SwordDancer #fundie

SwordDancer #fundie forums.narutofan.com

I just don't undestand why people believe evolution, as in macro-evolution, is the more logical answer when no one has even seen it happen or truly 100% prove it. In science, everything that has been proven can happen anyday, like chemical science, physics, and even biology to an extent. Macro-evolution because then you would see it and even logically, it's far-fetched and requires even MORE faith than creation. Micro-evolution is true because it deals with genetics and it has shown to be true since it explains how someone grows or adapts and the Bible does not go against it at all (Surprising, isn't it?).

To me, it seems people only want to believe in macro-evolution is because it allows them not to believe in God, basically gives them some sort of reason to not believe in God, and I believe that it's childish.

46 comments

old comment by David B.

MYTH: Creationists made up macro/micro evolution

This is not true. The terms macro-evolution and micro-evolution were not invented by creationists.

The terms were coined by biologist and evolutionist Yuri Philipchenko, in 1927.

The terms were widely used by Theo Dobzhansky, a pupil of Philipchenko and co-framer of the "modern synthesis" (also called neo-Darwinism).

"Nothing in the known macroevolutionary phenomena would require other than the known genetic principles for causal explanation"
-- T. Dobzhansky, Genetics and the Origin of Species, 1951.

Of course, where we find Dobzhansky, we also find Ernst Mayr.

"Among all the claims made during the evolutionary synthesis, perhaps the one that found least acceptance was the assertion that all phenomena of macroevolution can be reduced to,' that is, explained by, microevolutionary genetic processes. Not surprisingly, this claim was usually supported by geneticists but was widely rejected by the very biologists who dealt with macroevolution, the morphologists and paleontologists. Many of them insisted that there is more or less complete discontinuity between the processes at the two levelsthat what happens at the species level is entirely different from what happens at the level of the higher categories. Now, 50 years later the controversy remains undecided."
-- E. Mayr, Toward a New Philsophy of Biology, 1988.

More recently, they were used by Nick Matzke and Eugenie Scott in a article for the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

"The microevolution/macroevolution distinction is particularly revealing. In evolutionary biology, microevolution refers to evolutionary processes operating within a species. Although scientists sometimes colloquially refer to macroevolution as “evolution above the species level,” this definition does not do justice to the complexity of topics included within the concept. Macroevolution refers to patterns that emerge as species and lineages branch through time, including the rate and pace of evolutionary change, adaptive radiation, morphological trends in lineages, extinction or branching of a lineage, concepts such as species sorting, and the emergence of major new morphological features (such as segmentation, or shells, or the fusion or loss of bones). Decades ago, creationists began to use microevolution and macroevolution idiosyncratically. Creationists' use of “microevolution” is not dissimilar to that of evolutionary biologists, although they apply it not just to species but to evolution within the limits of a specially created “kind” of organism. When ID supporters and other creationists claim to accept some evolution, they generally mean it in this limited sense of evolution “within the kind.” A larger distinction occurs in the creationist definition of macroevolution, which to them refers to (unacceptable) common ancestry of different created kinds. It also refers to the acquisition of major morphological features or body plan changes, also considered impossible without the direct involvement of God. Both creation science and ID approach the micro/macro divide similarly: microevolution is accepted, and macroevolution (their definition) is rejected."
-- Nick Matzke and Eugenie Scott, PNAS 104:8669-8676.

You are wrong, and perpetuating a myth as false as Darwin's deathbed conversion. Don't be like the fundtards, learn the lesson and stop.

Some other words creationists didn't "invent" - but do misuse - are Darwinism, Darwinist, Darwinian (as either adjective or noun) and evolutionist.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

(emph-ass-is added):

"To me, it seems people only want to believe in macro-evolution is because it allows them not to believe in God, basically gives them some sort of reason to not believe in God, and I believe that it's childish."

Right. This coming from someone called 'SwordDancer' in Naruto Forums.

Yes, that's right dear... (*Performs a 'Patronise You no Jutsu'; pats SwordDancer' on head*)

Now you go back to your ninja cartoons dear, the adults are talking.

Moral: The term 'Narutard'. It exists for a reason.

@cy4nide

"Why are there so many fundies on the Naruto forums? Does being a fundie and an otaku REALLY overlap that much?"

Being the Narutards they are, if they do read/watch any other manga/anime, it'll purely be Shonen Jump-type fightan* crap (Dragonbollocks/Drag-On-Bore ZZZZZzzzzz.../Dragonbollocks GT; One Piss - basically Popeye the Sailor Man with ideas above it's station; Ble(a)ch: DBZ with swords, ad infinitum ad nauseam...)

If these fundie Narutards were to watch "The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya", on the other hand...:

image

...their 'cute tsundere girl as God' realisation levels would be OVER 9000! >:D

*- The likes of "Ikkitousen" would give them aneurysms. And not just for the kickass females therein, neither. One word: Fanservice.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

"I just don't undestand why people believe evolution, as in macro-evolution, is the more logical answer when no one has even seen it happen or truly 100% prove it."

I just don't undestand why people believe creation, as in Genesis, is the more logical answer when no one was there - least of all the human writers of the Bible - to see it happen or truly 100% prove it. And does the Bible not say?:

1 Thessalonians 5:21 (KJV): 'Prove all things; hold fast that which is good'

Your own Bible forces you to destroy your own 'belief' & 'faith' in the very thing such is based on, by doing the exact same thing which is the basis of Science: Observation.

PROTIP: Atoms/molecules: Electron Microscopes. Wind/Air: Introducing smoke into the aistream in wind tunnel tests, to determine - observe - the aerodynamic effects (or hopefully not, re. the designers!) of model/actual size aircraft/vehicles. Rainbows don't actually physically exist, but at least we can see them, and said optical phenomena are easily replicatable (a water bottle with squirt trigger & mist nozzle, and a sunny day). The unseen can be seen. 'God'? No evidencee, no acceptee. Those 'faith'-destroying words: Proof. Observation.

Seems that your 'omnipotent', and 'omniscient' God couldn't see into the future enough to have created the HD digital video camcorder to have documented what supposedly 'happened' in Genesis, to be able to show proof as he himself demanded in his own 'Word', even though it would completely annihilate the whole point of said 'Word'. So not only are Paradoxes a cruel bitch for his believers, Douglas Adams wouldn't have needed the Babel Fish to have come up with the 'final and clinching proof of God's nonexistence', as God has done so himself - as in he didn't have the foresight to have spotted that universe-sized plot hole when he, in bringing his 'flawless', 'perfect' & 'inerrant' Word into being, 'inspired' said flawed imperfect and errant humans.

Making mistakes. That's childish. Now what more of a reason do we Atheists need eh, SwordDancer...?!:

(*Performs 'Patronise You no Jutsu'; pats SwordDancer on head*)

image

And it was my reading the Bible cover-to-cover in my teens that made me the [i]Atheist[/i] I am today, pal.

Atheism. Thinking for oneself. Re. that plot hole in the Bible, SwordDancer: as an Argument Annihilator, I think so much, I scare even myself, sometimes.

SwordDancer #fundie forums.narutofan.com

46 comments

Confused?