Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
About Varied / Hobbyist Member Jonathan Wojcik31/Male/United States Group :iconthe-fleagroup: The-Fleagroup
 
Recent Activity
Deviant for 11 Years
Needs Premium Membership
Statistics 1,308 Deviations 13,196 Comments 415,872 Pageviews

Newest Deviations

Favourites

Activity


Recently I tried to educate someone on DA who believes the usual "evolution is the devil's lies" jazz.

Fascinatingly, none other than our friend kajm interjected, apparently stalking my comment history on a regular basis, telling her I was just a troll and to delete and block me.

Despite the fact that he himself accepts evolutionary science, his obsessive, stalking hatred of me is more important to him than education. I guess that goes without saying for someone who will make up anything they can to convince innocent kids to deny how climate works at even its most basic level.

So, I'm going to finally just copy/paste what I said to her here, in the off chance that maybe it will actually help somebody.

Creation is scientifically proven and geologically documented

This is, unfortunately, impossible. No scientific evidence ever can exist for the supernatural. Science is based on observation alone. There is no way for creation to be scientifically documented unless we were actually there, watching, as a god created life. Instead, we can only document what is here on earth for us to look at, and the earth shows that life has been changing for millions of years; it's all laid out in the geological stratum in a perfect procession.

You can dig down through the layers beneath our feet and see how forests came and went, upon layers and layers of ancient dead forest litter, more than could have ever come and gone in only a few thousand years. We can see how they slowly gave way to meadows, meadows giving way to deserts, thousands more years worth of desert activity preserved like pages in a book. Rivers came through, new forests grew up....these are not things laid out by a gflood. These are EONS worth of life and death, still there for us to see.

secular people, mainly government and secular scientists, have done everything they can to cover up the evidence. It's the world's attempt to eliminate God from everything, which will not work.

This is absolutely, positively, 100% wrong from top to bottom.

Evolution is not atheistic. Scientists are not anti-god. Evolution is an observation drawn world-wide, independently and inevitably by any understanding of the beautiful natural world around us, by people from all walks of life and all levels of faith, with no unifying agenda or common goal.

In fact, the idea that evolution conflicts with biblical creation is RARE in this world. It is largely a modern, Western concept, especially clung to in America. The controversy and rivalry is non-existent otherwise, and thus, very few scientists even exist in an environment where they would ever care about "fighting" creation. Even in the U.S. where the controversy seems to rage on and on, it is primarily only of concern to creationists. Scientists do not consider evolution to be evidence against God or intelligent design at all, and attacking religion is simply not important enough for them to bother with. All they do is present the facts - the facts that prove all life descended from common ancestry.

It is only the fanatically religious who manufacture a "fight" out of it, insisting, for some bizarre reason, that evolution is opposed to creation.

It never has been.

Why would it be?

You believe God created you personally, but you also accept that your body FORMED, biologically, from a sperm and an egg. Evolution is the same thing. As individuals must be born and have an ancestry, so too do entire species. It is a repeating pattern, like a fractal. Your phylum, your class, your species, your body, your organs, your tissues, your cells...all were BORN, not just formed from dust out of nowhere!

Evolution is not an "alternative" to creation. Evolution is not the theory of how life first began or originated. Nobody in science has ever claimed it was. It is only the process by which life diversifies once it has arisen.

Evolution has never been observed or documented. Adaptation is common,

They are one and the same. Adaptation has no limitation - a species can adapt until it is unrecognizable, forever and ever. And its genetics can very quickly drift until it is no longer able to breed with its ancestor.

This happens CONSTANTLY, this genetic drift. Two species become one. A leopard frog from one end of a continent can be unable to breed with one from the opposite end....even if both of them could breed with a population from the middle. There are no hard lines you can draw, "species" itself is only a term for our convenience.

Once two populations are separated in that fashion, there is nothing keeping them identical on the outside. They are free to take different courses of adaptation, unless they continue to mix through some compatible population, like the frog example.

