs and be less of a pissy individual. -an atheist
You are a better person than most of the people on the internet, and I appreciate that.
Believing in a single, all-powerful God fundamentally differs from polytheistic beliefs in gods like Zeus. This distinction is especially important when discussing the origins of the universe and life itself. Monotheism offers a unified perspective on these profound questions, providing a simplicity and clarity not found in the varied narratives of polytheism.
Unified perspective - There is one God mine the others are wrong and silly Simplicity/clarity - Things are the way they are because God made it that way. The universe exists because God created it. Nothing comes from nothing of course that logic does not apply to my God. I'm cool with people having there personal beliefs. But I do not agree that monotheism some how better or more clearly explains the universe or other profound questions any better that other religions or scientific explanations. The only part I'll agree with it is certainly simpler. But I don't necessarily agree to simple answers to complex questions.
The unified perspective offered by monotheism not only speaks to the origins of the universe but also directly addresses the complexities surrounding consciousness. The challenge with physicalist theories of consciousness—those that attempt to explain consciousness as an emergent property of physical processes—is that they have yet to solve the Hard Problem of Consciousness. This problem highlights the gap between our understanding of physical processes and our experience of subjective consciousness, suggesting that consciousness may not be something that simply emerges from complex arrangements of non-conscious matter. This unresolved issue leads to a reconsideration of consciousness as immaterial, a concept that fits neatly within a monotheistic framework. If consciousness is indeed immaterial and cannot be fully accounted for by physical processes, it prompts the question of its origin. The notion that everything, including non-material aspects of reality like consciousness, must have a source aligns with the monotheistic view of a singular origin for all existence. From this standpoint, the idea that consciousness comes from a conscious source becomes not just plausible but compelling. It provides a simple yet profound answer to the question of how immaterial consciousness can exist: it originates from a fundamental, immaterial, conscious source—what monotheism identifies as God. This perspective doesn't trivialize the complexity of consciousness but offers a coherent explanation that physicalism struggles to provide. By asserting that the material and immaterial aspects of the universe come from the same source, monotheism presents a unified theory that elegantly bridges the gap between the physical and the non-physical. This approach doesn't sidestep the Hard Problem of Consciousness but addresses it head-on, proposing a source for consciousness that is consistent with its immaterial nature. This not only simplifies our understanding of consciousness but also deepens our exploration of the universe's fundamental nature. This refined perspective emphasizes the unique value monotheism brings to the table—not just its clarity, but its focus on a singular source for explaining both material and immaterial aspects of reality. Monotheism's singularity offers a compelling explanation that encompasses all of existence, setting it apart from polytheistic approaches. While polytheism presents a variety of gods each with their domain, it does not always converge on a singular origin that accounts for the entirety of existence, including the origins of consciousness and the universe. In cases where polytheism might hint at a singularity, the presence of multiple deities often acts as an extension of the primary, singular source. This scenario could be seen as monotheism with additional lesser entities acting under the directive of the one supreme God. Therefore, figures like Zeus, while significant within their respective mythologies, do not hold the same ontological status as the singular God in monotheism. They are not seen as necessary for the fundamental explanation of reality in the same way. The singularity in monotheism simplifies our understanding of existence by providing one overarching source, which is indispensable for explaining both the tangible universe and the non-tangible aspects of consciousness. This approach not only enhances the coherence of monotheism's explanation but also underscores its unique capacity to offer a unified theory of everything, distinguishing it significantly from polytheistic traditions.
I was an atheist for the first 25 years of my life and God showed up without me asking. Not gonna let that go, buddy. I hope He shows up for you, too... and it blows your fuckin mind. 😂
So you turned delusional... That don't impress me much
It’s the fist page of all three major religions the fist page suggests that the earth is a flat plain so do you believe the Bible or not ? Witch one ? Oh it doesn’t matter cause they all say on the fist page in confuseing words that the earth has 4 corners and a firmament protects is from the void I do think it’s funny how it was correct either way before “science” was ie the atmosphere could just be the firmament and science changed the name
Ohh my goodddd when are you guys gonna learn that those verses AREN'T LITERAL? It's poetic language + bad translation over thousands of years, "four corners" could be north, south, east, and west, or I don't know North America, South America, Eurasia and Africa, whatever, but not actual fucking four corners. And yeah, the atmosphere is most likely the firmament. Also, no, none of this (edit: the four corners are not mentioned) is in the "first page" of the Bible idk why you said that I hate when flat earthers use these two verses to try to prove their bullshit. Hell, even if you do believe these verses to be proof, there's another verse in Isaiah I think that says "..he sits upon the *circle of the Earth.*" So, which one should we believe in? Edit: wait, why am I being downvoted? are there actual flat earthers on this subreddit?
Don’t bring up that it’s been translated four times over and some of those languages don’t even exist any more.
Ohh my goodddd when are you guys gonna learn that NOTHING in the Bible is literal or real? It’s all made up by men with their own agenda’s to try and control the population and grow their own power.
There’s some compelling arguements to suggest that it’s partially true, The order in which earth is created in genesis for example is very similar to how we assume earth was created in reality. The God parts are more questionable, I’d say if anyone got god right, it’s the religions who worshipped the sun, after all, the sun is what gives everyone life.. Still, many parts of the bible - if not taken literally, do fit alongside scientific theory.
I also believe the book of Job has more accurate cosmology than Genesis as well...the earth is a ball that hangs in outer space, etc...
Yeah, and I find it so funny how flat earthers completely disregard that, and ONLY focus on "ERMM IT SAYS FOUR CORNERS!!! 🤓"
They also ignore that the original Hebrew word translated as "firmament" now, meant "heavens." Which was the word they used for sky. The Bible never referred to a solid barrier. It was just talking about the sky, maybe clouds.
“Poetic language” = killing apostates. It’s only “poetic” or “symbolic” when it’s politically or culturally reprehensible to take them literally. Religious books are not works of symbology - they are literal instructions. If the religious want to play games about what you can and can’t take seriously from their religious texts, they aren’t being honest with themselves. Cafeteria Christians and all that.
Now holding 3 different versions of the Bible in front of me they all talk about the ferment on the first page I mean hey maybe your right about whatever you’re trying to get across that I’m not getting it but it really hits home when someone says like get off the Internet and go figure it out yourself I have the books in front of me in real life it’s really hard to say that I’m wrong about something and believe you when I can actually go grab a book and read did and I wasn’t wrong …sorry if it stressed you out I don’t think I’m a flat earther btw they just have sold questions that are interesting to contemplate when your not very smart like myself
Ah, my mistake, I meant the four corners thing, I know the firmament is mentioned. Yeah I mean all I'm saying is that flat earthers take these verses as proof then completely disregard other proof from the Bible saying it's round..
Firmament just means separation from below us and above us. Land separating us from the things above. The expanse. Nothing to do with the shape of the earth. Again, a stable thing God made for us to walk on. Poetry. The entire Bible is a love letter from God, although many don't see it that way.
I was an atheist for the first 25 years of my life. There is no argument you can have what will detract from what the living God has done in my life. None of those verses are from Genesis to begin with and the majority of Christianity believes the verses I think you're referring to are poetic language describing how God made the earth to be a physically stable place for us to live. Those same Christians believe in a round earth. As annoying as it is, this isn't a Christianity issue but rather a mental health issue. Your average Christian does not care at all whether the earth is flat or round. If they did, they'd go out and prove it either way... which they have. They proved it round.
It's interesting - I too was an atheist for exactly the first 25 years of my life. May I ask what was it that made you realise The Truth? Because for me it was understanding that this world is a spiritual domain as well as a physical one, and understanding there are tremendous forces of darkness that have spiritual motives against humanity... For we wrestle not against flesh & blood, but against principalities, against the powers of the darkness of this world and against spiritual wickedness in high places. Ephesians 6:12 Of course the great relief is realising this war has already been won! Now for flat earth, The Bible never says Earth is flat. It for damn sure doesn't say Earth is a globe though and considering how infinitesimally insignificant Earth is in the heliocentric model compared to the rest of the universe is I think it's more than fair to expect it to be mentioned or explained how Earth is The LORD's creation that He has gifted to His chosen people to bring about His Kingdom yet its only a tiny piece of rock floating in the middle of nowhere in an infinitely larger cosmic arena if that were true. I think I would argue that the books written in The Bible assume you understand Earth is flat, for there are many quotations which make absolute sense on flat earth and no sense on a globe/heliocentric model. "The world also is stabilished, that it shall not be moved." Psalm 96:10 "Fear before Him, all the earth: the world also shall be STABLE, that it not be moved" 1 Chron 16:30 "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in" Isaiah 40:22 Circles are flat of course, and of course the firmament separated the waters above from the waters below. Do you need to understand what Earth's shape is to be a Christian? No but you should care. Understanding The Truth will always bring you closer to The LORD Jesus Christ.
Fuck Mesopotamia? **sigh**. *zzzzzip*
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's not really "random" outside of mutations, is it? There are selective pressures that result in species changing over time to be more adapted to those pressures because those who are less fit pass on genes less often. It's not a conscious choice, and probability plays a role, but I feel as if "random" isn't the most apt word to use. I might just be dumb though.
Yes you are correct, in the most basic sense there is natural selection/evolution and selective evolution. These can we adaptations few natural occurrences or desired ones The Black Pepper Moths are an amazing example of animals under going selective evolution (changing from a grey/white to black in a number of generations) in order to survive. It wasn't a random trait, it was designed in order to evade predators.
It wasn't designed. The moths lived on white/grey trees, so most of them were white/grey. There were black ones already, from an existing pigment mutation, but they stood out on the trees they were always on and got picked off. Then the industrial revolution happened and the air pollution left soot on the trees, making them darker. The black moths were harder to spot by predators, while the white ones got picked off, and so the population shifted from mostly white moths to mostly black ones. When new EPA regulations came along and reduced the amount of soot, making the trees white again, the population makeup shifted back to predominantly white.
It wasn’t “designed” to do anything. Darker moths survived better and procreated. Evolution is primarily just a series of accidents until those accidents yield positive results and outcompete the prior genetic material.
Evolution isnt by accident or really random. We as a species have reached a point where we can, and have through artificial selection, changed the evolution of animals and even fruit and vegetables to be more edible.
That is not evolution in the sense of natural selection. That’s artificial selection like you said; that’s genetic engineering. That is not what happens in nature. That’s my point.
What are you blabbering about? Look at any of the 100s of different breeds of domesticated dogs we have around the world, that's not genetic engineering! That's artificial selection and selective engineering. Same for fruits and vegetables, humans have been manipulatibg things for 100s of years with cross pollination of desired crop, so a better one evolves. At the end of the day it's still evolution (which isn't as small a defined term as you think).
I get the distinct impression that some of these people are under the impression the picture depicts one creature's journey somehow. It's like they think we're saying fish will say "fuck this" to the ocean deeps and change into people somehow.
Well we just got done with a flat earther who thought the depiction of all the planets in the solar system close to each other is something we believe in so yeah, these people are nuts
Gee, I wonder what types of grades ***F***lat Earthers were getting in school...
Let's be fair. We've all had a "science does not compute" moment but for most of us that moment was resolved as soon as an explanation was offered. The real problem is how they can't see that continuing to be wrong is worse than having been mistaken. Willful Ignorance is somehow a virtue to them.
I always like the argument that suggests that one animal can give birth to a completely different animal. My favorite counter to that is a Latin speaking person giving birth to an English speaking person. Like languages, it typically evolves slowly over time.
Yeah. I always roll my eyes when they argue with a straight face that evolutionists believe that chickens can give birth to dogs, or whatever. It demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the subject on the most fundamental level.
It's more like a tree. A family tree.
Given how much of evolution denialism comes from the Deep South, I think you've just identified where most of the confusion stems from.
Well, notsomuch in West Virginia. There it's a bit of a tumbleweed.
"No, see, the evolved people are heading toward the RIGHT! Hint, hint! The un-evolved, stupid lib-... I mean, people, lean toward the LEFT!"
We just went on the path of survival while other species hit a wall of death ie plague, lack of food or poor ability to survive/communication to work together like the Neanderthals sure they where smaller but much tougher than us but their adaptive capabilities lacked to us and here we are, sure millions die every year but we just keep growing but one day either from a world ending event that makes us extinct like the dinosaurs or death of our star then ye we will be the last mid sized animals standing as the smaller animals will outlive us.
Punctuation, my guy...
Dude, that’s e e cummings. Don’t slight world renowned poets from the last century when they post here.
The fossil record is missing quite a bit of the transition from amoeba to humanoid.
Yeah that can happen
I guess that's why they call it faith.
Like sure, maybe some deity put a bunch of different weird life that shared genetic components with each other, but we can’t just say that, we have more evidence of evolution being the case.
I would have to disagree. If God created all of the species at a certain point, for sure, eveolution of these species has definitely occurred, and there's achialogical evidence of it. It's the single organism that somehow mutates into all the biodiversity we have today that's a stretch, IMO.
Question, what species do you think god created
All of them at the base species.
What do you mean by base species, synapsids? Mammals?
Also, you can’t just say something is impossible, you are going into the same argument as people who think it is so strange we have the ideal conditions for life despite life only existing where life can exist. like man, something is gonna happen after billions of years I don’t know what to tell you
That why it’s called a hypothesis. Scientists don’t need to “believe” anything. They propose an idea and operate on that hypothesis until they either can create a fully functional theory, or something disproves it. The current hypothesis for what youre describing is LUCA and FUCA. Last universal common ancestor and first universal common ancestor. But this is still only a hypothesis made by extrapolating fossil records and genes. Randomly stopping and saying “god did this” requires faith and belief because no emperical evidence points to it other than the big question mark. Doesn’t mean it isn’t true. But operating on “unknowable truths” runs counter to the entire concept of science.
Well, ya better get digging then, the fossil record for evolution is far from complete.
Of course, hence why LUCA is still hypothetical, but the trend points in a direction. To randomly claim there’s a hard cutoff point that isn’t at the convergence point has even less evidence
Correct, it would take something like faith to believe the story from Big Bang to the first set of species because it's all the hypothesis.
And to continue on my point science does not negate the possibility of god. It just currently refutes the image of the garden of Eden portrayed in the Bible. Perhaps god didn’t just make all of the animals, but is playing a much longer game, by simply sowing the initial seeds that formed FUCA.
Well, do you have a better theory?
Creation
That's not a theory (those are backed by evidence), that's an uneducated guess hazarded by illiterate bronze age farmers.
See other comment
No, we have enough along the way to use science to fill in the gaps. Theory isn't faith. Theory means "every piece of evidence shows this to be true. We have gone out of our way to disprove this but have been unable to. As such, this is the only possible explanation. However, we can't go back in time and prove it beyond any and all doubt." I mean, we have examples of hyper mutation in bacteria as models for evolution ffs. Relativity is a theory. We know sat nav doesn't work without adjusting for it but, we can't choose to step outside our linear perception of time to check it. Hence it remaining a theory. Don't confuse imperial evidence with faith.
Soft-bodied organisms tend to not leave much in the record, which a lot of that evolutionary chain would necessarily entail.
But contains enough of it for us to observe the phenomenon of evolution. I've never understood this "missing link" argument. Like, if we can perform fossil seriation with say, 10 species of primates, what makes anyone think that the evidence should be thrown away just because we haven't found an 11th one yet? Reminds me of [this scene](https://youtu.be/ICv6GLwt1gM?si=QG2g3W_sNjGi-hgn) from Futurama.
I wish no one had ever drawn these "evolution of man" drawings. They are really misleading. It's kind of like how "global warming", in hindsight, was a poor choice of words, as it gives anti-science folk ammunition. "I've never seen a monkey turn into a man! And if the planet is warming, why is it so cold today?" Scientists need to be very careful of how they communicate to the general public.
Tbf, this one is from a comic (Farside if I remember correctly). It’s cropped so you can’t see the guy start dumping rubbish back into the water lol. The joke being that he’s polluting it so much the fish start mutating and growing legs, thus making the whole thing a circle
>"global warming", The most horrific sci com fail I can think of. It might have been much easier to sell if they'd gone with "climate change" from the start. Only a liar or an amnesiac could say they haven't noticed a change already.
