Non Sequitur by Wiley Miller for February 24, 2009

Logic…a lost art. Danae has created an alternate universe.

No. She just created Math Jeopardy.

Danae just rediscovered political logic.

I think our government beat her to it. They have mastered indepth feasibility studies over needless answers.

Guys, guys…you make fun of her, but basically she re-invented inductive reasoning…first used by Aristotle, it is THE basis for the scientific method. Kudos to Danae…

That sounds like how evolutionists do it: come up a theory, then make up some ‘facts’ to explain it.

Better than Dutchboy’s process, where it’s lies from top to bottom.

Danae wears the same outfit summer & winter. She must not admit that winter is cold.

Jackone, are you familiar with Little Dot? Dot had a closetful of near-identical (all polka-dotted, black-on-red) dresses. Maybe Danae has a closetful of skull-logo outfits, including seasonally-apt ones?

Yes the “Shazam!” theory of life on earth is so much more factual and correct than the theory of evolution. Tell me, did God use a magic wand or just wave his arms? And on what evidence do you base your assertion.

So I guess if it isn’t about politics the debate randomly turns to evolutionary theory? I think my head needs to just remain firmly planted on my desk while reading Mr. Wiley’s daily cartoons. Or maybe I just need to stop looking at the frikken comments because of their pointlessness.

Teresa, you head is much better off there firmly planted on your desk, than where some of the other talking heads on here are firmly planted. At least you can enjoy the sun when it is shining.

It amuses me how people purely come on here to complain about the comments posted. If you don’t like them, then ignore them and comment on the ones you do like. Yes, I do realize I am now complaining about other comments myself, but this is the only time, I swear!

c00k13m0n5t3r, good observation, I hadn’t thought about it that way. Now if only my math instructors gave me the answers so I can try out this new system…

furlong64 and others who buy into the THEORY of evolution:

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?

If you were to actually read Darwin you would find that while he personally believed in evolution, his thesis was really about adaptation and natural selection. 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.

All of that nonsense is often credited to Darwin but in reality came from others who extrapolated on what Darwin wrote.

In the end there is as more scientific evidence for Intelligent Design, or even pure creationism, than there is for evolution.

Leonard Watson says:”In the end there is as more scientific evidence for Intelligent Design, or even pure creationism, than there is for evolution.”

Name one that isn’t just a negative attack on evolution or a “Evolution can’t explain x”.

The Theory of evolution is used to by biologists to determine what flu vaccines to use from one year to the next. What practical applications use Intelligent Design?

Name a peer-reviewed article that has been published in favor of Intelligent Design.

LW: Prove it! Mere conjecture and grand statements do not establish fact. Humans as a species and all life on this planet have and continue to alter themselves through natural and artificial selection through out its history. To state that evolution does not exist is to deny that viruses can become resistant to new drugs in a relatively short period of time or that the domestic dog is anything other than a Siberian Wolf. As children are not genetically identical to one parent or the other, how can you state that this is not evolution/natural/artificial selection in action?

LW:

BUY INTO the Theory of Evolution? You mean accept observable evidence?

As a matter of fact, many of those who post about evolution on the internet HAVE read the Origins of Species. If you knew anything about evolution, you’d know that natural selection is the main mechanism of evolution.

Of course, Darwin never explicitly stated that humans evolved from ape-like creatures, he knew how the public would react. He spent a whole twenty years hesitating on whether he should publish the book in the first place. Nonetheless, anyone with common sense can see that his claims led to the obvious conclusion that humans, like all other living beings, had evolved from something too. We’re not some “special exception.”

As for abiogenesis, he DID state that life could have originated from a “a warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present” Are you aware of his letter to Joseph Hooker? Once again, imagine the repercussions it would have had on his reputation if he had made that idea public.

In the end, Intelligent Design/Creationism is still a bunch of bullocks. There is absolutely no evidence supporting it. It bases itself on a conclusion and then uses pseudoscience and ignorance to support itself.

Doctortoon:

That’s what happens when creationists spur their nonsense in the comments section and http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/ links to the comic. ;)

Oh, Leonard. 1: a scientific theory isn’t the same as a a popular theory, so your capitalization just makes you look misinformed. 2: if you had read Darwin’s book, you might have gotten its title right. Hint: it’s not “Origin of the Species”. 3: Quite right, Darwin dedicated an extra book to human evolution, called Descent of Man. Apparently you’ve never heard of it.

So, looks more like you’re parroting back what you’ve heard in church rather than having actually made the slightest attempt at understanding evolution. So go on, read Darwin again, and at least memorize the titles this time.

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.

Finally, look at the archaeological evidence that continues to prove the Bible to be a true and accurate source of historical information. 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.

