Calling Cofty and others regarding evolution
I have got a Christadelphian booklet that disproves evolution. It's very interesting, including a section on the black mamba!
Could it be this one?
Here is a critique on that booklet:
Here is a critique on a lecture given by the author of that booklet:
Brilliant conclusion from that critique Driveby...
As I have already shown, "Darwinism" is a dusty relic of Victorian England. Modern Evolution is explained by the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis which includes Genetics, Mendelian Inheritance, modern methods of radiometric dating, the biogeographic distribution of species, vestiges and embryological recapitulation of evolutionary history, modern Anthropology, Genome Mapping, the discovery of hundreds of million of fossils with EVERY ONE in the historically correct rock strata, approximately a quarter of a million transitional fossils and hundreds of thousands of other pieces of evidence supporting the wonder of Evolution.
No it’s this one. It’s got good pictures too.
Still can’t find it. I need to organise my books.
The critique doesn’t mention the black mamba, which actually I find morbidly fascinating.
How exactly does a solid tooth become hollow? I asked an atheist recently how he explained this.
Do you actually believe that all atheists believe in evolution? Do you actually believe that all atheists are knowledgeable enough about evolution to answer a question about how a hollow fang evolved in a snake? Quoting someone who is not an expert and then attacking that statement is being dishonest.
This reminds me of the “Creation” book that the JWs put out years ago. In that book, they quoted an “evolutionist.” Readers were led to assume the “evolutionist” was an evolutionary scientist, but Francis Hitching was not ‘any’ kind of scientist. Richard Dawkins who ