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
Joe Mama

It never ceases to amaze me that fundie Christians think that scientists just sit around all day and make stuff up, and all other scientists just go along with it even though they know it was just made up because it disproves God and/or the bible.

Come to think of it, it shouldn't amaze me because this is exactly what "creation scientists" do, only with the goal of disproving evolution and proving the bible. I guess they think that since they do this, then real scientists do it.

10/28/2010 10:13:30 AM

Sisyphus

Shoot he's on to us. Someone round up all the geologists, paleantologists, physicists, chemists, biologists etc and let them know we're moving to Plan B.

10/28/2010 10:37:16 AM

Darwin's Lil' Girl

Hey look, Opposite Day came early.

10/28/2010 11:30:00 AM

Brenz

So you have the exact same genes as your family, huh? Every chromosome? Every single molecule of DNA?

10/28/2010 1:23:04 PM

Old Viking

Statements that are this devoid of knowledge are not worth contending.

10/28/2010 1:36:55 PM

Angua

James L. Melton, I don't think you much about taxonomy. Well, i don't think you know much about science, period. But we have to start somewhere. First of all, taxonomy is define at the science and practice of classifying living things. As atheist crusader has pointed out, the system we use today was created by Carl Linnaeus. Linnaeus first put this idea forth in his book, Systema Naturæ, published in 1753. If Linnaeus created this system of classification in order to "prove" the theory of evolution by natural selection, this is rather impressive, as Charles Darwin didn't publish On the Origin of Species until 1859. Clearly, Linnaeus had a time machine.

Those charts you are thinking of are are called phylogenetic trees. Yes, they are part of taxonomy, so I'll give you credit for that. On the other hand, you clearly also don't understand the first thing about phylogenetic trees. As a freshman college student, I've constructed phylogenetic trees for my introductory biology class and I can tell you that no, phylogenetic trees are not made up by simple guesswork. Scientists use actual data to construct them.

And genetics evidence supports the idea that all animals share a common ancestor. Genetics supports the theory of evolution. Genetics has helped scientists make more accurate phylogenetic trees.

10/28/2010 1:58:05 PM

David B.

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

Jack Chick, people and glass houses. Need I say more?

10/28/2010 2:06:19 PM

Angua

And the only reason no one has "proven" that the earth is around 4.5 billion years old is that science doesn't deal in proofs. The evidence that the earth is 4.5 billion years old is quite strong. For the basics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

The only scientists that think the earth is somewhere between 6 and 10 thousand years old are creations "scientists" (an oxymoron if there ever was one). And Young Earth Creationists at that -- the evidence for the age of the earth is strong enough that even some of your fellow creationists realize they can't really deny it.

I'm sorry, but Ken Ham and Doctor "Hello My Name Is" Kent Hovind do not constiute "many scientists".


10/28/2010 2:12:39 PM

Neith

@#1221919: "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."

If it's the one I'm thinking of, she kept claiming there were no transitional fossils. He didn't just keep telling her there were, but named a bunch of them off a few different times, and told her she could see them for herself in a museum.


@Mister Spak: "Steve says you're full of shit."

About 500 Steves, if I'm not mistaken, all of whom are scientists.

10/28/2010 2:14:42 PM

Angua

James l. Melton, get a book. You Creationists like the Bible a lot don't you? Well, then reading a few books on evolution should be no problem then. They are a lot easier to read and understand than the Bible (especially if you are one of those KJV only people). Not only that, but they are more interesting and often better written. Neil Shubin's Your Inner Fish was recommended by anevilmeme. I can't personally recommend it because I haven't gotten around to reading it yet. I've bought it, I simply haven't had time to read it yet. I've only heard good things about it. #1221919 mentioned Richard Dawkins The Greatest Show on Earth. I have read that one, and would hightly reccomend it.

@anevilmeme:
Thanks for mentioning Your Inner Fish. I've got a whole stack of books I plan on reading soon. I think that I'm going to bump Ypur Inner Fish up to the top of that list.