Populations are constantly, however, isolated permanently from one another through normal climatic and geological phenomenon. We can see new species arise in only decades as organisms colonize new islands, for instance.

never in history has one thing ever changed into a whole new thing. It doesn't work scientifically or anatomically.

You are correct, actually, because that is not evolution and not what anyone in science claims at all. Again, this is a lie fed to you to confuse you.

I described what evolution actually means right above. It has never been about "one thing changing into another." Nobody in science has ever said so.

 For instance, dinosaurs. Any reasonably intelligent person knows that a dinosaur is a reptile, and avian creatures (birds) are totally on the other end of the animal kingdom anatomically.

"Other end of the animal kingdom anatomically?" What? All vertebrates - birds, reptiles, fish, frogs, humans - are only part of one very small, very tight-knit group of life, with all the same exact organs, tissues, systems and highly derived behavior. A mammal and a fish are more closely related to one another than two different insects are to one another.

Reptiles and birds are so similar in every conceivable way that they are virtually interchangeable. Even calling them "bird" and "reptile" is simply our own invention for our convenience, to LOOSELY categorize things that look superficially different to a casual observer. The difference between a scale and a feather is less than a single gene; it's a single "switch" in a single gene, determining whether the scale grows and stops or continues to branch, resulting in the beautiful but VERY SIMPLE repetitive pattern we call a feather. Even the spines of an iguana are feathers with only shafts, an intermediate structure.

 The ONLY reason "scientists" think dinosaurs evolved into birds is because some dinosaurs had similar shapes in the structure of their hip bones.

This is a lie so pathetic that I believe you picked it up from a comedy making fun of creationism, rather than an actual creationist. The ENTIRE skeletal structure of a bird and a dinosaur  fundamentally similar, and dinosaurs were fully feathered.> I noticed you mention archeopteryx, you do know that's only one of thousands of examples, correct? We have dinosaur fossils perfectly preserving their feathers. Velociraptor, for example, looked nothing like a lizard like in Jurassic Park. It actually looked like this:

upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia…

This is not a mere "hypothesis," I don't know how you could have missed that we regularly find dinosaur fossils with every detail of the feathers still there. We can even determine what COLOR those feathers were, because the molecular remains of them are still there for analysis.

In fact, scientists DON'T say that birds evolved from dinosaurs at all; they have long established that birds are STILL dinosaurs. Dinosaurs and birds were always one group! A bird is just a tiny, toothless, flying dinosaur.

Might I remind you that both a blue whale and a vampire bat are both mammals? Think about that, please, then re-consider your belief that birds and reptiles are "completely different anatomically." Anatomy is only superficial. It is only what animals look like on the outside, to us. A lizard and a turkey have MUCH more in common with a bat and a whale, but would you argue bats and whales are from "opposite ends of the animal kingdom?"

But think about how utterly stupid the theory sounds: over millions of years dinosaurs (reptiles) slowly evolved into birds. It sound like a fairy tale. "And POW! The frog turned into a prince! We have no clue how it happened, but that's science folks!"

But we do know how it happened. The fossils are all there, demonstrating a smooth transition. The prevalence of "missing links" is another lie. All living things are "links" in some progression or another, and we can trace the ancestry of almost all modern animal groups cleanly and neatly back through ancestral forms, which are indeed preserved in the geological record in chronological order, nothing out of place, no T-rex buried as deep as any dimetrodon.

Humans have always been humans, and apes have always been apes. There is not a scrap of scientific evidence that proves otherwise. If there is, I'd like to see it.

You're demonstrating another of the lies people spread. I bet you've been told all your life that evolution "says humans evolved from apes," huh? Would it blow your mind to learn that NOT ONE scientist has ever, ever said or believed so? Not once? Not ever in history? Creationists invented ape-to-human evolution themselves, to try and discredit science, because indeed, there is no evidence for such a thing ever happening.

Humans evolved from other hominid species, in a long line of similar species. Apes and monkeys branched off from the same ROOT ancestor.

I'm sure you've also been fed the popular lie that we don't have complete remains of pre-human hominids, too, that we only have "a few skull fragments" of neanderthals, right? It's amazing how bold these lies get.

