evolutionisforidiots.com #fundie

evolutionisforidiots.com #fundie evolutionisforidiots.com

Quick questions for any evolutionist/atheists out there:

1) So... fish just sprout legs out of convenience, huh? Sounds like some kind of crazy Harry Potter movie. I wonder how many generations of fish flopping up onto land and dying it took before they decided to sprout legs and grow lungs. I bet that if such a transformation did occur, the intermediary species would be quite hindered, having half-grown legs that impeded its ability to swim while not being able to walk yet.

2) At what point did the fish (that sprouted legs and grew lungs) give birth to a mammal? I bet that really freaked out the mother when she realized there was no way to nurse them. Of course there's no fossil evidence for such an intermediary creature, but imagination can be fun

39 comments

old comment by Necronomikron

In order to understand the theory of evolution, you must first understand the basic principles behind the fact of evolution.

There's plenty of fossil evidence for what you seek - the mammals evolved from a type of reptile.

In fact, I sent him an email with this:

You know, if you'd like to know more about evolution, you can see the following:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html < In order to understand the Theory of Evolution, you must first understand the Fact of Evolution.

Now, that out of the way, read this one:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Which gives detailed evidence for Common Descent. (Commonly referred to as the Theory of Evolution).

If you don't understand, then don't condemn it out of ignorance. It just makes you look the fool.

Not that he'll understand a word of it.

old comment by Deriamis

So... fish just sprout legs out of convenience, huh?
Oh, just like you sprouted a pair of hands? There are plenty of videos on YouTube that demonstrate exactly how "fish just sprout legs". Surely even you can find one and comprehend it.

At what point did the fish (that sprouted legs and grew lungs) give birth to a mammal?
Look for that video and stop asking stupid questions.

I bet that really freaked out the mother when she realized there was no way to nurse them.
When you don't know something, you're best off looking for something to educate yourself with. If you did that, you might not make yourself look like such a moron when you attempt intelligent conversation - but probably not.

Of course there's no fossil evidence for such an intermediary creature, but imagination can be fun
Except that there is, but go ahead and imagine otherwise if you want to. Like you say ignor-ah, imagination can be fun!

old comment by Necronomikron

He finally responded, and sent back this:

Thank you for your input!

We have indeed read many of the articles on the talkorigins.org website, and their corresponding refutations at http://www.trueorigin.org/camplist.asp.

It certainly is interesting to follow the debate, from two philosophical points of view. However, since evolutionists still cannot explain or prove the possibilty of abiogenesis (formation of life from inanimate matter), cannot explain or prove the transition from single celled organisms to multicellular organisms, or explain or prove the transition from either lizards to mammals or lizards to birds, the theory of evolution is based on a high degree of faith, and we will maintain our view that evolution is essentially a belief system.

Thanks for reading, and have a great day!

...OK.

So, I sent him this:
The theory of evolution doesn't address the issue of life. In other words, the Theory of Evolution doesn't care how life began, it just explains what happened afterwards. Abiogenesis is one theory on the origin of life.

As for transitions, see this portion:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates

The multicellular gap is kind of addressed by colonies. Cellular colonies could have easily given rise to multicellular organisms.

A more complicated Cellular colony is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slime_mould

Specific Example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictyostelids

Here's a question for you: How do you explain the existence of these transitional fossils?

old comment by Necronomikron

OI. His retardedness knows no bounds:

Life starting from inanimate matter, or "primordial soup," would have to be true for the theory of evolution to be true. If you have another explanation currently believed by evolutionists, please describe it in detail. Until then, a significant amount of belief goes into believing that life was an accident.