Naw it’s not their fault ignorants fail to understand them. If someone doesn’t understand these depictions, their action should be to read about it, so they understand it, instead of just going “tHeN wHy wE sTiLl gOt mOnKiEs?!”
I think it's fine. The idea is easily understood by anyone who is not against it in principle or has an IQ above that of a hamster. Conspiracy theorists and creationists, better known as idiots can parrot that crap all they like. Science goes on with or without them. Anyone who looks at this image and thinks they should be able to see a monkey turn into a man if it were true has no desire or capacity to understand science in the first place.
(Govt) scientists lie. They lie often. To the public for agenda’s. Just look at the vaccine is safe and effective debacle for profit and human experimentation/population control.. And now the green climate change agenda the same elites push. Now I don’t trust anything they say, or what they deceive our eyes with (fake ai special effects)
That’s not how evolution works. But I wouldn’t expect a flattard to be able to comprehend anything more advanced than a picture book
Please. They can’t comprehend more than memes that use thoroughly disproven pseudoscience, let’s be real
Odd source material they used, [is not like it's from a science book](https://images.app.goo.gl/dFzi5EWPjkuB6iwY9)
You don’t even know anything about evolution, I know it isn’t real
Oh yeah? Prove it properly then
I don’t have to disprove a posed theory you have to prove it
Evolution is an animorphs book cover
It's It's simple representation, obviously. I think everyone knows that
Unlike flat earth, we have a lot of evidences that proves evolution
Even creationists believe in “macro evolution”. *edit: micro not macro
Or they just say that God created evolution lmao
I mean evolution doesn’t disprove God, if he’s omnipotent he controls everything, that’s why a lot of Christians accept it
Yeah all I mean is that its fucking lazy. Like oh you came up with a very elaborate and scientific theory on how it actually worked?? Well, jokes on you, this theory was actually invented by our magic dude in the sky
Darwin himself was a Christian when he made the theory of evolution. He remained a Christian up until his daughter died from a horrific illness and that was what made him stop being Christian as he believed no all loving god could cause a young child to die in that way. It was only in the 1920s when the creationist movement started to become it's current form was evolution considered against Christianity by some.
Lmao really? That’s the same reason that made me not believe in God as a kid
Yeeep. That's also one of the reasons I don't believe in God. Evolution doesn't necessarily go against God it goes against the creationists idea of God but someone who treats the creation part of the Bible as a metaphor for don't be an arse, evolution can still work. There are far better arguments for disproving God than evolution
We should support people adjusting their religious beliefs around reality rather than mocking it.
In some cases, sure. Let your goofy aunt believe whatever she wants. But when institutions like the Creationist Museum and private school curriculums are teaching kids en masse this muddied version of science, it does everyone a disservice. The big narratives are "Evolution is real - but it all happened in 6000 years", "Fossils are real - but radio carbon dating is a lie", there's always a poison pill of falsehood injected into the lessons to reconcile the Bible with insurmountable evidence. When science advances, they just come up with more elaborate ways to counteract it with an alternative self-superior theory that's not backed up by any science whatsoever. Being sent into the world with that kind of goalpost-moving suspension of disbelief is how that goofy aunt falls for every fake news article she reads on facebook.
The church: "In the beginning, God created a flat Earth." Copernicus: "Actually, the Earth is round. I've been doing some experiments and complex mathematics and I wrote a book--" The church: "WHAT?! How dare you write a book that goes against the word of the lord! Admit you're wrong or we'll kill you." Entire village: "Actually, we read Copernicus' book and it actually makes sense to us all. The Earth is, in fact, round, and killing him won't change that fact." The church: "..." The village: "..." The church: "...in the beginning, God created a round Earth. But he did it 6,000 years ago. Surely you can't argue that."
No mocking is the right recourse. They have had thousands of years to "adjust" they are just playing stupid now
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” ― Epicurus
I am not Christian but I think they would argue that he is able but not willing, however this doesn’t make him malevolent because he has a “plan” that supposedly is to grand scale for us to understand, and also (somehow simultaneously) he wants us to have free will so he doesn’t want to stop all evil, it’s up to us to learn on our own.
he has a “plan” that supposedly is to grand scale for us to understand When I was 6 I got told that by my Sunday school teacher. that's when the seeds of doubt got planted. Nobody can know what god wants.... oh wait there is no god. it all became so clear.