We have THOUSANDS of specimens of non-human but human-like species. Some are frozen or mummified so we can still study their flesh, hair and organs, we can analyze them at the microscopic level. They were not just different-looking humans, nor were they just apes. They were entirely different species. Some weren't any smarter than apes, but some had tools, and villages, and culture. Neanderthals even believed in an afterlife like you do. They buried their dead with weapons, food and favorite items. There is even a grave where they buried a dog, and put food in its mouth...they thought he would need it, wherever it is he was going after death.

Us modern humans killed off many of these other species, though many came and went before out time. We even ate some of them on a regular basis.

Evolution is a massive lie that Satan is using to brainwash millions into thinking that we can get by without God,

Acceptance of evolution has no negative impact on the rate of spiritual faith at all. There are in fact scientists who believe the elegance, beauty and effectiveness of evolutionary algorithms is in itself evidence for a creator. Satan's goal sure backfired!

It's not that I am right or wrong; science debunks evolution with hardly any effort, because evolution is a myth created by men to try and eliminate God from the picture.

Again, this is simply untrue at every level. Not even your hated Charles Darwin believed evolution to be an alternative to God. He described evolution as a beautiful process that he was "inclined to view as designed." He believed in both, as many others do. He simply could not deny what he observed.

I'm sure you've also been lied to that he is the originator of evolution. Did you know it was widely studied before he was even born? I bet nobody ever breathed a word of that to you.

Simple fact that science proves: life cannot created itself from nothing.

And that is why evolution is only recognized as the process by which life expands, adapts and multiplies into varied forms, not the process by which it first began.

However, examples of things between life and non-life are QUITE common. There are minerals and chemicals that self-replicate and change over time, adapting and "mutating." Viruses are raw DNA with simple "bodies" of protein, technically not living things because they have no cells or living tissues, but they do reproduce, prey upon other things, and diversify!

There is much more to this subject if you would like. Much, MUCH more.

The ONLY logical explanation is a Devine and merciful Creator. Everything is far to detailed, perfectly engineered, and complex for evolution.

 "Detailed," "perfect" and "complex" are nothing more than words human beings created to describe things from their own limited perspective. For what reason would our universe be dictated by what WE consider complicated? To an earthworm, 1+3 is complicated.

But life ISN'T complex, nor is evolution. If you truly studied and understood it, you would see how elegantly simple it is, how flawlessly it all fits together, how it is nothing more than the same tiny little sequence repeating itself over and over.

Don't change the story. Scientists have believed dinos evolved into birds since the found the archeopteryx. There is no evidence found of a "common ancestor", for dinosaurs or humans. As science proves: humans have always been humans, and same fact for birds and dinosaurs. Their biology is totally different. The theory of evolution is more magic that science.

It's SO outrageously bizarre that you keep saying "their biology is totally different." WHAT is this "different biology" exactly? Even you and a cockroach both have hearts, brains, male/female sexes, chromosomes, cells, muscle tissue, breathe oxygen, eat food, produce saliva and bile, see and heart and taste. I'm not sure you know what "different biology" means.

Different vertebrates, like dinosaurs and snakes and owls and sharks, are even closer than that, obviously. Compared to the diversity of insects, or mollusks, or even nematode worms, all endoskeletal animals might as well be the same exact thing.

Do not go and turn this on me, saying that I'm spreading lies. I don't lie, and neither does God. His truth is clear.

You don't lie, but you have been lied to, and misguided.

What truth? Nowhere in the bible does it explicitly state anything against evolution. Only a vague reference to God creating animals, and not even describing how in any real detail.

Of course, you do know the bible is a man-written book, right? There is no force that prevented the human beings who wrote it from making mistakes, imagining things of their own or embellishing. Nor did anything stop any other people, over the past thousands of years, from editing and tampering with its words and meanings.

 Look up facts about the flood.

The facts are, the flood described in the bible was never expressly said to be world-wide...and it couldn't have been, because there is no evidence, not one shred, for a global flood, and a global flood would not and could not have arranged the geological stratum the way we see it, nor could it have carved out caves, or any of the other nonsense concocted by the young-earth movement.

