I think I should keep this one short since everyone will realize how absurd this is without much explanation, so here you go…
Never mind that bananas like such are bred specifically for human consumption, another biproduct of evolutionary theory being put to use…
As usual:
- Kirk Cameron
- Dr. Jason Lisle
- Lee Strobel
- Ray Comfort
I think it was Christopher Hitchens who said it, but it’s a valid point here so I’m going to steal it.
The only thing an atheist can really do to refute this kind of creationist argument is to underline it.
The only thing that this is proof of to me is that either Ray Comfort is utterly ignorant of nearly everything he criticizes — or he’s banking on his audience to be so.
That banana looks awfully phallic, too. Odd.
Ray Comfort has already given up this argument. It was always meant as tongue in cheek humor.
Call me crazy, Justin, but I’ve never seen a crocaduck yet. I don’t think I will any time soon.
Or is that more of Kirk Cameron’s style?
Yeah.
That argument is dumber than the banana one, thanks.
If there is a transition between two completely different kinds, there must be an intermediate.
You mean like this or do you want to take your pick?
Also, it’s unfair to ask for perfect transitions, get them, and request intermediate transitions.
We will never have all the transitions, but it seems that’s what creationists want.
This is easy. Here is a responce to your “example” – http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2007/0307tiktaalik.asp
From the page that Justin posted:
This goes directly into what Copache said earlier:
Let’s break it down, shall we?
Originally, there was a gap between fish and land animals. But we had amphibians – animals that were in between. So the question then became ‘how did fish get to be amphibians’?
Scientists took the earliest examples of primitive amphibians and worked out where in the geological column we would expect to find a transitory fossil that was part-fish and part-amphibian. Scientists found rock of the appropriate age and the appropriate type, and dug for four years. They then turned up Tiktaalik, exactly as predicted.
Then the article you linked to had the gall to point out that there was still a small gap between Tiktaalik and amphibians, because Tiktaalik hadn’t yet developed something that could turn into fingers, but totally ignoring the fact that a very improbable prediction had been made based on the theory of evolution, and it was beautifully validated.
So is there a gap between Tiktaalik and primitive amphibians? Of course there’s a bloody gap! End even if it is the case that Tiktaalik is slightly closer to fish than amphibian, that wouldn’t change the fact that it is clearly a transitional fossil between sea-creature and land-creature.
The only way people making this argument would be happy would be if we had the remains of every animal that had ever lived.
Swing and a miss, Justin. As usual.
Here’s the conclusion to the article linked by Justin:
Nature created itself, and we should be guided by our reason. ‘Holy Scripture’ is at best a highly biased and highly doctored historical account of the past, and at worst a complete work of fiction.
Nature is authority to itself, and scripture is the invention of man.
Justin,
Science looks for answers based on evidence. Answers in Genesis has the ‘answers’ and looks for ‘evidence’ to support the ‘answers’.
Quite frankly, the AiG article is downright wrong. Tiktaalik is an excellent example of amphibian/fish transition, and even if not in the dead center, still quite effective in proving the general validity of evolution.
Pay attention.
If you deny this, you are a fundamentalist fool.
Not only are you that, but you’re a fucking fool because it’s quite apparent that the evidence does not support your fairytales.
Thanks,
C
I’ve had too much a long day filled with my creationist family from Ohio giving me conspiratorial bullshit about the Illuminati, Freemasons, 9/11, JFK, etc. to deal with your shit.
Know your place.
Copache:
I know you’re annoyed with Justin – I get annoyed with him too.
But ease up a second. ‘Know your place’ is a silencing tactic – for all that I think Justin’s a crackpot fundamentalist, we don’t have the right to silence him.
Better to draw the crazy out of him and underline his arguments than get let our anger and vitriol get the best of us. The vitriol – satisfying though it is – only works against us.
So yes, the appropriate response to a ridiculous argument is ridicule. But not anger. If you let yourself get angry, you’re just letting them push your buttons – and then they’ll turn around and say ‘look at how angry and hateful these atheist wretches are!’
I don’t mean to patronize – but you went a bit too far. Critique. Analyse. Deconstruct. But don’t get angry. It undermines your position – and since your position is very similar to my position, it undermines my position.
Stop undermining my position.
