Actually the core of the argument is that speculation replaced science. We have no evidence whatsoever for macro-evolution, none, zero, zilch. Now it's about word games and rhetoric. Speculation is king, along with some really neat computer generated graphics and the Discovery channel to sway young, impressionable minds that all life emerged from nothing and that it rained on a rock and life sprang from the chemical stew (abiogenisis).
We've experienced fraud to back up fraud (Miller experiment) and entire textbooks that sound more like fairy tales (millions and billions of years ago...) then anything remotely scientific. What frightens us is that delusional people who believe in such fantasies control the entire mainstream establishment and use that power like Lenin and Trotsky.
16 comments
YOU might not have any evidence for speciation, but science definitely does. Museums around the world are literally filled with evidence for "macro" evolution.
It's cretinists that say life came from nothing. Science has a couple of fairly good ideas how life emerged.
It's the Bible that sounds like a fairy tale, and it's not remotely scientific.
No, but a giant invisible sky daddy that no one has ever seen, and for some reason doesn't need any kind of causation. Somehow willed everything into existence as is.
Good lord. This person is belligerently oblivious. I checked the comment section he's quoted from. One could not get a thought contrary to his beliefs into his head with anything less than a bullet.
To summarize
The Penitent man: "We have no evidence whatsoever for macro-evolution, none, zero, zilch. Now it's about word games and rhetoric. Speculation is king!"
Scientist: "If enough 'micro-evolutionary' changes build on top of each other for many enough generations it can result in a 'macro-evolutionary' change from Species A to Species B!"
The Penitent man (agitated): "Don't try *bullshitting* me! THAT is NOT *macro-evolution*! Macro-evolution is changing from Species A to Species B FROM ONE GENERATION TO THE NEXT!!!! And there is NO evidence of such a thing happening, EVER! None, zero, zilch!!!!!!"
If Noah only took two animals of each "kind" on the ark, and yet they diversified into thousands upon thousands of distinct species within just a few thousand years, that would be evidence of incredibly fast macro-evolution.
Also, the current research on abiogenesis points to hydrothermal vents, not "primordial soup." Love the way you fundies keep fighting hypotheses science abandoned years ago.
This is what someone writes when they have their fingers in their ears, eyes tightly shut, and saying, "Nyah nyah nyah I can't hear you!"
Why we sadly cannot posses any nice things as a species, part 943856. They will exist in any society but in the healthy one they will be a source of constant and fully earned ridicule, now we are under facebook bubble though.
We have no evidence whatsoever for macro-evolution, none, zero, zilch.
Sure we do. We have the fossils of thousands of creatures that aren't found anymore, and plenty of living animals that are never found before a certain time period. The only way you get around that problem is either believing in an ongoing continuous supernatural creation process or inventing "explanations" for radiometric dating and geologic evidence.
Well, when you can come up with something infinitely more credible than a fairytale, get back to us.
...oh yes, that's right: you lot already tried just over a decade ago, in Kitzmiller vs. Dover.
And when testimony by a Professor of Biochemistry, Michael Behe, can be all but laughed out of court and regarded in the final decision as pure pseudoscience by a Conservative Christian judge no less, then there never was an 'argument' to start with.
...oh, and if you think that said Professor was testifying for the plaintiffs: to prevent Creationism taught in all US schools, you'd be...:
image
The decision of said Conservative Christian Judge - John E. Jones III - helped the mainstream establishment: which includes Dr. Buzz Aldrin, himself a Conservative Christian, and promoter of secular science, especially that pertaining to space , so enjoy your paradox, Penis man.
Because you talk a load of cock .
Know what the miller experiment did that they call fraudulent?
The Miller experiment created many vessels filled with various chemical/atmospheric properties and various sunlight/electrical exposures, not knowing what early Earth atmospheric and chemical concentration conditions were. Some vessels produced early bonding signs they consider necessary for life formation.
So creationists have a field day with "fake conditions". This guy missed the obligatory "forced down our throats" line right after Trotsky. Bad fundie!
But he got the 'fear science' idea in there.
The Miller-Urey experiment didn't match the conditions of the early Earth, true, but do you know who discovered and publicised that? Scientists researching the formation of life. When I was reading about the experiment in science class, the textbook began a paragraph by stating that the conditions in the experiment didn't match Earth's early atmosphere. So, according to creationists, if you make a mistake, check your work and realise your mistake,and then freely admit to anybody who wants to know that you were wrong about something (but you proved the point you were trying to make anyway), you have somehow comitted fraud.
"What frightens us is that delusional people who believe in such fantasies control the entire mainstream establishment and use that power like Lenin and Trotsky."
The Soviet Union banned the teaching of evolution. You are like Lenin and Trotsky.
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.