That movement isn't even traditional. Christian scholars and church consensus was previously that earth was eons old. Only RECENTLY, and only in a small part of the world, did people concoct this sudden story that Earth is only a few thousand years old. All they want is to use and confuse you. They try to convince you that the Earth is young solely because they know that will help crush out other scientific truths in your mind. They fear that if you understood the natural world around you, you wouldn't be as devoted of a slave to the multi-billion-dollar industry that is religious faith.

 I've learned all I can about evolution,

I'm sorry to say this, but I can tell you actually never even started. You defined evolution the wrong way on even the most basic level. You didn't even know what the word meant, and I just had to explain it to you for the first time in your life. You have never learned anything about it at all.

and the more I learn, the more it makes me laugh. It isn't science at all. Just a bunch of lost men floundering around trying to make excuses to get out of eternity

No. Evolution is patently obvious from any and all observation of the natural world. It is undeniable reality, and nobody who accepts, studies or teaches it is doing so for anti-religious reasons. Nobody ever was. That is THE BIGGEST lie of the wild agenda against science. Scientists are as diverse as anyone else, and even the majority of people who believe in God simply consider evolution another of his processes.

Evolution no more "counters" god than the existence of childbirth, just as I described before. God's hands didn't come down and sculpt you out of clay; you came out of your mother's womb. Does that provide people an "excuse" to not believe in God? No? Then why would evolution? Nobody in real science teaches it that way.

No matter who you are or what you believe, you will SEE evolution if you study the natural world. Even if you go in not wanting to, wanting to find evidence against it; like you said, the truth always wins. Evolution is truth. The more you truly learn, the more you will see that.
(and then kazoo was a zombie)

  "The justification for Grubering  is that the public is too “stupid” to understand the topic and, should they be exposed to the true facts, would likely come to the “wrong” conclusion.  Grubering is based on the idea that only the erudite academics can possibly know what’s best of the little people.  Jefferson would be turning in his grave."

I think that no other word describes what we have seen in the climate debate quite as well as Grubering.

Indeed. Those in power who rake in millions of dollars on wasteful, environmentally destructive, inefficient and obsolete practices have long pooled their resources to convince the ignorant public that there is no global warming, nothing humans could have done to cause it, and nothing humans could possibly do to avert it, despite the fact that ALL scientific data EXCLUSIVELY points to the polar opposite.

Climate change is real, destructive, and abnormally exacerbated by human activity.

Why do you refuse to believe this when it's impossible for it not to be true? The ecosystem and the climate are beyond fragile enough for our pollution and deforestation to impact severely. Anyone with a lick of understanding of biology, ecology, chemistry, physics or climatology knows this.

I firmly believe you know it as well, but for some absurd political reason, you choose to lie.

Why?

The Climategate emails are full of discussions about how to “sell” the public on CAGW through a campaign of lies and exaggerations.

No, they aren't, and we have been over this. Those emails discuss budgetary problems and how to reconcile them with their employers. There isn't a single word of those emails about altering or manipulating climate data for the public. At all. This has been plainly demonstrated, so why do you continue to knowingly lie to people? Why are you a conscious liar? Why do you purposefully lie to your followers?

And why do you continue to tag these journals of yours with my name, yet you keep me blocked and claim you hate me commenting on your shit?

Why did you unblock me just to comment on me and then re-block me like an infantile little coward?

Why are you so afraid to speak to me directly?

I guess you know I'd wreck your every fallacious argument.

Why have you spent YEARS attacking me even when I've spent most of them ignoring you? You're obsessed with me and it is disgusting.

Why do you hate Obama so much when you live in Canada? American politics are only going to filter to you through the media. You don't know jack shit about what goes on in this country.

Stop polluting my tag with your irrelevant garbage.

Arctic sea ice is not at an "all time high." Only for the last couple of years, which is normal; it's always gone up and down, but it's still lower now than it was 50 years ago, shrinking every few years without recovery.

scythemantis.deviantart.com/ar…

Further reading:

www.skepticalscience.com/never…
Arctic Sea ice: actual truth by scythemantis
Arctic Sea ice: actual truth
The internet is all aflutter with loony-toons claiming Arctic ice is at a "record high" and that this, apparently, is evidence against climate change.