If you do not want me to comment on your blog anymore, that is ok – just let me know. I am a fundementalist. I believe in the fundementals of the Christian faith and I can admit that. If you do not want comments from a diverse group of people, then just ask and I will leave.
See? Now he gets to take the moral high-ground and make us look bad.
Don’t give into anger during argument – you’ll just be handing a trivial win to your opponent on a silver platter.
Fundamentals.
Being a fundamentalist is fine — never admitting you’re wrong is not.
If you want to stay here, fine. But the one thing I will not tolerate is links from openly creationist sources who clearly interpret the data wrongly. I’ve written many a post on AiG, and it is most certainly not a credible source.
If you have any real evidence that points to evolution not actually happening that can’t be destroyed in a matter of minutes, I would be intrigued.
I’ve seen them all, though. There are none out there that satisfy, since all of them use the same bullshit.
Che: I realize the tactics used and don’t mind. Eventually the bullshit will be shot full of holes and everyone will see that they’re playing the pity card because they don’t have any real evidence for anything.
Oops. I didn’t realize you knew what was going on. With that in mind, I must have just come over really patronizing. I was wrong, and I apologise.
copache, if I am convinced I’m wrong, then I will admit it.
Fair enough.
So what would it take to convince you?
Pigs flying, three days of darkness, planet x appears, pokemon spring to life, a crocaduck is found… Stuff like that.
Evidence that leaves me to conclude without a reasonable doubt. As of now I see no good evidence for macroevolution.
Obviously.
But so far, all you’ve said is that you’re capable of changing your mind if and only if something comes along that is capable of changing your mind.
But if nothing is capable of changing your mind, then you’re still as closed minded as someone who says that they’re not capable of changing their mind.
So what I want to know is – what would something that is capable of changing your mind even look like. Be specific.
There is not a single strand of ‘reason’ that will interfere with one’s personal religious beliefs if the reason for… reason… happens to be for anything other than inquiry into religious truth.
No one raised creationist in any form will ever question their religion based on any evidence and often ignore the evidence. At least, unless they’re seeking truth. If they’re seeking truth, they can accept the evidence as-is and let it be as a part of their religious view of life without distorting it to those views, or they can reject their religious view in favor of evidence, as I did.
Voltaire was right – it is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere. But I remain cautiously optimistic that it is still possible.
This might make me a fool in your eyes, but I just can’t let myself be that cynical about believers. They have ten fingers and toes, and brains not dissimilar to mine. Just because I don’t know of a way to do it yet doesn’t mean it can’t be done, and I am looking.
My question to Justin is just my latest little experiment. I’m looking forward to his response… I want to see if he’ll dodge the question, claim that he would be convinced by something that evolution doesn’t actually predict, claim that he would be convinced by something that is impossible to achieve, or if he’ll accept that he might be a bit more closed-minded than he would like to admit.
If it’s something outside of those four outcomes, I’ll be very surprized indeed.
Oh, and I could very easily be convinced that evolution is untrue by the discovery of bunnies in the cambrian – or something similar. Homo sapiens in the jurassic period would be a good one too. Anything like that, and I’ll be convinced that evolution is toast.
@Justin: I want to ask you what you think the difference between micro and macro evolution. Most biologists don’t recognize the difference so I want you to explain to me what you think the difference is.
If gene mutation can cause a “micro” change why can’t a long series of change cause a “macro” change.
Additionally, what would you consider a good transitional species? The fossil record is, understandably, lacking but it does have transitions for many species.
Furthermore, how would you argue for the evidence of common ancestor? There are many gene mutations that are only shared between the great apes and humans. For example, the gene that synthesizes vitamin C has been naturally knocked off by a series of bad mutations. The gene has no current argument for functional use. more information
Another broader case for shared ancestry is endogenous retroviruses. I’m not sure that I can efficiently explain what they are so I’ll point you toward a wiki link: more information
Heh. I mean no offense – but when I read the word ‘mageling’ all I can think about is the old shots of Jon Irenicus talking down to Imoen in Baldur’s Gate 2.
Ahh… Memories.
I’m such a nerd.
[...] 29, 2008 by Copache First things first: YOU stole MY story, I’m stealing YOURS! (I know it wasn’t the same subject matter in Ray [...]
@Ubiquitous Che: The name actually came from a combination of Starcraft and WoW.