“Sorry, I don’t believe in revolution” — History vs BiologyAug 14, 2012 • By Abraham•From SMBC… Share on Facebook Trending TodayReady for Another One?Give us a few more minutes and we'll make you laugh, cry, gasp, or ache... Guaranteed! 10 simple and nifty life hacks in less than 2 minutes, Part 3 — Kitchen edition Trailer for the new adaptation of “Great Expectations” Get the best of 22 Words in your inbox Like 22 Words on Facebook comments dougo says: nice. the goal-post shifting of the creation-research movement is pretty well represented here. indeed, evolution doesn’t seek to explain the purpose behind life – it simply states that it is. where theistic-evoutionists (i.e. Christians who aren’t anti-evolution) diverge is where scientific explanations are extrapolated, overstepping themselves and becoming ‘scientism’ – a wanna-be unified theory to explain intent and purpose, something science since Francis Bacon has (by definition) no interest in. Andrew says: Well put. Garth says: How’s that cool-aid tasting andy? nfn says: dude. kool aid is spelled with a k. Garth says: No, no, no, you don’t understand the basic tenant behind creation-research. Evolution truly has no real proof and the more information we obtain about the complexity of life, the more it becomes evident that there is intelligence in the design. You materialists are actually “running out of time”. The more complex life gets, the more time you will need for your belief in the “inevitable” to happen but what we are observing about life is going the other way. Very strange.The “scientists” of today are very much like the Catholic church in Galileo’s day. It’s amazing how the roles have reversed! Now, go bury your head in the sand dougo. Kurt says: I evolution were not real then selective breeding wouldn’t work. Think about it, you don’t see the skeletons of poodles next to triceratops skeletons. That’s because we (human beings) domesticated and selectively bred wolves until they became the various breeds of dogs we know today. You deny animals who have traits you don’t want the opportunity to breed (by fixing them or putting them down) and allow animals that have traits you want to breed by putting them in proximity to each other until they decide to have sex. This eventually allows the domesticated animals to evolve into a new domesticated species over several generations. This is not a theory, it is practiced by dog breeders all the time.Same thing with agricultural plants. You can find fossils of ferns and trees (go to a museum that has them), but you will never find fossilized corn, wheat, barley, oat, or rice. WE caused these species of plants to evolve within human history by selecting and cultivating strains of grass for larger seeds and taller stalks until they speciated into these crop plants. Again, not theory, practice. Something that can be done over several plant generations by manually taking pollen from one plant and manually pollinating other plants with it.If evolution were not real, then selective breeding wouldn’t work. You would select for a desired trait over and over and over again and never get the organism you were selectively breeding would never change. Marcie says: Garth, for starters, I’m not about to take science lessons from someone who doesn’t know the difference between “tenets” and “tenants.” Good grief. Jurgen says: A Straw man is always the easiest to knock down, or in this case mock. Chel says: Well put. Paperchase says: Actually creationist arguments at their most involved and academicesque are very easy to put down without the use of straw men.This, conversely, is a joke. You don’t have to laugh at it, or like it, or even not be offended by it. But if you’re going to dismiss humour on the strawman basis, I’d invite you to cry some nice little rivers as well. Ajax says: Is it a strawman? Because I find actual creationist arguments equally as easy to knock down and mock. CG says: Before the universe existed, was it possible for the universe to both exist and not exist at the same time and in the same way?Very interesting. So the laws of logic (and math, for that matter) exist prior to and outside of the universe? Where do you think they come from, I wonder? Paperchaser says: Is that an honest question, CG, or are you providing a witty example of what a strawman argument actually is by associating a belief in biological evolution with a disbelief in a Prime Mover or God-dy sort of person? Ajax says: Thanks for proving my point, CG. Bravo! grouchy says: Also this is hardly a straw man, these are common and barely altered arguments made against evolution by Creationists. anon says: I disagree. Teaching difficulty is the same, it’s the kids that are stupid. Joel says: Thanks for that wonderful help and encouragement. Have you read Herodotus’ Histories, Plato’s Republic, Dante’s Inferno, Darwin’s On the Origin of Species, Shakespeare’s The Tempest, Richard III, Henry V, Julius Caesar, Plutarch’s Lives, Newton’s Principia, the Epic of Gilgamesh, Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales, Homer’s Odyssey, Euclid’s Elements Volumes 1 and 2, all within the past three years? Have you critically analyzed Mein Kampf, The Communist Manifesto, the works of Benjamin Franklin, the speeches of Abraham Lincoln, the Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist Papers, all within the past year?My name’s Joel. I’m 14 years old. And it’s exactly your attitude that has contributed to the problems of America and the world in general, not the least of which being the economy, clean water, renewable energy, world hunger, and education. If you do not encourage the posterity of this generation to help solve these problems, then you are only expanding the black hole of problems that we, and in time our own children, must face.If anything, it’s not the kids that are stupid, it’s those who are guiding us into adulthood. So think before you speak next time. Just because you’re on the internet doesn’t mean your words