25 Responses to “New species of finch emerges. Time for the Creationist spin in 3, 2, 1….”

1. Ansonidak says:

   January 9, 2010 at 4:57 pm

   Creationist spin is easy on this one. “This proves nothing because It’s still the same KIND!!”
2. ProfMike789 says:

   January 9, 2010 at 5:45 pm

   Or “The Galapagos is the only place where evolutionism happens because it’s a magical place created by the devil to convey EVILutionISM to his puppet Charles Darwin.”
3. darkchiron says:

   January 9, 2010 at 6:09 pm

   The spin will also likely include that this species was one just not seen previously, but it was always there.

   I’m sure someone’s going to use that one.
4. harkying99 says:

   January 9, 2010 at 6:55 pm

   creationist don’t understand that they themselves are proof of evolution.Because when they open their mouths you can see a human being evolve into a jackass.
5. Ansonidak says:

   January 9, 2010 at 7:39 pm

   God creates new species on the spot and makes it LOOK like evolution to test our faith!
6. Ansonidak says:

   January 9, 2010 at 7:47 pm

   It takes more than a degree to make a scientist. Conversely You can be a scientist without any formal schooling. It’s not a matter of degrees; it’s about methods and attitude.
7. lyco46 says:

   January 10, 2010 at 12:22 am

   Ignorance rarely begets knowledge
   only confidence
8. 7glitch says:

   January 10, 2010 at 1:18 am

   great video . i didnt know they had a new species till i saw this.
9. nocturnezero says:

   January 10, 2010 at 2:26 am

   The great Creationist misconception is that species are something that are physical and tangible in nature, like each animal has a little tag on it that tells all the information about it’s family, species, genus, etc. when in truth these are all human classifications that hold no real weight outside of the scientific world, so they can’t say the “absolute” of “there can be no new species,” simply because species are a human classification. This also applies to the mi/macroevolution argument.
10. dummbatz48 says:

    January 10, 2010 at 9:32 am

    @nocturnezero

    Ya that’s the biggest problem I run into when arguing with creationists
11. heyalun says:

    January 10, 2010 at 3:15 pm

    Analogy is a cornerstone of biology, science, and logic in general. That’s why we can assume that one flu shot will work for every one without doing an exhaustive study on every person’s physiology.

    But my point in bringing up cell machinery was that all life is complex measured by the standard of human manufacture. I didn’t say it proved intelligent design.
12. funincluded says:

    January 10, 2010 at 3:21 pm

    Oh shut up you moron.

    There’s a difference between analogy between particulars and the kind of metaphorical, vague, UNscientific rhetoric you just spewed to make (seemingly) a case for intelligent design
13. whaumbatt says:

    January 14, 2010 at 6:17 am

    I hope you are smiling when you say that.
14. robertwc82 says:

    January 16, 2010 at 1:44 am

    “blah blah micro-evolution, blah blah macro-evolution” lol
15. 99minerkc says:

    January 20, 2010 at 4:39 pm

    New species of finch emerges? Nope, it was always there since God created it 6000 years ago. The bird was playing hide ans seek with the scientists all these years!! o.O
16. 99minerkc says:

    January 20, 2010 at 4:40 pm

    New species of finch emerges? Nope, it was always there since God created it 6000 years ago. The bird was playing hide ans seek with the scientists all these years!! o.O
17. Bigbiber89 says:

    January 31, 2010 at 11:59 pm

    “6000 years ago”

    made my day

    The earth ist 4.6 Billion years old not 600 its hillarious
18. 99minerkc says:

    February 1, 2010 at 12:04 am

    600 years ago, who said 600? It’s more like 4.6 billion years ago! You apparently didn’t realize that I was joking(sarcasm)around?
19. Bigbiber89 says:

    February 1, 2010 at 12:36 am

    i obviously didn’t get it^^ nobody is perfect nice one traped me
20. rkyeun says:

    February 25, 2010 at 4:32 am

    No, that’s not accurate. When we first tried immunization, we did have to try it on everyone. But it worked on everyone we tried it on. And it kept working. And now unless we’re given reason to expect it won’t, we don’t feel the need to keep testing it because it’s already been shown to work. That’s not an analogy, that’s direct evidence and observation.
21. rkyeun says:

    February 25, 2010 at 4:34 am

    How many creationists have degrees in Creationism?
22. funincluded says:

    February 25, 2010 at 5:53 am

    I don’t know… but a lot do

    obviously they’re not real degrees, though.
    Would you consider ‘apologetics’ a degree in creationism?

    What’s your point?
23. rkyeun says:

    February 25, 2010 at 6:11 am

    My point is that if they’re going to claim the argument is invalid coming from anyone without a degree, they can all shut right the hell up because none of them have one.
24. elgostine says:

    March 9, 2010 at 1:57 pm

    no it doesnt
    if someone makes an error, so what its an error, if someone realises later and goes… ‘well, shit.. i forgot that part’ and admts it.. thats fine. whatswrong is someone who even realising they made an error, and being called on it, still tries to deny they did.
25. elgostine says:

    March 9, 2010 at 2:02 pm

    not a totally unreasonable one either, we do often find that hings were there, we just wernt looking hard enough. like in soils my prof in microbiology and statistics (Prof fraser torpy of the Universty of technology, sydney) said that if given the money, he could go out into the nearest egetations, dig up a shovelful of soil and find a dozen new types of bacterium and microorganisms.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

Leave a Reply