Some evolutionists belive in the 'soup' theory where all living things simply evolved from a big pot of molecular chowder that somehow came together to form man, then woman. They then crawled out of a primal ooze and continued to evolve into the man we see in our world today. This is where the refutation of a tornado putting together a house arguement is used freequently with evolution.
40 comments
*sighs*Some evolutionists belive in the 'soup' theory where all living things simply evolved
Okay, though I've never heard it called the "soup theory".
from a big pot of molecular chowder
Ah, the mental images that conjures up. Soup anyone?
that somehow came together to form man,
Yes, but that "somehow" you skipped includes several billion years and a whole shitload of complex genetics. The simplification takes quite a bit away from it.
then woman.
Um...No.
They then crawled out of a primal ooze and continued to evolve into the man we see in our world today.
Okay, the "primal ooze" was way, way before anything even vaguely resembling humans, or even animals, for that matter.
This is where the refutation of a tornado putting together a house arguement is used freequently with evolution.
The tornado argument is one of the most horribly inaccurate analogies of evolutionary theory that fundie blockheads have come up with, and it gets torn to shreds quite easily. Sadly, I don't feel like explaining it to you right now, though.
A tornado doesn't select the most useful and house-like parts of its wreckage, set it aside, and pass the remainder on to the next tornado, adding yet more house-like parts, step by step. If it did that, it would put a house together fairly quickly. The tornado building a house in one shot is a false analogy, as has been pointed out many times to creationists. hreebigrocks should study evolution, then try to counter it.
This is where the refutation of a tornado putting together a house arguement is used freequently with evolution." An analogy made up by Hoyle, an astronomer. I pray for the day the fundies come up with a cioherent analogy from a secular university trained biologist to use against evolution that doesn't make my eyes roll everytime I read it.
Of course, any competent biologist tends to believe evolution is the more correct theory, so, I guess that might be a problem right there, huh?
a big pot of molecular chowder that somehow came together to form man, then woman.
Nope, they say that we come from a common ancestor to the apes and mouses, for that matter, which, ultimately, was the long process coming from yes, a single cell in a soup. The notion of man and woman from that is all yours. You should patent it.
Abiogenesis isn't a theory yet, silly, it's merely a hypothesis, and your strawman version of it doesn't really fit the evidence. Sexual reproduction evolved hundreds of millions of years before the first proto-hominid stood up on her hind legs, so man and woman evolved at the same time.
Some creationists believe the "god crapped" theory where all living things and everything in the universe were crapped out of god's ass after eating a ginormous burrito. Aren't they fucking idiots to believe that?
See? I can make up shit that makes you look like a fucking moron, too.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
