mock

May 14th, 2007
└ Tags:

Discussion (21)¬

  1. Trev says:
    May 14, 2007 at 7:22 am

    What are they referencing? Fish giving birth to frogs?
    Also – hilarious.

  2. Darkritual says:
    May 14, 2007 at 8:13 am

    Awesome, they almost NEVER understand.

  3. louis says:
    May 14, 2007 at 6:43 pm

    another high-lair-ious one!

  4. JohnnieCanuck says:
    May 14, 2007 at 8:05 pm

    Mo has an excuse, but surely the Son of God would know how evolution works. After all, he knows how godidit.

    You don’t suppose the Muslims are right and he’s just a prophet, do you?

  5. Nes says:
    May 15, 2007 at 6:26 pm

    What are they referencing? Fish giving birth to frogs?

    I’ve seen some creationists claim that evolution can’t be true because their dog didn’t give birth to cats, or because their grandfather wasn’t a monkey. Author just took it a step further.

    Unless creationists in the UK use the lack of fish giving birth to frogs as a “disproof” of evolution…

  6. JohnnieCanuck says:
    May 15, 2007 at 7:27 pm

    Trev,

    The phrase is meant to represent a common creationist technique for ridiculing the idea of evolution.

    Here is an example of the idea being employed by a creationist:

    http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

    Please be careful at that link, since he is hoping to infest readers with stupidity. If anything argued there seems to make sense, verify it at:

    http://www.talkorigins.org/

    John

  7. Rich says:
    May 16, 2007 at 4:21 am

    @JohnnieCanuck

    Good links. Thanks.

  8. Don says:
    May 16, 2007 at 10:51 am

    The jumbo jet referrence is explained here;

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_Boeing_747_gambit

  9. kc says:
    May 17, 2007 at 6:10 am

    I love how these guys in the “newgeology” site take scholarly debate among scientists about the details of a theory as “proof” that a theory is entirely erroneous and therefore the only possible explanation is that the big bearded god-daddy in the sky must have made everything. When he writes about the lack of transitional fossils as “proof” of evolutions falsehood, he forgets that a fossil occuring at all is a slim chance, most animals that die leave no trace and are completely decomposed. The sum total of all fossils found of say, horse ancestors, (to use his example) would contain the remains of fewer indivduals that the population of horses in the ranching area around my house. Of course there will be gaps in a record that stretches for millions of years. The fact that we have any fossils at all to act as guideposts in the intellectual activtiy of tracing the origins of life is a lucky chance. To expect that the fossil record clearly demark every single phase of evolution in a nice sequence that is easy to understand is laughable.

  10. Don says:
    May 17, 2007 at 10:28 am

    kc,

    Quite. You take a 5,000 piece jigsaw and scatter it across, say, Canada. Thousands of dedicated people over a couple of centuries search out the pieces. They find 4,900 and conclude that it is almost certainly Constable’s Haywain (although accepting it might be a variant piece). But there remains a hard core who insist it is Whistler’s Mother until the final piece is found.

  11. Trev says:
    May 17, 2007 at 11:22 am

    Thanks Johnnie, that confused me. I’m not used to that level of ignorance. Serves me right for not having an open mind.

  12. JohnnieCanuck says:
    May 17, 2007 at 12:48 pm

    A mind that is open to faith and closed to science isn’t much of a mind, in my opinion, though some still manage to get by.

    The internet certainly makes it easy to find the things that otherwise just lurk under rocks.

  13. morgan -lynn lamberth says:
    May 25, 2007 at 3:11 am

    Creationists, fearing that if one learns about evolution, then one would just act like an animal,forsaking morality- a non-sequitur- lie about evolution!

  14. Steel Rat says:
    July 20, 2007 at 12:31 pm

    The Transitional Fossil fallacy always gets me. Every fossil is a transitional form, since every species is/was always evolving. Sheesh!

  15. Anton Sherwood says:
    August 30, 2007 at 6:10 pm

    Here’s my favorite bit: Archaeopteryx has long been held up as the great example of a transitional creature, appearing to be part dinosaur and part bird. However, it is a fully formed, complete animal with no half-finished components or useless growths.

    I wonder what this writer would say about flying squirrels: like bats, they have aerodynamic membranes behind their forelimbs, but incompletely functional.

  16. Anton Sherwood says:
    August 30, 2007 at 6:11 pm

    Oh, and the chart of horses’ feet? Horses still sometimes show vestigial extra toes.

  17. peterNW1 says:
    April 4, 2008 at 2:24 am

    I don’t get why Jesus is anti-evolution. The pub looks like an English pub. There are no mainstream Christian denominations in the UK that deny evolution.

    If it was set in the States it would be a different matter.

  18. dave says:
    May 26, 2009 at 12:53 pm

    @peterNW1: there are plenty of smaller Protestant sects in the UK that deny evolution and have a literalist reading of the Bible. They just aren’t as common or as influential as they are in the USA. They also exist in other European countries as well. Europe may be overwhelmingly secular and non-religious compared to the USA, but there are still plenty of small pockets of Christian fundamentalism in Europe.

  19. Ziz says:
    March 7, 2011 at 2:18 pm

    Yeah, but we throw rocks at them. ^_^

  20. Acolyte of Sagan says:
    July 19, 2012 at 3:52 pm

    A bit late, but regarding kc’s point above about there being no transitional fossils. Technically, because evolution is an ongoing process, every fossil is transitional. But then, of course, the Creotins also ignore living transitional animals. There’s fish with lungs, snakes with legs, egg-laying mammals, and just what the Hell do they think a Platypus is? Probably created on one of God’s ‘smoke-a-joint-and-make-something-funny’ days.

  21. Topi says:
    December 1, 2014 at 1:28 am

    Evolution can be read from extant DNA. Even Dawkins has said that we do not need fossils to explain evolution, we only need to look at the DNA of extant species.

Comment¬

NOTE: This comments section is provided as a friendly place for readers of J&M to talk, to exchange jokes and ideas, to engage in profound philosophical discussion, and to ridicule the sincerely held beliefs of millions. As such, comments of a racist, sexist or homophobic nature will not be tolerated.

If you are posting for the first time, or you change your username and/or email, your comment will be held in moderation until approval. When your first comment is approved, subsequent comments will be published automatically.