Here is an example that parallels the absurdities of evolution. Say that I took a TV, and I smashed it into tiny little pieces. If I poured those pieces into a huge container, would I have a chance of forming that TV again. The same for evolution. How is it possible that tiny particles formed debris to even start the process? Better yet how did those particles get there in the first place? What are the chances of one particle forming all that we see today?
24 comments
Last I checked, TVs don't build themselves. And yet a single cell will replicate itself, and under the right conditions it's possible to form the key building blocks for a cell spontaneously. Hence the analogy fails.
This argument must have been thrown at evolution thousands of times. Motor could have looked on any homepage and found the answers.
But I guess arrogance and ignorance is part of what makes them fundies...
Suppose that TVs fucked and had baby TVs. Suppose, furthermore, that baby TVs resemble their parents, with minor random variations. Suppose that there is fierce competition for surival among TVs, and between TVs and other electronics, so that only a fraction of TVs actually survive and produce yet more TVs similar to them. Suppose, again, that we have the remains of earlier forms of TVs, a whole list of them, and that as the record comes closer to our time, they become more sophisticated and more similar to modern TVs. Suppose that certain features of modern TVs used to make sense with earlier technology and layout, but are largely useless now, or would be more practical if set in a different way.
Obviously, all of this would be overwhelming evidence for an intelligent creator, right?
Nice analogy. It also works to disprove the THEORY!!! of human growth:
If I took piles of food, mother's milk, and baby food and poured those pieces into a huge container with a squashed, unfertilized egg cell and shone a lamp on it all, would I have a chance of forming a grown human. The same for evolution.
Hey, this is good! Brand new, makes perfect sense, and is not at all like the Tornado in a Junkyard one. I'm almost convinced.
Almost.
Well, no, not really. Not by a long shot.
Chains of amino acids have been seen forming spontaneously. And, since chains of amino acids form the building blocks of...
What was that? Oh, just the goalposts being moved, again
"Here is an example that parallels the absurdities of evolution. Say that I took a TV, and I smashed it into tiny little pieces. If I poured those pieces into a huge container, would I have a chance of forming that TV again."
Nanotechnology. Give it a few decades. Next question.
(*Is reminded of a comic strip by "Dirty Pair" comics artist Adam Warren, on a future PlayStation having the ability to upgrade itself - and not just firmware -wise. *) [/hyper-smartarse]
"The same for evolution. How is it possible that tiny particles formed debris to even start the process? Better yet how did those particles get there in the first place? What are the chances of one particle forming all that we see today?"
Like I say: Nanotechnology. The ability for extremely small machines to manipulate individual atoms . Give it a few decades. Next question II.
(*Is reminded of a "Dirty Pair" comics series by Adam Warren, detailing how one of the heroines Yuri (or Kei) is being formed by nanomachines *) [/mega-smartarse]
Say that my TV and your TV got friendly and had a little TV baby... That's your problem, right there; evolution is all about changes over time, through random mutations in fetuses and natural selection of which individuals are able to have offspring. TVs don't start as fetuses and they don't give birth to any offspring.
Evolution is not about the beginning, it's only about adaptation of EXISTING life.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.