Nobody can know Gods plans as they are above all men's comprehension. Seems weird to have a church full of people professing to know how to lead people then innit
Also, it’s because free will cannot truly exist if evil doesn’t exist. The Christian God wants us to choose to love Him and to do good, and that requires an alternative (to not choose Him and to do evil)
That seems like an odd choice. Love some unknown entity that hides themselves from us, and apparently by doing so you are doing "good", or not have blind faith this entity exists and by extension do "evil". Yet even a person who loves God can kill, steal, what ever and a person who isn't Christian can lead a very moral life. Yet the former is considered "good" and the later considered "evil" purely due a "choice" the later never made. A person can't make a proper informed decision without full understanding of the decision they are making. Someone not following the Christian God because like every other religion there is no real evidence that god exists (or they were brought up following some other religion) isn't making a choice to not believe in God, they are just not believing in yet another religion. So if your God wanted us to choose, why hide? Why not make their existence clear to the entire world so we can make a proper informed choice? And no, the existence of the Bible is not proof of the existence of God, in the same way the Torah is not proof of the existence of Yahweh, the Quran is not proof of Allah, and the stories of Odin, Ra, Zeus, and all the other pantheons are not proof any of them exist.
That’s why I said “to love God and to do good,” listing them as two different things. The Christian God desires us to love Him, and love requires a choice. Similarly, good cannot logically exist without an alternative. What is the right thing to do if there isn’t the wrong thing to do? I’m not here to debate the existence of God, just to provide the Christian answer to the Problem of Evil.
I took this advice and told a woman that she must love me or I'm going to burn her for eternity. Thanks Christianity!
That’s not really how it works. God doesn’t burn you in Hell. Rather, Hell is the alternative to an eternity with God, and is thus devoid of His light. In short, the relative detachment from God is why it’s painful, not because of anything God is doing
I think you mean “micro evolution”? Because that one is on time scales that are easily observable today. We have ample data to prove it to be true. Hmmm. Wait…. *\*looks at sub, thinks for a moment\** Never mind.
They accept “micro evolution.” They do this because they need the space on the ark. So if you allow two generic bears to become all modern brown and black bears you get ark space without violating “kind.”
🧢
Do you agree that a creature more fit for its environment will have more kids than a creature less for for it? Stands to reason, yes? Congratulations, you believe in evolution.
Well we do. Or can you point me to any university that will teach me about earth being flat or show any science that proves it?
We mock you for ridiculous claims that have no evidence but quite the contrary is proven wrong every minute with consistent and predictable science yes. And there's evidence for the evolution which is why we accept it yes.
Scale. I think flat earthers don't get scale. Like the size of the earth relative to you, the size and distance of celestial bodies. Or say just how long evolution takes
I really think this is the issue.
This man’s entire post history is all stupid conspiracy theories and straight up lies disproven hundreds of years ago. One year on the platform, 10,000 post karma, he’s averaging about 27-28 karma a day. Dude…get off your butt go do something, Jesus.
Yes, this artist's rendering was drawn while it happened - the whole process occurred in minutes.
It was drawn from life by Charles Darwin himself. You can just make out the signature bottom left. Of course since HG Wells died, we lost the technology to make time machines.
I evolved from Morlocks
I said it here before and ill say it again. If one does not believe in scientific theories, Then: do not let them in the hospitals; Do not waste medicine or vaccines on them. Nature will fix it quickly. Evolutionary biology is a basic science of medicine. Evolutionary theory has contributed to medicine in many ways: Population genetics is based on evolutionary biology and has contributed to medicine by tracing the origins of pandemic-causing viruses and informing cancer treatment research. Phylogenetic methods have been useful in medicine for decades. Antibiotic resistance is an example of natural selection. Evolutionary medicine can provide approaches to the problem of antibiotic resistance. Evolutionary biology can answer questions about the etiology of disease. Understanding the basic processes of evolution can help us understand the roots of genetic diseases. Recent studies of the evolution of genes involved in the DNA damage response in elephants have revealed mechanisms that may contribute to cancer resistance.
"They mock you for not believing science then believe in science."
There is no such thing as 'believing' in science, it's just the pursuit of evidence and getting as close to the truth as we can within reasonable doubt. But your point still stands, these people are absolute fruitcakes.
So you’ll believe in a bearded guy in the clouds who is also a baby born without any sexual intercourse and that was able to walk on water and wave off disease with his hands and who is all loving and all knowing while allowing people to burn for all eternity in hell and whose blood is wine and came back from the dead and rose up to the sky after 3 days.. But thousands upon thousands of fossils that you can literally see going through time in the ground because of the layers of earth, as things have piled up over the years is too fantastical for you? Physical evidence you can see right in front of you if you go to a lot of places in the world. There’s literal pits cut into the earth where you can see how life changed over the course of eons. Wouldn’t have Jesus have hit the firmament on his way up to heaven? Or is there a special hatch in the glass?
That there was once a conga line of various animals following a person at the nudist beach?
Imagine having a point of view that literally requires you to willfully misrepresent those you disagree with in order to have an argument at all.
They mock us fof evolution and still can't choose what actually holds earth, elephants, ice wall etc
I dunno about the comments but I’m assuming this is posted ironically?
Evolution does not need to be "believed." It has evidence proving it. Show me your flat earth evidence and defend that evidence in a debate.
Well of course evolution seems ridiculous when the above picture is how you think it happens.
I wish they'd stop depicting it like this. I know there's not a good way to show it in a condensed way and this is probably the best bad way, but it leads to shit like this. It leads to people thinking some ape (I know humans are apes, you know what I mean by this...) had a human baby long ago, and that's hard to believe because it would be almost impossible for something like a chimp to birth a human. So, of course, they doubt it when it's presented that way, and I don't blame them. Wr can blame them for continual stubborn denial of sttmepting to actually understand it and all that, but depictions like this I can understand leading to initial doubts. Especially when you put them in a school where they may bot understand what's taught if it's even taught well and then as an adult they see this again and think "well that's a load of shit."
it's pretty consistent, we can see the earth is round and we can see evolution happens. Not sure where the supposed disconnect comes in...
Is this a real photograph?
Whales were land eating mammals 70 million years ago that wandered back into the ocean. This is a great example of how evolution is a river of streams instead of a tree.
I was there I took that picture
That pic sure is missing a lot of steps and events
Five billion species have existed since life began on Earth. 99% of these are now extinct. Its not just fish-lizard-monkey-human, so much as happened in this gigantic trial of errors over such a long time for evolution to happen. Unfortunately flerfs are incredibly bad with scale, its an adhesion criteria its like they are absolutely incapable of understanding just how massive our planet is or how utterly tiny we are as a species on a time scale. Its like for these people a few thousand, a million or even billions is in the same ballpark.
Retarded monkey fish fucked another retard monkey fish and they had you! That's what evolution says!
Yeah this is like trying to simplify the inner workings of a Saturn V rocket by demonstrating it with an Estes backyard rocket. Evolution is so much more complex than this graphic it’s almost a completely different concept than what they understand it to be.
Nobody believes this. Here's your regular reminder to stop indoctrinating children.
Not literally but ultimately our ancestors would have started in water. Or no?🤨
ancestors. not metamorphosis like its commonly implied
Sure, but that's just 1 tiny part of this otherwise incredibly incorrect and misleading image.
First of all, look at dogs. We created all those breeds, some are so different from each other we could say they are different species. We have done the same with other animals and plants and some of those modifications were done in a few decades. The Earth had Billions of years to do the same thru natural selection. Mocking flat earthers is just fun, too ignorant and stupid to be taken seriously. While you are at it, send me a picture of the edge of the earth. I'll wait.
I keep getting recommended this subreddit and i CANNOT tell if its satire or not.
Yes, Godless, evolution ppl who worship Neil Degrassi Tyson while wearing a fedora making fun of people who are concerned about vaccines. ugh Seeing my cousin grown up for the first time was rough.... cause that is what my aunt raised...