The reality is that it's only a "record high" within a very short span, and across the past few decades, it has steadily shrunk without fully recovering.

Any and all records of Arctic ice demonstrate this fact, and it's not like it's difficult data to get wrong. We're talking about the size of an ice cap, here. Pretty hard to miss.

This is the extent to which denialists will go to convince you that Global Warming is all a big sham; they'll deny the very face of the planet if they have to.
Loading...
I shit you not, the man has actually stooped low enough to unblock me, quickly speak to me, and re-block me as fast as he could, the internet equivalent of a note tied to a brick:

comments.deviantart.com/4/1062…

He also thinks I need to prove a negative (i.e. find papers specifically refuting his incorrect claims) as though the burden of proof is on anyone else.

Not articles full of global generalizations on the state of the climate. Specific papers, which were written to specifically refute the ones I have posted. Are you capable of comprehending that?

That's a nonsensical and highly unprofessional request. You're putting the burden of proof on others and asking that a negative claim be refuted. I could say the moon doesn't exist. That doesn't mean I'm right until someone refutes me; the evidence in favor of the moon's existence speaks for itself, as does the evidence for anthropogenic climate change. Directly refuting crackpots only serves to make them feel justified.

I have also noticed several times in the past when people commenting on your journals have asked for links to prove your contention. You blew them off, ignored the question, changed the subject. You can't answer them because you've never actually read or tried to comprehend anything that doesn't fit your hystericyst world-view, otherwise known as AGW- all you have ever seen, is the propaganda you parrot onto this site.

Who did I blow off? When? I always provide information I'm asked for.

Then millions of scientists must live in Poverty, according to your claim. Again, can you prove it? Show us what the poor, timid little scientists are making. You make it sound like it was below minimum wage.

What do you make as a "geologist?" :)

You would have us believe that these scientist exist purely to find the truth. That they have NO motivations whatsoever beyond that. No reason to lie, cheat, or steal. No possible way they could ever succumb to political or financial pressures to conform to, say, a 'consensus.'

And you would have us believe that, beyond all sense and reason, a massive number of scientists who aren't even working for the same people, projects, fields or even countries are all working hard to push the same agenda?

There are just as many people who would pay a scientist to deny AGW as would pay them for positive findings. In fact, the people with the most money of all are already the ones whose best interest is to stomp on environmental conservation. And yet, scientific consensus still defies them.

What we see is not only overwhelming consistency from the science supporting AGW, but the predictable level of incompetence, contradiction and flip-flopping from the very few who board the denialism bandwagon.

For fuck's sake, the lead denialist organization has self-proclaimed "psychics" on its staff.

Peer review has been corrupted www.evolutionnews.org/2011/09/…

A stem-cell scientist takes in 'millions' for fraudulent research www.explorestemcells.co.uk/ste…

And very likely expected to make millions on the patents!</b>

mediamatters.org/blog/2012/11/…

Activist climate scientists like hansen and mann make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in speaking fees. Not to mention a cool million-plus, that hansen 'forgot' to report wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/18…

And this speaks poorly of climate science as a whole....how? All I said was that there's no logical way for your interpretation of a world-wide hoax to exist.

An IPCC scientist himself, complains about political pressure and interference in writing climate policy papers www.robertstavinsblog.org/2014…


And you are somehow Incapable of seeing or acknowledging that these things and tens of thousands more, are happening all around you? When did people who became scientists, STOP being human, that you think some few of them would not stoop to such things? Especially when the pressure is political / ideological.

The political and ideological pressure is different in every single cultural climate and applies differently to every individual person. If the climate consensus were driven primarily by fraud it would be nowhere near as universal and consistent as it is around the world.

The Tropical Hot Spot that was supposed to be proof of the theory, never materialized fav.me/d6mei4e

</b>Your graph, as usual, only shows that the "worst case scenario" didn't pan out, but that the predicted climate patterns most certainly did.

