The Bible pwns Evolution with Cryptozoology

[Cute Tink]

I have a dragon in my backyard. She's getting ready to lay some eggs. You could come over and see, but you can only see if her she wants you to and I can't guarantee that she will trust you.

Oi.

Before you can expect anyone to take you seriously (which I know you don't, you are preaching to yourself), you have to provide some evidence that any of these creatures ever existed. Nobody can prove that they never did. They present 0 trouble for evolution until there is some evidence that a) they existed at some point AND b) they don't and can't fit within the bounds of evolutionary theory. A and B are both failures of yours at this point AV.

Here's an idea, instead of starting topics that you a) have no intention of backing up with any evidence or data and b) aren't trying to actually convince anyone of, perhaps you could just private message yourself.

 

[Split Rock]

I contend that the existance of Leprechauns is problematic for evolutionists.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/188/423218448_f26aa24f11.jpg
YouTube - Lucky Charms commercial with Marshallow Maniacs

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Melipona Bee Defies Evolution

YouTube - Melipona Bee Defies Evolution

Thanks for posting a video that perfectly describes natural selection.

 

[AV1611VET]

And I contend you are a species of mustard plant.

Just don't call me a Homo -- thank you --

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Thanks for posting a video that perfectly describes natural selection.

Couldn't put it better myself.

Obviously the plant and the insect need each other now, but who's to say what the relationship of their ancestors was? The whole point of evolution is that a) modern species are related by extinct, ancestral species, and b) modern species are different to their ancestral species.

 

[Split Rock]

I contend that the existance of fairies is problematic for evolutionists
YouTube - Fairy Lore Story from TinkerBell and The Lost Treasure

 

[JeffShott]

I contend that Biblical Literalism is problematic for everyone.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Like the coelacanth?

The Coelacanth no longer exists, yes. It's not on your list anyway, so why you are mentioning it is beyond me.

Fictional creatures do not have to evolve, so evolution is often irrelevant where they are concerned.

 

[Cute Tink]

I contend that the existance of fairies is problematic for evolutionists
YouTube - Fairy Lore Story from TinkerBell and The Lost Treasure

I do believe in fairies!

 

[JustMeSee]

Just don't call me a Homo -- thank you --

You are a homo sapien.

 

[pgp_protector]

I do believe in fairies!

I've got a Ring Tone saying "I Don't believe In Farries" that repeats 5 times per ring.
Tinker Bells Falling all over the place when I get Calls & Ignore it

 

[Cute Tink]

I've got a Ring Tone saying "I Don't believe In Farries" that repeats 5 times per ring.
Tinker Bells Falling all over the place when I get Calls & Ignore it

You are evil.

 

[Split Rock]

I do believe in fairies!

Your Tinkerbell Avatar gave me the idea

 

[Cute Tink]

Your Tinkerbell Avatar gave me the idea

And it is appreciated.

 

[Belk]

Just don't call me a Homo -- thank you --

No worries AV. I won't lump you in with the rest of us humans.

 

[JustMeSee]

Job 39:9-12 (New International Version)


9 "Will the wild ox consent to serve you?
Will he stay by your manger at night?
10 Can you hold him to the furrow with a harness?
Will he till the valleys behind you?
11 Will you rely on him for his great strength?
Will you leave your heavy work to him?
12 Can you trust him to bring in your grain
and gather it to your threshing floor?

It is a wild ox, not a unicorn.

 

[lucaspa]

Following is a list of animals found in the Bible:

1. fowled bat
2. behemoth
3. leviathan
4. four-legged grasshopper
5. satyr
6. unicorn
7. dragon
8. straw-eating lions

I contend that these animals are problematic for evolutionists.

ROFL! They are made up animals! Why would such fantasies be a problem for evolution?

AV, should sphinxs be a problem for evolution? After all, there is a famous statue of one in Egypt. But you don't believe in the Egyptian religion, do you? So you don't think that is a problem for science.

AV, these animals are problems for anyone who believes in a literal, inerrant Bible!

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

Definitely a poe. There can no longer be any doubt. AV is yanking all of your chains.

 

[lucaspa]

Before you can expect anyone to take you seriously (which I know you don't, you are preaching to yourself), you have to provide some evidence that any of these creatures ever existed. Nobody can prove that they never did.

Actually, on several of them we can. Many of them are stated to exist in material form -- without the caveat you gave your dragon -- in specific geographical areas. We have searched those areas and no such animals have been found. If you can search the entire search space and not find it, then you have falsified the entity.

Some of those we know are fictional because the authors so state in other places. For instance, leviathan and behemoth also appear in Babylonian/Sumerian/Assyrian literature and there they are stated as mythical.

I have a dragon in my backyard. She's getting ready to lay some eggs. You could come over and see, but you can only see if her she wants you to and I can't guarantee that she will trust you.

This is an example of an ad hoc hypothesis to save your hypothesis from falsification.

The original hypothesis is "I have a dragon in my backyard". In the ordinary way of the word "dragon", that is a large physical beast that can be seen by anyone. However, you already know that if I come into your backyard I will not see a dragon. That will falsify the hypothesis since I have searched the entire search space.

So now you introduce the ad hoc hypothesis of invisibility: "you can only see if her she wants you to". This saves the hypothesis from falsification.

Of course, there are other ways to test for the dragon. Putting a net over the entire backyard would work. So would smoke pots so that the entire yard is filled with smoke, except for the gap caused by the dragon.

Of course, you could then try introducing more ad hoc hypotheses to avoid those falsifications.

As I stated before, AV basically got the "who" those beasts are a problem for wrong. They are a problem for an inerrant, literal Bible. He knows this. He's just trying to distract us from the original problem.

 

[Cute Tink]

Of course, you could then try introducing more ad hoc hypotheses to avoid those falsifications.

I'm sure I could think of enough ad hoc hypotheses to confuse myself after a time.