Folks- go to the www.ncseweb.org site and look around. The National Council on Science Education is a terrific resource to explain and explore evolution. Speaking as a scientist who is also a Christian, I’ll just note that:

Most scientists – even most evolutionary scientists – are religious. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive unless you belong to a very narrow kind of religious interpretation of the Bible, e.g., fundamentalist literalist Christians and Muslims (who share creationist doctrine). Most scientists believe in evolution. We think God can create life any way He chooses. Frankly, my God seems to be much bigger than those of the ID/Creationists. He’s not afraid of a gigantic, ancient universe! “Theory” does means something different in scientific circles, and is not a criticism of its validity. In the case of evolution it is perhaps the single best-validated theory in the history of science – and certainly in the life sciences. If you want to explore evolutionary science, it is far from a closed area. There are numerous books, ranging from Darwin on. Science, unlike religion, continues to evolve (sorry, pun not intended) as we acquire new facts, but Darwin’s concepts have held up extremely well. What we have done since is enhance our understanding of inheritance through genetics (which Darwin did not know – ironically, he had a copy of Mendel’s book on his shelf when he passed away, but with pages uncut), microbiology, a better understanding of mutation, etc., etc., etc.

crittergitter

So crucify me for a typo? I suppose you never made one?

I actually enjoy reading some of the debates, quite interesting. The only time it gets dull is when some users scurry in from other forums then go back and brag how they “dropped a bombshell”. And yet the same people have no problems bit slapping around people that go against their group mentality. Practice what you preach at the couch there.

And take your Kool Aid with you. :P

FW: I’m glad you are so widely read.

It has been my experience that the only people who fear a spirited debate on any topic are those who do not know why they believe what they believe about that topic.

If someone does not take the time to research the topic and formulate their own beliefs, based on study of both sides of the topic, they are frequently fearful of being proven wrong by those who do. This fear drives them to resort to name calling or complaining about the debate.

LW (and others who have seen me post on GoComics)-Now you understand what my Pastor meant when he told me not to try to convince heathens about the fallacy of their beliefs. I promised a while ago that I would no longer discuss religion on these forums, and I won’t. Notice how the scenes (especially in panel 1) look like a scene from the movie “Narnia”? Food for thought re: C.S. Lewis. Happy Birthday, Tabbylynn!

1 redskins fan,

I can appreciate your stance on the issue. The truth is I debate controversial subjects on this and other forums for three very important reasons:

I enjoy the banter and the plethora of opinions and ideas expressed by the other side.

The debates give me insight into what fallacies others out there are buying into so I can be better prepared to counter them.

Somebody has to be the voice of truth and reason.

Note: I failed to plug the hole of why Danae isn’t wearing a toque (or other head covering) to keep her ears warm–but I guess her helmet-hair would work fine.

Ah! The free exchange of ideas and opinions! That is why this is a comments section. This is a debate and not a monologue. A conversation and not a lecture. A collected series of statements intended to establish a preposition(to paraphrase Monty Python’s Argument sketch). Just telling someone to “Go Away!”, unless their comments become deliberately offensive or inflammitory, does nothing to further your own argument.

Thank-you very much, you are on your own. Good day.

Oh, and this is not what biologists do. We are strictly “if X then y” sorts. Creationism, astrology, mysticism, etc., all rely on this: they explain facts after the observation by shoe-horning as much as possible. And when the facts are too hard to shoe-horn, then it is just “well, the gods work in mysterious ways…”

I’m trying to remember what sort of logical fallacy this is. It sort of is the fallacy of appealing to belief, isn’t it?

It is amazing how this suddenly became a forum for evolution. Well, I have discovered that every evolutionist to whom I talk, cannot answer my questions. They just keep chanting the mantra, “It just happened” when we KNOW there are multiple levels of change that would never, never happen by chance.

Actually, this is not inductive reasoning: that is (for example) noting that all crows are black and concluding that crows are black. Of course, that is the basis of hypothesis testing: if X then y; not y, not X. In reality, it always is probability as there are no universal “if X then y” statements, or at least none that anybody cares about any more!

On evolution–well, this particular comments section has certainly devolved from being a place to actually discuss/critique the strip into a flame-war about evolution!

Wiley I do enjoy the strip! It is amazing how often Danae will come up with something new to either get out of doing something or to prove herself correct to the rest of the world.

That aside, Genesis stories also have their roots in the other stories of other civilzations of the Fertile Cresant region, ie: Epic of Gilgamesh. Also to be noted is that there seem to be two creation stories at the begining of Genesis. Even the Book of Isaiah has at least three different authors. Faith and Science are not mutually exclusive, just getting them together can be problematic.

Cheers!

One thing I noticed is that when asked, LW never listed a example of evidence for Intelligent Design. Neither did he give a practical example of how ID is used or any ID peer-review papers. He just went into evolution attack mode claiming that adaptation is not evolution. He claims that he’s a biologist but then makes the standard mistake of equating scientific theory to that of a educated guess. This is not a mistake that a proper biologist would make.

So Leonard, do you have anything for us other than “Evolution is wrong”?

we’re only in the 35th day of the new age and we’ve already reverted to political logic….

treered, I think it was only 30 days when the NY Post took their shot at anything beyond reason… Unfortunately, it does take more than 5 weeks to change hearts and minds on all levels…

Cheers!

baslimthebegger

There is no scientific evidence that suggests or proves that a genetic mutation has ever produce a more viable or desirable result.

You said:”Evolution generally occurs over long time spans – which a literal interpretation of the bible doesn’t seem to allow.” This is true and is the flawed basis for the evolutionary argument. 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.

You also said: “The old testament (and the new) is a compilation of writings, not a single source. 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.

PorkyPine: You say I have not given examples of evidence of ID, and that is true. I try not to make my posts overly long and there is not space here to do so. However, you should note that neither has anyone else provided and evidence of Evolution, only tired theories. Whether you believe me or not I am still a biologist, I am just one who has taken the time to study both sides of this topic and come to an informed opinion. It was my thorough study of evolution in college that caused me to question the theory and look at both sides of the issue. When I did I realized that ID and/Creationism made much more sense than evolution. It was that discovery that lead me to come to faith in Christ and a belief in the Judeo-Christian God.

So porky do you have anything for us other than evolution is right? How about some hard evidence?

Good catch Lucy!

..and God sang,”Talk about evilution(sp)we all want to change the world”….

If god is the sole author of the bible, then it is a plagiarist. Also this is a great cartoon written and drawn by a genius of the medium.

I’m tempted to tie the cartoon with the comments, but I’m not going to go there.

Instead, what happens if Danae comes up with an equation she thinks is correct, but no one else does? Is she still right?

Sorry, Wiley. My tongue-in-cheek humor got carried away. I like your work and Danae’s solutions.

don’t be so arrogant “joe Minotaur” you would be the first to “troll” A body were they to plant Bombs over at pib…let folkes enjoy what they want where they want and dont get off by being a bully…sorry were no as smart as yew !!!

LW - As the bible says “shake the dust from your feet”. Some whill never velieve and they are the ones who will suffer in the long run for their refusal. Move on to where the fields are white with harvest.

Yikes! Can we call a mortis on the name calling and self-righteousness? All this because of a comic strip that points out that, yeah, we all like to be correct, and some people go further and put more effort into it than 99% of the rest of the world. Yes, I know I contributed to some of the madness earlier, so I am not above it. I’m just saying that some of the posts here have been over the top, and requesting some civility and the agreement to disagree with each others varying world veiws. [Steps down off of soapbox, but leaves Helmet on}

LW-I’m a little disappointed that you either didn’t catch or chose not to respond to my non-religion comment on “Narnia” and C.S. Lewis! It is like commenting three times, on a particular comic, that I won’t comment on that comic (which I did!) <:-)

LW Says:”There is no scientific evidence that suggests or proves that a genetic mutation has ever produce a more viable or desirable result.”

Except for those pesky bacteria that keep getting resistant to our antibiotics.

LW:”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.”

Not only is LW a biologist, he’s also a geologist.

It’s a good thing that you don’t listen to those geologist that tell you that the Earth is 100,000,000 years old. They would be wrong. It’s more like 4,500,000,000.

You say that you are sure that the Earth is no more than 500,000,000 years old. How are you sure of this? What is your method of testing this?

LW:”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.”

I don’t really like getting into bible discussions but, the Bible says that in order to get speckled calves, you need to put striped poles in front of your cattle or, if you want to cure leprosy, you need a priest to sprinkle bird blood over you. Are these true statements?

LW:”However, you should note that neither has anyone else provided and evidence of Evolution, only tired theories.”

I did it up with my claim that the theory of evolution is used to engineer vaccines. Does ID have anything similar?

LW:”Whether you believe me or not I am still a biologist, ”

Just one who doesn’t understand how scientific theories work.

LW:”So porky do you have anything for us other than evolution is right? How about some hard evidence?”

I’ve already given you one. If you want another, Endogenous retrovirus.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#retroviruses

Can ID explain how these came to be? I know that evolution can.

Finally, I’d like to apologize to everyone here for this interruption in your forum. You can thank Dutchboy and LW and me for that. This will be my last post on the subject. If DB, LW or anyon else would like to carry on the conversation, we can take it over to the site below.

http://www.freeratio.org/index.php

math

WOW! My comment sure made the evolution dogmatists crawl out from under their rocks (or out of a swamp somewhere, if you believe them). Boy, the fastest way to p.o. an evolutionists is to question his religion. They really don’t want to objectively debate the facts, just put down anyone who believes differently (anybody see the movie Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed?). It has been my experience that the real reason evolutionists believe in that theory is not that the actual evidence supports it, but that they REALLY don’t want to the alternative to be true.

Hey LeonardWatson, You made a lot of sense there. Funny, isn’t it, how when it comes to ‘debates’ on this subject the creationists/intelligent design advocates almost always sound calm and rational, while evolutionists always come across as angry, unreasonable zealots?

Antibiotics kill susceptible bacteria in a population while un-susceptible bacteria are allowed to multiply…same theory of genetics as fixing a fancy strain of fish or a dog breed. Allow only one type to breed. Good posts LW and Dutchboy.