The thing that strikes me today is that it is more apparent than ever macro-evolution is a religion requiring blind faith in opposition to all the science that proved macro-evolution wrong / invalid / impossible.
In short, they are guilty of what they accused Christians of blind faith in a religion. Only their is disproved. Christianity (creationism) was only disagreed with.
And if evolutionists and anti-God proponents were not so deeply entrenched in the media and the education system they would have been laughed right out of the public square.
I.C.R. was right!
Institute for Creation Research.
25 comments
Since creatards invented the terms microevolution and macroevolution, some within the biology community have adapted to those terms to mean; microevolution = any evolution below the species level, macroevolution = at or above the species level. Since speciation has been directly observed and documented, macroevolution is now an observed fact.
You state here that there is lots of science that proves "macro-evolution" (not that there is any such thing, except in the minds of creationists, like Artic Knight said) is wrong/invalid/impossible, without bothering to list a single example of such science. When, where, how/why and by whom was it proven wrong?
I always love the micro-evolution/macro-evolution bullshit distinction. It's like saying that "hey, you can walk 100 yards, but you sure as hell can't walk 10,000 miles!"
Funny how blind faith is good when it comes to God, but it's bad when it comes to evolution.
Another instance of "it's OK when we do it."
@Sasha
Show us all the science that proves macro-evolution is invalid.
Well, we've never seen a dog giving birth to a cat or a monkey giving birth to a human!
Seriously, that's their refutation.
Allow me to reiterate.
Tiktaalik, archaeopteryx, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, all the other members of the genus Homo, all the various types of horse from those the size of a small dog to the current Equs, elephants, whales... I could go on for days without even delving into all the transitional plants but I think most sane people will get the idea. We have discovered thousands of "missing links" but each one we find just creates two more gaps in the minds of fundies.
You found us out. The Theory of Evolution is all based on faith .
Only their is disproved. Christianity (creationism) was only disagreed with.
Yup. Scientists are now finding that bats are, indeed, birds, that goats can fuck in front of a striped rod and produce striped offspring, and that the Sun stood still in the sky, as recorded by all of the astronomy-obsessed cultures that existed at that time such as the Egyptians and Chinese. Not one thing in the Bible has been proven wrong.
Unfortunately, some scientest have used the term macro-evolution, most the time it's to explain that macro-evolution is Micro-evolution after many changes and many generations, it's a culmitive term. The rest of the time it's used in that very specific scientific meaning of the word and they expect most people to know that by now.
The creationists have tried and won at convincing their faithful that it does indeed mean a Duck birthing an Elephant.
"The thing that strikes me today is that it is more apparent than ever macro-evolution is a religion requiring blind faith in opposition to all the science that proved macro-evolution wrong / invalid / impossible."
The scientific definition of "macroevolution" is simply "any evolutionary change ocurring at or above the taxonomic level of the species (e.g., speciation and extinction events)".
So not only is macroevolution NOT 'wrong, Not invalid, NOt impossible, we've directly seen it occur, in realtime, in living populations.
To the extent that such a thing as "Macro-evolution" even exists, it is simply many steps of "micro-evolution" considered together. If you knew anything about the ToE you would know that at least.
That the scientists are the ones ignoring the scientific evidence is laughable.
P.S. The I.C.R. hasn't been right about much... ever, and they are not right about this.
Creationists had their chance in the Kitzmiller vs Dover trial. We all know who were laughed out of that courtroom...
Nobody but creationists talk about macro-evolution, stupid. The difference between micro and macro evolution is the same as between a short walk and a long trek. We have yet to see "all the science that proved macro-evolution wrong / invalid / impossible".
Spellists are also deeply entrenched in the education system; people who think it shows a sign of respect for the readers, to make an effort with your grammar and spelling. We're not perfectionists; we make mistakes all the time, but we do our very best to avoid the most obvious and flagrant examples of a lack of education and accuracy.
@Arctic Knight: "Since creatards invented the terms microevolution and macroevolution, some within the biology community have adapted to those terms to mean; microevolution = any evolution below the species level, macroevolution = at or above the species level."
Other was round, the terms were invented by biologists, and are misused by creationists.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_Filipchenko
@chaosof99: "I always love the micro-evolution/macro-evolution bullshit distinction. It's like saying that "hey, you can walk 100 yards, but you sure as hell can't walk 10,000 miles!"
I can walk 100 yard, yet I still can't walk to the Moon. That microevolution happens doesn't automatically make all "macroevolution" possible. This is where fundtards start to misuse the terms, claiming that macroevo must mean dogs turning into cats or some such (usually involving their patent catch-all bullshit term "kind").
Let's say for example micro-evolution is you walking across your living room. Macro-evolution would then be you walking across the country.
If you accept micro-evolution, but not macro-evolution, what you're saying is that it is wrong/invalid/impossible to walk across the country. Tell that to Lewis and Clark.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