and actions don’t hurt people. Jimmy says: Is that Homer Simpson? Apologies0 says: Amazing to see see you’re all PhDs in biological sciences here.1) There IS a distinction between micro and macro evolutionary theories. While microevolution is a scientifically reliable theory proven through many studies, macroevolutionary theory does NOT get the same success. It has many flaws and is neither entirely supported by the record of nature nor a lot of scientific research. In fact, many evolutionists disagree on the mechanisms of macroevolution. Both gradualism and punctuated equilibrium have major flaws and extrapolating macroevolution to account for changes in phyla is not justified.Let’s call it what it really is: The only reason the scientific community is mostly agreed on macroevolution is because “how else do you explain that all life is based on the same genetic code, or that so many species have proteins with homologous amino acid sequences?” Clearly and it’s been said before: For the naturalist, macroevolutionary theory is the only game in town.Just today I was looking at a case of “convergent evolution” and thought that concept was a joke. Denial will leave you emptier.And don’t get me started on how flawed abiogenesis theories are.One more thing. The wide majority of scholars are agreed that Jesus really did exist. Maybe you should listen to your own advice and look into what he may have said/done.Hope everyone has a good evening. Species says: Apologies, I love you! Well said. Perfect actually… micro/macro is a complete fallacy. The two modalities are at odds with each other. And the morphological boundaries of micro evolution are evident in dogs and cats!! kwhitefoot says: Quote: One more thing. The wide majority of scholars are agreed that Jesus really did exist.Could you give us a few names? eMatters says: Look up Mike Licona and his “minimal facts” argument about facts of history that nearly all scholars agree on (Jesus really lived and died on a Roman cross, the Apostle Paul persecuted Christians then became one and wrote books attributed to him in the Bible, the disciples really thought Jesus rose from the dead, etc.).Even atheist textual critics like Bart Ehrman mock those who think Jesus didn’t exist. Sam says: Are you a PhDs in biological sciences? If not, not sure what would be the basis to consider your opinion over all the others?A simple reading of Wikipedia articles with all its references, should be good enough to enlighten must of us non-phd folks!http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Macroevolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism Izkata says: Macroevolution is the accumulation of changes from Microevolution.They are the same thing, just over different lengths of time. The boundary between them is when you can start to differentiate the two populations into two actual species. Antonio says: For anyone who rejects the theory of evolution, before commenting, please bear in mind that a theory in layman’s terms mean an idea, while a theory in scientific terms means an idea that has undergone extensive testing and experimentation and has never been disproven. The only difference between a scientific theory and a natural law is that we have no way to entirely and irrefutably prove that a theory is as we say it is. Please don’t try and undermine Evolution based on semantics. You have no ground to say it’s wrong because it has not been proven to you unless you can actually disprove it. The same goes for evolutionists in regard to religion. James says: I think the point of creationists when they highlight that it’s a “theory” is to say exactly what you said, it CAN’T be proven… yet it’s taught as though it has. Just as they would agree that creationism is a theory that also can’t be proven. Both sides have evidence and highly intelligent people to support their stances. I think creationists would just like to not have their beliefs dismissed as nonsense when it rests as a theory just as evolution. eMatters says: Ugh. What a pathetic straw man argument that wasn’t even funny. No one is denying that things change. We are pointing out the obvious: You don’t get get something from nothing, life doesn’t come from non-life and you don’t get the highly ordered, specified complexity of things like DNA by natural selection and mutation. Do a little research and you’ll find that even the Darwinists are having to find new arguments to prop up their atheism, because more and more scientific discoveries are proving their theories wrong. They thought “junk DNA” was proof of evolution, until they found out that it wasn’t junk after all. They thought that the fossil record and the “tree of life” would prove their theory, but that has failed as well.Keep in mind that your public schools are monopolized by Darwinists and that they deliberately shield you from opposing views. They use fallacious arguments like this comic instead of legitimate reasoning. If you really want to understand the other side, check out one or both of these:Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design by Stephen C. Meyer http://www.amazon.com/Signature-Cell-Evidence-Intelligent-Design/dp/0061472794/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1307907110&sr=8-1Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design by Stephen C. Meyer http://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Doubt-Explosive-Intelligent-ebook/dp/B0089LOM5G/ref=sr_1_2?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1364310570&sr=1-2 nfn says: shepherd fairey draws intelligent designs. nfn says: i’d also like to say that kurt godel didn’t believe in the natural sciences and he could out logic everyone on the internetuariums. Publius says: …except the French Revolution was a purposeful, active change made by conscious individuals acting toward a goal. Can the same be said for evolution? I’m always amused by the overt anthropomorphisms used to describe how organisms mutated themselves to adapt.