• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

100 Reasons Why Evolution Is Stupid (Part 1 of 11)

David Henson said:
You mean like an Indian Wolf? Indus valley dogs crossed with indian wolves producing a dingo and taking them on boats to Timor and Australia?

Dogs make dogs.
Click to expand...

not in the example you just delivered where apparently dogs and wolves make dogs

perhaps you can now explain why it is that you think dogs and wolves make dogs and not wolves
:D
 
David Henson said:
Evolution means change. How did the sheep change and what did they change into?
Click to expand...

please use your dictionary to look up "species", because until you do, you won't understand that what you just said wasn't a question as much as it was a declaration of your ignorance
:rolleyes:
 
David Henson said:
Evolution means change. How did the sheep change and what did they change into?
Click to expand...

David, you're re-hashing the oldest, lamest arguments against evolution - ones most creationists stopped using long ago. Please, if you are not just trolling, read this book. It addresses your misunderstandings much better than we can in this forum.

-- Roger
 
David Henson said:
You mean like an Indian Wolf? Indus valley dogs crossed with indian wolves producing a dingo and taking them on boats to Timor and Australia?

Dogs make dogs.
Click to expand...

So . . . was that a yes or a no? Do you believe that an isolated pack of dogs might eventually diverge far enough that they couldn't reproduce with dogs from the mainland?
 
David Henson said:
So if the apes hadn't evolved into us they would have died?

You don't realize how stupid that is?!
Click to expand...

David Henson said:
And the voice of reason dictates to you that we came from a rock.
Click to expand...

Twiler said:
snip -
I do not believe David Henson is arguing in good faith, I believe that he is preaching for his own satisfaction.
Click to expand...

David Henson said:
Ah, the familiar cry of the blind faithful! It is always the same, no matter what the religion.
Click to expand...

Twiler, I believe that David is arguing in good faith; it is quite apparent that he is simply arguing from ignorance. The quotes above, and many others, make David's lack of understanding of the principals he is arguing against painfully obvious. In other words, he is arguing against concepts that exist only in his own mind; he has never taken the time and effort to truly understand exactly what the theory of evolution actually says, so it is easy for him to disregard all of the replies which address specific points he has made.

The quote above about apes is particularly telling. That one quote highlights Davids lack of depth in his understanding of evolution. For this reason I must agree with the posters here who have said that we are all wasting our time; the debate continually reverts back to strawman concepts which David holds dear and when responders attempt to pull Davids comprehension forward he switches gears to avoid actually learning anything.

David, I believe this in an exercise in futility, but can you tell me why we believe that your statement about apes above illustrates your lack of understanding of evolutionary theory? You don't have to agree with our interpretation, mind you, you simply have to explain why we laugh at your statement.

I'll bet you can't do it. If you can, we may actually have a concrete starting point for discussion. But you won't, because you don't understand that which you are arguing against.
 
Imagine, if you will, a bunch of adult people sitting in a church - worshiping a ghost, and thinking that scientists are the ones who are stupid, ignorant and blind.

The churches are full of people who think that evolution is too incredible to be true but yet they don't think that a ghost poofing everything into existence is incredible at all.

Adult people who should be mature in mind as well as in body will listen to a bible thumping preacher, who can't even prove the ghost he is preaching about, before they will listen to a science about which there is proof.

"Superstition is, always has been, and forever will be, the foe of progress, the enemy of education and the assassin of freedom. It sacrifices the known to the unknown, the present to the future, this actual world to the shadowy next. It has given us a selfish heaven, and a hell of infinite revenge; it has filled the world with hatred, war and crime, with the malice of meekness and the arrogance of humility.

Superstition is the only enemy of science in all the world."

Superstition, Robert Green Ingersoll, 1898.
 
David Henson said:
Wolves don't make bananas or corn or fish.
[...]
A dog doesn't change over time to be a horse
[...]
When a farmer plants corn he knows he is going to get corn. He doesn't sit and wonder what evolution is going to grow for him. Watermelons? Catfish? Spiders?
Click to expand...

You keeps saying things like that. Just to be clear, NOBODY is saying it works that way.

Try this, and tell me where you disagree. I want to find the part where the disconnect is.

Let's say I have a whole bunch of cats. Like, a lot of them. If you've met a lot of cats, you probably know that housecats often have a mutation that causes them to have extra toes.

1. Would you agree that, over time, if the cats with extra toes mate with other many-toed cats, this will become more common?

2. Would you further agree that this could happen (again, over time) with multiple mutations or variants?

3. Would you agree that this can happen to multiple groups, such that cats in one area look significantly different from cats in another area?

4. Would you agree that, through this process, two sets of cats might be different enough that interbreeding is very difficult (and impossible in the wild) due to things like size (picture a chihuahua and a great dane trying to mate)?

So far this is observable (we have lots of breeds of cats) so I would think we're on the same page. If you disagree already we have some major confusion going on. Now onto the next step:

5. Would you agree that eventually through this same process it might get to the point where the myriad variations and mutations make interbreeding of the groups impossible, or result in sterile offspring?

I would argue that #5 is also observable (a real world example of this would be a mule).

6. Once the two groups are not able to interbreed would you agree that you can say they are different species?

Note that at each step it's not a cat giving birth to a watermellon - it's a cat giving birth to a cat. It's just that, over time, they change and the two groups eventually can't really be called the same thing. It's slow, and subtle, but the end result is both new groups are descended from cats even if neither can be called cats themselves.
 
Last edited:
Foster Zygote said:
Evolution by natural selection involves chance and selection.
Click to expand...
Yes.

In an oversimplified metaphor, think of a game of Yahtzee.

Random mutations = roll of the dice
Natural selection = saving the ones to not roll again

Roll the dice enough times (saving the "good ones"), and you can come up with any combination you want in a very few rolls.
 
Last edited:
Hyenas are actually closer to cats than dogs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feliformia

What seems never to be pointed out in this type of argument, is the just enormous spans of time that are required for a species to evolve into something for which another word is used to describe it. Hundreds of millions of years is a long time when incremental changes are constantly occurring perhaps every 20-100 years.
 
Last edited:
Olowkow said:
Hyenas are actually closer to cats than dogs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feliformia
Click to expand...
Dr. Peter Venkman: This city is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions.
Mayor: What do you mean, "biblical"?
Dr Ray Stantz: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor, real wrath of God type stuff.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Exactly.
Dr Ray Stantz: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!
Dr. Egon Spengler: Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes...
Winston Zeddemore: The dead rising from the grave!
Dr. Peter Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!
 
From the OP:

David Henson said:
1. Evolution is a slippery word. His definition allows for 5 unscientific and purely theoretical possibilities, namely; Cosmic evolution (the origin of time, space and matter), Chemical evolution (The origin of higher elements from hydrogen), Stellar and planetary evolution (Origin of stars and planets), Organic evolution (origin of life), and Macro-evolution (Changing from one kind into another), as well as 1 possibility which is scientific (observed) and in harmony with the Bible and that is Micro-evolution (variations within a kind).
Click to expand...

So:

Cosmic Evolution.
Chemical Evolution.
Stellar Evolution.
Organic Evolution.
Macro-Evolution.
Micro-Evolution.

Wait... hang on. Why does that sound so familiar? Where have I seen that list before? Could it be... ?

Yes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom