We hear evolutionists try to ridicule
that the serpent in the garden of eden, spoke.
It's not that I ridicule the idea the the serpent spoke. I ridicule the idea that there ever was a woman named Eve who lived in a magic garden called Eden, or a talking snake, and any other aspect of christian mythology.
YET they believe that given the 'right' mutations' a snake
could evolve speech. Hypocrisy? YEP.
Hypocrisy? No. Because then it wouldn't be a snake anymore. Also there is no such thing as the "right" mutations, evolution is not a ladder nor does it have any goals or endpoints. The only problem we have here is your likely willful ignorance of what evolution is and what it can or cannot do. In other words, your stupid and it's your own fault.
They also believe that a fish is our ancestor...
Our ancestor's likely did resemble some sort of fish when they crawled out of the water, but not "fish" in the sense that you are using it. Most of the fish today have gone down a seperate evolutionary path and are not the fish you are alluding to.
but take offence
when it's suggested that given the 'right' mutations, a
species of frog could produce humans if all the 'right' mutations occured
Again, there is no "right" set of mutation, but yes, given certain mutations and countless successive generations a frog could evolve into something resembling a human. What you are claiming is that "evolutionists" believe that it could be accomplished in a single generation, and if you can find an "evolutionist" who believes that then you have found someone whos scientific ignorence rivals your own.
thereby fully integrating
the darwinian fairytale in with the rest of the "MOTHER GOOSE"
fairytales that believe a frog can turn into a prince.
That's funny coming from someone who desperatly clings to his fairytale of talking snakes, dirt man, and rib woman. At least I can explain the mechanics behind evolutionary theory, what have you got besides "GODDIDIT! I do, I do, I do believe Goddidit!"? Oh wait, I already know the answer... Nothing.
