Harry #fundie

Harry #fundie talkorigins.org

IF I WERE AN EVOLUTIONIST

1)I would convince people that order came from disorder and chaos. 2) I would convince people that intelligence came from non-intelligence. 3) I would persuade minds to believe that living things can spring from dead matter.(The opposite of the law of biogenesis) 4) I would dupe people into believing that their most distant relatives were lovesick amoeba. 5) I would tell man that if the sun was only one degree closer, we would all burn up, and if the sun was only one degree farther away, we would all freeze to death. Then I would convince man that the accident called evolution caused the sun to be placed in the only position it could be in for man to exist on the earth. 6) I would convince man that the intricate design of the universe had no designer, it was all an accident. 7) I would convince man that dolphins at one time had legs and climbed trees and then evolved into men. 8) I would convince man that the very first thing that ever came into existence, came into existence out of nothing. 9) I would convince man that the laws of nature( gravity, biogenesis, aerodynamics etc.) did not need a law giver. These laws came into being accidently from non-intelligence. 10) I would tell man that if the moon was not in the exact place it is in, the earth would be covered by water, and that the moon is where it is by accidental happenstance and good fortune.

LAST OF ALL IF I WERE AN EVOLUTIONIST, I WOULD PERSUADE PEOPLE THAT GRIMM'S FAIRY TALES ARE ALL TRUE

52 comments

old comment by Phil

"I would dupe people into believing that their most distant relatives were lovesick amoeba."

Lovesick? What are you talking about?

"I would tell man that if the sun was only one degree closer, we would all burn up, and if the sun was only one degree farther away, we would all freeze to death."

Degree? That's a unit of distance? Am I missing something here?

"Then I would convince man that the accident called evolution caused the sun to be placed in the only position it could be in for man to exist on the earth."

What the hell does evolution have to do with that? Why is it that fundie's have to associate every part of science they don't like with "evilution"?

old comment by FMG

1. Order in life comes from the massive amounts of entropy thats going on in the sun... We have a giant ball of fire. We win.

2. There are "non intelligent" life on this planet. We know it works. Its just that intelligence can beat instinct.

3. Viruses fulfil all the facilities of life while not being life...

4. Its not a dupe, the redundancy and universality of our genome code pretty much indicates that we evolved from the same source.

5. We follow an elliptical path around the sun. Our distance varies massively and we still actually survive. Amusingly we are further away from the sun than we are in winter in the northern hemisphere... The temperature change is due to the nature of oblique sunlight.

6. The intricate "patterns" are all in our heads rather than existing actually. We see the intricate patterns since we can attribute mathematical values to things. Which inherently brings mathematical value and pattern recognition to the event.

7. Dolphins are heavily related to cows since they are cetacea. So cows that lived near water. We know this happens cause we have cows that still like water and live pseudo aquatic lifestyles. We call them "water buffalo". They are quite big...

8. Its due to the fact that energy and matter are interchangeable. Since energy is "nothing" you can find matter from "nothing".

9. They are laws because we have deemed they are. The "law of gravity" actually changes in some cases. Aerodynamics is not a law and we are still learning a lot about it.

10. Thats a lie. Look its simple, if things were different we would have developed differently. Thats all. Thats how life works.

old comment by Allegory for Jesus

1.) Isn't that what religion argues? God made random crap, tossed together, and BAM, you got yourself some EARF.
2.) You are speaking of intelligence as if it is actual, tangible entity in our world, rather than something essentially subjective, and a vague description of a variety of things spurred by certain biological capacities. That, in no ways, requires an intelligence to create.
3.) Nonliving matter is not dead matter, and there is no chemical difference between the molecules that compose living beings and those that compose nonliving matter. As such, it is hardly impossible for one to come from the other.
4.) Amoebas (which, I assume, you are just using inaccurately as a synonym for "one-celled organism") reproduce asexually. They were not lovesick, in any way.
5.) Evolution has nothing to do with the position of the sun, or any of the infinite variety of things that could be different and not allow for life in its current state to exist. However, it does explain how life could adapt to reality as it is, and thus show that the idea of a "perfect position" is fallacious, in that the only reason it seems ideal is because life has grown in such a manner to survive in the world as it exists, and thus have become ideally suited for their position, rather than the other way around.
6.) What design, dammit!?
7.) Issue 1: They wouldn't have been dolphins, but an evolutionary cousin of the ancestors of dolphins which is assuming that apes, of course, descended from dolphins which, Issue 2: they did not.
8.) Which is incredibly different from your theology, how? You basically posit the same thing, except that a God (beyond existence as we know it) pushed things along. Same thing, insert God of the gaps.
9.) Laws of nature are not comparable to human laws. The laws of nature are basically observations that a roll of a die is limited to numbers 1 through 6, rather than having infinite possibilities of equal probability. Such laws do not require a law-giver, in that having observable limitations is as indicative of a creator as complete unpredicability, and limitlessness would be. (Given that your miracles are essentially unpredictable violations of the laws of nature, it would in fact be more in line with your theology that way, and more indicative of the will of God when it happens).
10.) Anthropic principle AGAIN! The stupidity cherry on top of the creationist fail ice cream sundae.