Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 77130

Now we come to the wonderful world of TAXONOMY, where cartoon charts are used to artificially classify bones in order to "prove" evolution. This is where evolutionists develop a "disneyland" mentally and construct a chart which shows the earth to be about 4.5 billion years old. Then they proceed to divide this chart up into various time frames containing hundreds of millions of years each. As new discoveries are found, the scientists conveniently place them at selected places on the chart.

This would be a dandy little system, except for one minor problem: THEY'VE NEVER PROVEN THE ORIGINAL CHART! It's nothing more than blind guesswork. No one has ever proven that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. The chart is NOT scientific. In fact, many scientists believe that the earth isn't over 6,000 to 10,000 years old! Of course, all opposing views are ignored by evolutionary scientists, for they need a nice big time period in which to place their new findings. You've heard of people "buying time?" Well, evolutionists just DREAM IT UP.

Another "proof" for evolution is COMPARATIVE ANATOMY, the belief that similar bone structures prove animal kin through evolution. That is, if two different animals have similar bone structures, then they must have evolved from the same original ancestors. Of course, this is more

nonsense. Any scientist knows perfectly well that many such bone structures are produced by entirely DIFFERENT GENES, thus proving that they are in NO WAY RELATED! In fact, if similar bone structure proves anything, it proves that these animals were created by the same God!

James L. Melton, Evolution: Fact or Fiction? 61 Comments [10/28/2010 3:29:14 AM]
Fundie Index: 91
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2 3
Twunt

This is a parody right? If not, kill me now.

10/28/2010 4:01:17 AM

jephkay

Everyone knows that ALL CAPS makes you correct in your assumptions. Anything typed in ALL CAPS is absolutely correct.

JAMES L. MELTON IS A FUCKING GENIUS.

See?

10/28/2010 4:14:13 AM

Telesam

I never bothered to open up a TEXTBOOK ABOUT EVOLUTION, so that means THERE'S NO PROOF FOR IT.

10/28/2010 4:14:54 AM

Doctor Whom

Of course, all opposing views are ignored by evolutionary scientists, for they need a nice big time period in which to place their new findings.

You mean they ignore views that cannot be squared with the facts? Those fiends!

10/28/2010 4:20:46 AM



The creators of Pokemon, unlike you, know that they were writing FICTION.

10/28/2010 4:20:46 AM



I have reached a point where I don't have the mental fortitude to refute anymore. How can one not be a dick when faced with this level of ignorance? Reminds me of Dawkins' discussion with the American creationist he relates in Greatest Show On Earth, where she keeps just saying there is no evidence even when he told her there was.

What can I say except "shut the fuck up James, just shut the fucking fuck up"?

10/28/2010 4:40:41 AM

Nowonmai

Capslocking snippets doesn't make you right.

The charts are simplistic diagrams to disseminate knowledge. You know, knowledge? Something you seem to be allergic to.

10/28/2010 5:02:56 AM

Mister Spak

"In fact, many scientists believe that the earth isn't over 6,000 to 10,000 years old!"

Steve says you're full of shit.

10/28/2010 5:22:44 AM

atheist crusader

you moron taxonomy does not work that way. let me remind you what taxonomy is shall i

taxonomy- the classification of biological species according to the following:

Kingdom
Phylum
Class
Order
Family
Genus
Species , which was invented but linneaus

taxonomy only puts the natural world in order and has nothing to do with the process of evolution, just were it fits in the tree of life.

comparitve anatomy, so are you telling us that we dont share the humerus, radius and ulna system found in all mammals and a good whack of other animals, as for your bollocks about no way realted may i draw your attention to the horse and its relatives...

that is all


10/28/2010 5:37:42 AM

CohibaMan

In fact, many scientists believe that the earth isn't over 6,000 to 10,000 years old!

"Many" is such a vague and subjective term, which is what makes it so amusing whenever this canard is thrown out there.

I mean, "many" can mean 500. It can mean 100. It can mean 50.

What I have always found most amusing, however, is that if you were to gather all the scientists who agree that the world is much older than 6,000 - 10,000 years old whose last names simply start with the letter "A" and compare them to the list of scientists that accept a young Earth, this "many" would suddenly not appear to be so many at all.

10/28/2010 5:51:07 AM

Starscream

"Of course, all opposing views are ignored"


This coming from a bible thumper. Oh, the ironing!

10/28/2010 6:11:37 AM

nutbunny

"if similar bone structure proves anything, it proves that these animals were created by the same God!"

Not different gods? Is the 'Made in YHWHville' logo stamped on the underside?

10/28/2010 6:18:32 AM

KRIMZON FLYGON

CAPS LOCK. CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL.

10/28/2010 6:31:28 AM

JohnTheAtheist

I can't stand these assholes.

The "proofs" for evolution are iron clad, yet you reject them them in favor of creationism that has not one shred of evidence. You have two completely different set of standards.

The funny thing is that even if we had never found one fossil the case for evolution would still be as strong. DNA and geographic distribution patterns are even more convincing evidence than fossils, but fossils don't require much in depth understanding, hence why retards like this jack-ass latch on to them.

10/28/2010 6:43:42 AM

Brendan Rizzo

This would be a dandy little system, except for one minor problem: THEY'VE NEVER PROVEN THE ORIGINAL CHART!

I've heard enough. Citation seriously fucking needed, otherwise, GET THE HELL OFF MY PLANET, YOU LYING, HYPOCRITICAL BAGS OF SCUM!

10/28/2010 7:07:20 AM

Horsefeathers

"Now we come to the wonderful world of TAXONOMY, where cartoon charts are used to artificially classify bones in order to "prove" evolution."

Morphology, among other things I assume, is used to classify bones and it's not used to "prove" evolution, though it is evidence for it.

"This is where evolutionists develop a "disneyland" mentally and construct a chart which shows the earth to be about 4.5 billion years old."

Once again, evolution says nothing about how old the Earth is. Geologists are the ones telling you how old the Earth is.

"No one has ever proven that the earth is 4.5 billion years old."

Zircon can be found in the Earth's crust that dates to ~4.6 billion years old. The only way it could have gotten there is to have been formed during the formation of the planet. And that's just one way to know the age of the Earth.

"The chart is NOT scientific. In fact, many scientists believe that the earth isn't over 6,000 to 10,000 years old!"

A handful of nuts who may or may not hold accredited degrees, and those who do hold them in the wrong field, does not constitute "many" scientists.

"Another "proof" for evolution is COMPARATIVE ANATOMY, the belief that similar bone structures prove animal kin through evolution. [...] Any scientist knows perfectly well that many such bone structures are produced by entirely DIFFERENT GENES, thus proving that they are in NO WAY RELATED!"

Even if this were true, which it's not, genetic evidence shows clearly and without a doubt that evolution occurs.

"In fact, if similar bone structure proves anything, it proves that these animals were created by the same God!"

I fail to see how. Particularly an omnipotent god.

10/28/2010 7:35:33 AM

TGRwulf

Citation majorly fucking needed dude!

10/28/2010 7:39:34 AM

Doubting Thomas

Oh no, not the caps lock of truth!!!

In fact, many scientists believe that the earth isn't over 6,000 to 10,000 years old!

Ken Ham and Kent Hovind are not real scientists.

Really, why is it so important for Christians to believe that the universe is only 6,000 years old? I know that if you take the bible's genealogies and add them up you get a rough estimate, but who says the bible didn't leave out a few hundred thousand years? But what they can't see is that trying to stick to biblical literalism is making them look extremely foolish.

Of course, all opposing views are ignored by evolutionary scientists

Shiny, shiny mirror... I've never seen creationists seriously consider scientific evidence for evolution before.

10/28/2010 7:55:25 AM

Swede

Isn't taxonomy older than the ToE?

"As new discoveries are found, the scientists conveniently place them at selected places on the chart."
They place them at the appropriate place in the chart, and there's nothing conveniently with it - it takes lots and lots of work.

"That is, if two different animals have similar bone structures, then they must might have evolved from the same original ancestors."

10/28/2010 8:01:53 AM

anevilmeme

I suggest reading Your Inner Fish by Neil Shubin. It will give you basic information and you'll see your claims are based on ignorance and nothing more.

10/28/2010 8:06:40 AM

Wookieduck

If you insist on making shit up JL, could you at least do something interesting? (Maybe a story about ninjas and robots for example.)

10/28/2010 8:19:21 AM

WWWWolf

> Now we come to the wonderful world of TAXONOMY, where cartoon charts are used to artificially classify bones in order to "prove" evolution.

Taxonomy is part of biology. The "cartoon charts" are part of scientific visualisation, which is an interdisciplionary branch of science that doesn't have damn thing to do with the validity of taxonomy.

Saying "Taxonomy is silly because the charts are cartoony" is like saying "I don't like this car's engine performance, because the chassis is painted with a too bright colour."

> It's nothing more than blind guesswork.

Nope, don't blame the scientists if your eyes start to glaze over when they bore you with the details. The details are there.

> In fact, many scientists believe that the earth isn't over 6,000 to 10,000 years old!

Mindboggling, isn't it, that there are scientists who actually know something about science? It takes even a rudimentary knowledge of astronomy, geology or even archaeology to figure this big question fact out.

By the way, which is it supposed to be? 6,000 or 10,000? Or will this question cause a fundie knifefight? If so, sorry about bringing it up and please ignore it before anything serious happens.

> Of course, all opposing views are ignored by evolutionary scientists, for they need a nice big time period in which to place their new findings.

Ignored, eh? Speaking of which - what do you say about the development of the Egyptian civilisation, and their complete lack of records about the supposed global flood?

::crickets::

10/28/2010 8:20:54 AM



Oh right so if the earth isn't 4.5 billion years old then it HAS to be 6,000 years old.

10/28/2010 8:24:31 AM

LAchlan

You just typed until your fingers got tired, didn't you? You didn't actually think about or read back what you typed.

10/28/2010 9:03:59 AM

aaa

Dude, can't you read a motherfucking book every once in a while? I don't like teaching biology to fucktards without getting paid.

10/28/2010 9:54:19 AM
1 2 3