@#1221919:
You can watch the entirety of the interview mentioned in The Greatest Show on Earth online. I'll link to the first part on youtube, in case anyone is interested. However, I do have to warn you, that it's really painful to watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFjoEgYOgRo&feature=&p=27090E3480CFAC56&index=0&playnext=1

10/28/2010 2:30:42 PM

Pule Thamex

Fair play, I suppose I must come to the realization that not everybody is capable of understanding real world complexity. Some people seem only to be capable of an achieving an education to the level of the fairytale. I feel it may be too taxing and somewhat unfair to try and educate them as normal people. They are too retarded for proper education and it may irreparably harm them to attempt it. Surely, they are best left to whither in their own ignorance and are best shunned so that they may not pervert others. 'Course, they ain't half a good giggle.

10/28/2010 2:56:42 PM

The L

James, if you ever read this, go here. Read every single link. Then, try to tell me this same story with a straight face, I dare you.

10/28/2010 2:58:07 PM

dionysus

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

Oh, then I guess geologists don't exist.

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

As the old comparison goes: there are 4 times as many historians who deny the holocaust as there are scientists that deny evolution. And that category includes both young Earth creationists AND old Earth creationists who don't support common ancestry. They're a fringe group.

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!

Of course. That's called convergent evolution. For example, marsupial wolves aesthetically resemble mammalian wolves yet are a result of a different path. However, what you fail to mention is all of the examples where the anatomy matches with the genes and thus demonstrates ancestry which is what scientists actually look for in a comparative anatomy relationship.

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

So do intense differences prove that things were created by different gods? For example, vertebrates and invertebrates which are so different as to have different blood, basic body structure, and eyes. Or are you (as I suspect) going to try to have it both ways and claim that things being radically different ALSO proves that they're made by the same god?

10/28/2010 6:41:25 PM

Alencon

I am always amazed at the human capacity for self deception.

Let's start with even before the discovery of radioactivity geologists, including those of the clergy, were estimating the age of the earth at hundreds of millions of years simply based upon the geologic column.

The discovery of radioactivity and radiometric dating drove the estimate up into the billions. This surprised almost everyone.

Understand this, science is based upon observations and accumulated evidence not dreams.

One more thing, I defy you to find any reputable scientist, at any of the great universities of the world, that believes the earth is between 6,000 and 10,000 years old. Even Michael Behe, the Duke of Irreducible Complexity, recognizes that the Earth is billions of years old.

Your Bible in not inerrant and should not be interpreted literally. Grow up already and face reality.


10/28/2010 7:27:45 PM

John

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

Well, no - a handful of lunatic-fringe scientists believe that. Another handful believe in orgone, ESP or ghosts. It just goes to show that no idea is too bizarre that you can't find a few people with science degrees among the six billion people on the planet who believe it.

10/28/2010 7:55:00 PM

Reckoner

AronRa would eat this guy for lunch.

10/28/2010 8:00:28 PM



Your knowledge of science offends my brain.

10/28/2010 8:07:07 PM

breakerslion

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

One, two, three... many.

10/28/2010 8:11:02 PM

Joe Fundee

@ atheist crusader

Kingdom
Phylum
Class
Order
Family
Genus
Species

TMI. lol, "Kind" takes care of all that.

10/28/2010 8:17:02 PM

WMDKitty

Whatever medication this idiot is taking, I think they need to up the dose, and add an antipsychotic.

10/28/2010 10:15:12 PM

Quantum Mechanic

Fail geology and biology much?

10/28/2010 10:22:44 PM

Quantum Mechanic

Fail geology and biology much?

10/28/2010 10:24:17 PM

Shadoboy

I see words forming sentences, but they hold no real meaning...

10/28/2010 10:30:24 PM

Tiado

TI;DR

And yet somehow your dreamed-up, cartoonish, disneyland beliefs regarding your religion are of course Totally True. And you have some actual, factual proof to back this up, I trust.

Didn't think so.

10/28/2010 11:23:28 PM

Tolpuddle Martyr

Pictured: Sedimentary layers in the Himalayas

Not. A. Cartoon.

10/29/2010 1:11:37 AM
1 2 3