On one of the talk origin's pages, it has illustrations of transitional forms:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section3.html#fig3.1.1

What that illustration fails to mention is that the animal from which the arm is drawn in (A) is a 7 foot tall lizard, (B) is a small, flying, fully feathered, hollow boned bird about the size of a crow, (C) was a very small, flying bird the size of a sparrow, and of course (D) is a chicken. They draw the illustrations in a way that makes the 7 foot long lizard arm look to be the same size as a sparrow wing, in order to trick you into thinking they are related. Also what they don't mention is that the only one without a hollow bone structure required for flight is (A), the lizard arm.

So basically they draw, lacking in detail, 3 bird wings and a lizard arm, all from animals of different sizes, and claim they are related. If you drew a frisbee, a coaster, and a CD laying on a table in a line, and falsely drew them to be the same size, it does not provide evidence that frisbees evolve into CD's.

As for as claiming "cellular colonies could have given rise..." you are using the phrase "could have" because there isn't proof. "Could have" means nobody knows for sure, and it is currently based on belief.

Thanks!

So, I sent back the following:

Some people that believe in evolution believe in it due to the evidence - transitional fossils, etc. For instance, 38% of US citizens believe God created simple life and guided its evolution.

(See: http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=21814&pg=1 )

That illustration has: Ornitholestes, Archaeopteryx, Sinorsius and a Chicken, all for comparison. These are the various steps in the transition. I don't know what you're trying to point out there? They scaled their sizes in comparison, because they weren't all the same size. This is so that they could compare them easier. It would be like scaling the size of an ostrich wing so that it could be compared to that of a sparrow - they're obviously not the same size, but, you cannot compare them unless they're scaled.

They showed the closest known reptile, then an early half-bird half-reptile, then an early bird then a modern bird. They illustrate transition, and you complain that they're... illustrating transition? They weren't all the same size - much like an ostrich and sparrow are both birds, but are different sizes. Obviously, they're going to show some later on in the transition that have features that the predecessors did not, otherwise there wouldn't be a transition...

The earliest known multicellular creature is Red Algae. Algae tends to clump up and create colonies. I showed you an example of what could almost be considered a multicellular organism, if it weren't for the fact that the individual cells can survive on its own. (And do so, whenever there isn't enough food to support the colony)

My head is starting to hurt from this brick wall I'm smashing it against. He hasn't given a name yet. He's dense, though.

His sender name is 'evolutionisforidiots@gmail.com'.

old comment by tracer

"What that illustration fails to mention is that the animal from which the arm is drawn in (A) is a 7 foot tall lizard, (B) is a small, flying, fully feathered, hollow boned bird about the size of a crow, (C) was a very small, flying bird the size of a sparrow, and of course (D) is a chicken. They draw the illustrations in a way that makes the 7 foot long lizard arm look to be the same size as a sparrow wing, in order to trick you into thinking they are related."

This guy seems to think that 2 animals are (at best) distantly related if one is big and the other is small.

I guess that means that humans with dwarfism are more distantly related to the rest of the human species than, say, gorillas are.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

Quick question for any Creationists out there:

1) So... an invisible sky fairy took a handful of dirt - a silicon-based substance - and made a man out of it. Yet, for some reason, he couldn't do the same with Eve, so he took one of the dirt-man's ribs and made a clone-woman out of such. But then, he could just poof an entire universe, world & all the life on it, but he couldn't do exactly the same with Adam & Eve?

Never mind the concept of a 'talking snake', the above scenario makes the Bible, scenario-wise, fall flat on it's face at step 0, and plunge straight down the Stupidity Abyss (it's still falling right now; otherwise, how do you account for Atheism today?!).

The Bible. Harry Potter. One fiction's just as good as another. But at least, one is acknowledged - by the author herself, no less - to be fiction.

The Bible. Harry Potter. One is a great work of literature, sells by the shiploads, that has had many films based on such, with a central character that has inspired - and is loved by - millions; including no less than the First Children, Sasha and Malia Obama.

The other is a fairy story about an infinitely evil magic-user, who wants to destroy the world.

evolutionisforidiots.com #fundie evolutionisforidiots.com

39 comments

Confused?