Claim after claim after claim has been shown by nature itself, to be wrong kajm.deviant art.com/art/The-Ar…

An increase from two years ago does not defy AGW behavior. Al Gore is not a scientific authority. I actually never heard a thing about him or knew he had anything to say on the subject until you claimed he was where I got my information.

Your 'golden standard' in climate science, the IPCC, is full of errors kajm.deviantart.com/art/IPCC-D…

Since when was the IPCC my golden standard?

You are a know-nothing troll, a parrot. You have been raised to live in Fear of the weather and you and yours are going to do tremendous damage to this world trying to 'fix' it.

What "tremendous damage?" Even the completely truthful and accurate criticisms you hurl at wind farms don't make them a fraction as horrific as fracking or coal plants.

Interesting that you once again claim that only humans can be responsible for the current warming comments.deviantart.com/4/2238…


Yet you want us to believe that you have never claimed humans are 100% responsible? Even one of your climate gods, gavin schmidt, claims 110%!

I've never heard that man's name in my life.

However, you're still wildly misunderstanding things here.

Obviously, climate changes on its own to a degree. Therefore, humans are not 100% responsible for all climate behavior.

They ARE responsible for an abnormal exacerbation of climate behavior.

Every time you claim someone 'denies' climate change, you are LYING.

You deny any existence at all of anthropogenic climate change. People know that's what I'm referring to.

deviantID

scythemantis
Jonathan Wojcik
Artist | Hobbyist | Varied
United States
I'm a cartoonist, biology enthusiast and horror fan born on Halloween. I have a life long passion for bizarre creatures of every sort, whether real-world invertebrates from the deepest ocean trenches or buggy eyed space mutants from low budget cinema. I run the modestly popular bogleech.com and have also written for Cracked.
Interests

AdCast - Ads from the Community

×

Comments


Add a Comment:
 
:iconinflatablefedora:
InflatableFedora Featured By Owner 3 days ago
Top kek at being a shill, what's it like to sell your soul?
Reply
:iconscythemantis:
scythemantis Featured By Owner 3 days ago  Hobbyist General Artist
I sure didn't get paid for anything so I guess I got ripped off!
Reply
:icontheflyingdutchman84:
theflyingdutchman84 Featured By Owner 4 days ago  Hobbyist Writer
Hey Scythe, I resent my story to you a couple of days ago so hopefully it should in your email, maybe your spambox knowing my luck :)
Reply
:iconpyrosaitan1:
Pyrosaitan1 Featured By Owner 5 days ago
dude I"m still wating on that list of mysoginistic comments
Reply
:icongangstalizard950:
Gangstalizard950 Featured By Owner 6 days ago  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Hey Scythemantis, sorry that I keep spamming all this fakemon stuff but it's because I made some that I know you'll really like. Remember when you comment, try talking about the ones that stand out in your eyes. Since I'm going to Hawaii, I thought it'll be nice to post ocean related fakemon.

gangstalizard950.deviantart.co…
gangstalizard950.deviantart.co…

Which is your favorite? Try to comment as soon as possible. Thank you :)
Reply
:iconthe-conquerors:
The-Conquerors Featured By Owner Dec 14, 2014  Hobbyist Writer
What articles have you wrote for Cracked.com? ~ C
Reply
:iconscythemantis:
scythemantis Featured By Owner Dec 15, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Biology and nature stuff, though not for a few years now that I make more money off my own website.
Reply
:icontheflyingdutchman84:
theflyingdutchman84 Featured By Owner Dec 6, 2014  Hobbyist Writer
Hey Scythe, dropped a story for the cookoff a while ago (about a fortnight ago). Did you end up getting it?
Reply
:iconscythemantis:
scythemantis Featured By Owner Dec 8, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
oh, what was the title? There's a few backed up that I haven't gotten around to yet
Reply
:icontheflyingdutchman84:
theflyingdutchman84 Featured By Owner Dec 8, 2014  Hobbyist Writer
The Bricklayer
Reply
Add a Comment: