Seeker says:
The illustration next to Ray's post shows the transitional "concept" well...a creature turning into another creature, like a fish into a land animal.
Yes, Seeker. You found us out. If evolution were really happening we should expect to see a living fish just suddenly sprout a fully formed leg. And then they would be confused as to how to grow the other three legs. Since we don't see that happening, there are no transitional species. I think you've completely overthrown the scientific paradigm. Better sit by your phone. The Nobel committee should be calling you any minute.
Or maybe the only thing that cartoon demonstrates is that Richard Gunther has an even poorer understanding of evolution than Ray Comfort does. If such a thing is even possible.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Ken Ray spale ebolushun?
ReplyDeleteThis, my friends, is what we're up against.
ReplyDeleteOh, and if you click on 'seeker', it takes you to 'science degree guy's blog...no bullshit.
Matt you're right.
ReplyDeleteWonder if he needs and extra foot for that sockpuppet.
ReplyDeleteGo read Mark W. Laine's latest comment on the My Dishonesty and Evolution thread. He's reading books by Ken Ham.
ReplyDeleteRufus,
ReplyDeletegood thing you noticed it.
The first time I read it, I had to put it in my constant blog segment, DUMBASS THEISTS.
He's in my latest post, and will be on my dumbass theist list on my blog.
Yeah, instead of reading Ham's crap he could read a little book titled Bones, Rocks, and Stars by Chris Tunney. But I have to admit, I don't have to spend any time fighting a demon that looks like Mussolini.
ReplyDeleteSometimes, I wonder if they realize that they're taking the word of somebody who believes dinosaurs lived alongside humans over the words of an expert.
ReplyDeleteRe: Mark Laine
ReplyDeleteYeah, he thinks Ken Ham just blew the cover off the C-14 dating conspiracy. Did you guys know it isn't any good for dating things over 100,000 years? I didn't!! Whatever am I to do now that Ken Ham has disproven evolution??
Mark Laine (just in case you are reading this)
NO SHIT SHERLOCK! We're all aware that C-14 dating isn't good for dating objects over 100,000 years because the initial amount would have almost completely decayed by then due to C-14's relatively short half-life.
Well, crap! Then why are we supposed to believe those egghead scientists if even they know C-14 isn't good for dating objects older than 100,000 years?
Because they don't use C-14! Ken Ham may have forgotten to mention this in the interest of lying for Jebus but there are other radioisotopes with much longer half-lives that are used for things older than 100,000 years. You could have discovered that on Wikipedia. But I'm guessing you're a Conservapedia man.
Conservapedia: The perfectly idiotic response to Stephen Colbert's accusation that "reality has a well-known liberal bias"
These fundies doing the "research" always forget little details like this. They can go over lots of technicalities, explain long and long and longer and still forget such minimal little details like that there are other radioisotopes. Or, take that other one about entropy and open systems, and that the ordering of life is powered by the energy from the sun, they will tell you that if you get exposed to such energy you get cancer, they will tell you that energy would have to be channeled for the ordering, they will tell you this is why a car works (we channel the combustible from the tank into the engine), but they will forget the very little insignificant detail that plants can capture the energy and channel it to form sugars, and that sugars help channel such energy to make everything else run ... such little insignificant details.
ReplyDeleteG.E.