"In all their polemics, the anti-creationists invariably avoid discussing the actual scientific evidence for macro-evolution. If there were any such evidence, they could easily settle the whole conflict, merely by presenting the evidence! Instead they seem compelled to resort to bombast ridicule, defamation, intimidation, and distortion.
38 comments
And since I'm bored:
"In all their polemics, the anti-evolutionists invariably avoid discussing the actual scientific evidence for creation. If there were any such evidence, they could easily settle the whole conflict, merely by presenting the evidence! Instead they seem compelled to resort to bombast ridicule, defamation, intimidation, and distortion."
I only had to change 2 words too.
Creationist: Where's the evidence for macro-evolution?
Sane person: Here it is.
Creationist: La la la la la, I can't hear you, la la la la la.
(Sane person walks away)
Creationist: There's no evidence for macro-evolution. I win.
Nice mirror. Now present the evidence for your side. What's that, you don't have any. So that's why you guys are always on the offensive, flinging mud at every opportunity. You have no evidence. Just a political smear campaign, hoping to discredit reality because it goes against the literal interpritation of your creation myth(with it's two seperate creation accounts).
[In all their polemics, the anti-creationists invariably avoid discussing the actual scientific evidence for macro-evolution.]
"Anti-creationists"? "Macro-evolution"? I can tell where this is going.
As for discussing the evidence: that's what the scientific method does .
The ToE has faced more criticism than any other scientific theory. It's passed every test along the way. It's as valid as any other scientific theory.
[If there were any such evidence, they could easily settle the whole conflict, merely by presenting the evidence!]
This has already been done. Countless times. You and your ilk deny it.
[Instead they seem compelled to resort to bombast ridicule, defamation, intimidation, and distortion.]
The science teachers of Dover, PA beg to differ.
Henry Morris was at a debate where he claimed there was no evidence that monoclonius evolved into triceratops because there were no fossils with "incipient eye horns". The local teacher pulled out a catalog of fossils and read a description of a monoclonius skull with, using Morris' exact words, "incipient eye horns".
Scientists have had evidence supporting evolution for generations, while creationists have only bombast, ridicule, defamation, intimidation, and distortion. They deserve only the same in return.
For fucks sake
MACRO-EVOLUTION IS WHEN A WHOLE BUNCH OF MICRO-EVOLUTION HAS TAKEN PLACE
Sorry folks I'm just so fucking tired of this argument, we keep answering them, but they ignore us. Willful ignorance bugs the hell out of me.
In all their polemics, the anti-creationists invariably avoid discussing the actual scientific evidence for macro-evolution.
Scientists discuss evidence for evolution all the time. Creationists just either ignore it or say "it's not enough". When creationist Michael Behe was questioned at the Kitzmiller trial concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system, he was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system.
That too would settle some of the conflict.
John wrote:When creationist Michael Behe was questioned at the Kitzmiller trial concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system, he was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system. [IMG]http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/4372/immuneevolutionmichaelbrx5.th.jpg[/IMG]
Not one of which Behe had ever read before the trial.
Funny, when I've seen fundies and "anti - creationists" debating the subject the fundies invariably either/or -
LOL..they have won a long time ago..thats why they hold highly honored departments in prestigious colleges world wide. When they speak, people take notes. When they produce, thousands of people get cured and quality of life goes up.
Creationists, on the other hand, hold positions in trailers with mail order doctorates and fleece people of money every chance they get. The only benefit or profit to be had from any of its "research" is to con people into donating money or buying media. Creationism is all talk, no production.
Tolpuddle Martyr said: "b) Make like the guy in "The Life of Brian" and start wailing "help, help I'm being oppressed." "
Martyr, that was in the Holy Grail. It was a peasant yelling "help, help I'm being oppressed!" because his freedom of speech was violated XD
@Palifox:
No it isn't.
"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."[i]Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences[/i] 104:8669-8676 .
We'll admit denying God existance doesn't mean God doesn't exist. You can't prove he does though. As for evolution we DO have the fossils and they do show small and larger changes over time.
"Creation Science" is not science, you need to experiment, document and show real facts for a conclusion. You people do none of that
If there were any such evidence, they could easily settle the whole conflict, merely by presenting the evidence!
You make the mistaken assumption that you fundies actually listen to reason. It takes two to tango, pal.
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.
