1 2 3
I like this guy's answer in response to Dutchboy1
bleeep you furlong64, I’ve just signed up to gocomics purely to answer Dutchboy1 and you’ve beaten me to it! You’re right anyway of course, evolution is the result of much study of the natural world and creating a theory which fit the observations, as opposed to creationism, which cherrypicks and misinterprets data to fit a pre-conceived view. I’d add too that religion in general fits this ‘methodology’ - theists can always fit whatever happens in the world around their already settled opinion about how it works (mainly because their ideas are so nebulous and wishy-washy to begin with).
2/25/2009 5:33:08 PM
That sounds like how creationists do it: read it in the Bible, then make up some "facts" to explain it.
2/25/2009 5:34:07 PM
What's that? We've just run out of mirror polish again? Fine, I'll go to the store and get more.
2/25/2009 5:35:25 PM
Oh, for fucks sake. You clearly don't understand science.
2/25/2009 5:37:37 PM
Actually, you come up with a hypothesis, then test it against the evidence in a pay-per-view cagematch.
The hypotheses that live becomes theories.
2/25/2009 5:41:48 PM
I was born in the Netherlands and wish to apologize to everyone for seriouly misled Dutchboy1's ignorance.
2/25/2009 5:49:18 PM
Wottock C. Hunt
Ka-blooey went another irony meter.
2/25/2009 5:54:10 PM
2. Imaginary Sky Daddy Creator
4. Profit (for the churches)
This time, we can substitute ??? with religion.
2/25/2009 5:57:12 PM
Rat of Steel
Cue "Scientific Method vs. Creationist Method" pic in five, four, three, two, one....
2/25/2009 5:58:50 PM
That sounds like how fundies do it: cling to a fairytale, then spout off some ‘faith’ to explain it.
2/25/2009 6:00:10 PM
That is for the creation vs science pic
2/25/2009 6:02:07 PM
Dammit! John beat me to it. I aughta read some of these comments before I post. Sorry, everybody. I juust get carried away sometimes.
2/25/2009 6:02:55 PM
Why in the world can't you go to any site on the entire internet without seeing fundie drivel?
Popular mechanics, WoW, comics, pokemon, startrek, science journals, etc, etc. Is there no place free from their non-stop spouting of nonsense?
They accuse us of persecuting them but they prove the opposite every day. You can't even go read the damn comics without seeing some snide or preachy fundie post.
Gaahhh...I'm really starting to hate these people...
2/25/2009 6:05:11 PM
@Rat of Steel...
2/25/2009 6:05:12 PM
wow that mirror is shiny
2/25/2009 6:06:25 PM
You not only don't know how science works, you wouldn't know a fact if it bit you in the ass. Your ignorance was actually foretold in the apocryphal Book of Tureen: "And the snot of the father shall lie fallow in the nose of the son." - Tureen, 6:23 AM. That's what it means. No, really.
2/25/2009 6:08:51 PM
From the comments:
First of all you should know that I am a biologist (I hold a Masters in Biology with an emphasis in herpetology). As a hobby I breed snakes, I often select for specific genetic outcomes. I bought into the theory of evolution 100% until I took the time to truly evaluate the evidence.
Second, I never said that adaptation and natural selection did not and will not occur in the past, present, or future. However, there is a huge difference between adaptation or natural selection and the theory of evolution.
Finally, listing all the evidence against the theory of evolution is beyond the scope of this forum. However, I will say this much. Understand that there is a significant difference between adaptation (or natural selection) and evolution. When left uncontrolled by intelligence there is rarely, if ever, a genetic mutation (not an environmental adaptation) that leads to a more viable or desirable individual. That fact alone proves that the theory of evolution is false.
Simply astounding. This guy claims to be a biologist but knows not the first thing about evolution, and has apparently never read a paper on the subject. The absolute killer is:
Finally, look at the archaeological evidence that continues to prove the Bible to be a true and accurate source of historical information.
But please don't look at the archaeological evidence that doesn't.
If the Bible is a true and accurate source of historical information on all other topics, why would the account of creation be the one part of an otherwise proven true and accurate document that is not true or accurate. That is simply illogical.
Grass is green. Rome wasn't built in a day. Leonard Watson owes me $10,000.
Since the first two are demonstrably true, it is illogical for the third one to be false. Pay up, Leonard, you skinflint.
"As a hobby I breed snakes"
Do any of them talk?
2/25/2009 6:15:53 PM
I love how creationists do it: Open their bible and make up some "facts" to explain it.
2/25/2009 6:18:45 PM
I think this LeonardWatson character should really have had the honour of the FSTDT. His posts are like an ABC of bad creationist arguments.
"furlong64 and others who buy into the THEORY of evolution:"
Not knowing the difference between a theory and a hypothesis, by implication: check.
"One question: Have you ever actually read Darwin’s Origin’s of the Species or are you just parroting back what they taught you in biology class and in the media?"
Believing that Darwin is the last word in evolutionary theory: check. Getting the name of his book wrong: check. Assuming that real scientists get their information from GCSE biology and pop science: double check.
"He, himself never made the argument that humans evolved from apes or ultimately from a single celled organism that came out of a primordial ooze."
Confusing evolution with abiogenesis: check.
"First of all you should know that I am a biologist (I hold a Masters in Biology with an emphasis in herpetology)."
Claiming qualifications that anyone who'd earned wouldn't have made the aforesaid mistakes: check.
"If the Bible is a true and accurate source of historical information on all other topics, why would the account of creation be the one part of an otherwise proven true and accurate document that is not true or accurate. That is simply illogical."
Fallacy of composition: check.
"He may have used the minds and hands of various men to put the words to parchment but God is still the author of the whole context of Scripture Old and New testaments. Therefore, if one part of it is true all parts of it must be true."
Failed attempt to justify fallacy of composition: check.
"While I cannot say exactly how old the earth is, I can tell you that it is no where near 100,000,000 years old much less 500,000,000 years old."
"It was that discovery that lead me to come to faith in Christ and a belief in the Judeo-Christian God."
Equating theism with creationism (admittedly not an exclusively creationist argument): check.
@Vampirehummingbird: No worries. I apologise on behalf of the Anglosphere for giving you this plague.
2/25/2009 6:19:25 PM
The dumb. It buuuuuuuuuuuuuuurns!
2/25/2009 6:24:18 PM
This guy's a positive goldmine:
There is no scientific evidence that suggests or proves that a genetic mutation has ever produce a more viable or desirable result.
Because if it does he calls it "adaption" and therefore not "mutation". Notwithstanding that the individual genetic changes of many of these "adaptions" have been mapped.
Evolution assumes eons of time, which is a false assumption. The earth is not nearly as old as evolutionists would like you to believe it is. While I cannot say exactly how old the earth is, I can tell you that it is no where near 100,000,000 years old much less 500,000,000 years old.
Apparently, he's an expert geologist, geochemist, physicist and archaeologist too.
“Genesis can certainly contain false information that doesn’t impact some of the history in other parts. Your reasoning is fallacious.” You are again wrong because you started with a false premise. There is only one author of the entire Bible and that author is God. He may have used the minds and hands of various men to put the words to parchment but God is still the author of the whole context of Scripture Old and New testaments. Therefore, if one part of it is true all parts of it must be true.
So it's not the work of many people, it's the work of one supernatural person... done through many people. Given that the cartoon that stirred up the mud-puddle to begin with was about starting with a conclusion and making up stuff to fit it, this is pants-wettingly ironic. And not in a good way.
So porky do you have anything for us other than evolution is right? How about some hard evidence?
Mutation can be beneficial and adaptive:
"Adaptive mutation sequences reproduced by mismatch repair deficiency" - S Longerich, A M Galloway, R S Harris, C Wong, and S M Rosenberg, PNAS (1995) 92:12017-12020.
"Adaptive evolution that requires multiple spontaneous mutations: mutations involving base substitutions" - B G Hall, PNAS (1991) 88:5882-5886.
"Adaptive evolution by mutations in the FLO11 gene" - Manuel Fidalgo, Ramon R. Barrales, Jose I. Ibeas, and Juan Jimenez, PNAS (2006) 103:11228-11233.
Evolution: mutation + natural selection = adaption:
Biology 405.5, Montana State University.
Biology 372.1, Northern Arizona University.
2/25/2009 6:28:14 PM
Missing the point FTL!!!
2/25/2009 6:29:56 PM
As a hobby I breed snakes, I often select for specific genetic outcomes.
How do you do that, by using striped sticks?
2/25/2009 6:35:52 PM
2/25/2009 6:36:10 PM
Jezebel's Evil Sister
Un-bleeping-believable! When I saw the comic strip I was sure it would be followed by a fundie comment whining about it making fun of creationists. Wow, was I surprised when I scrolled down! It turns out they're even dumber than I suspected.
Objects in the highly polished mirror or even weirder than they appear.
2/25/2009 6:45:21 PM
1 2 3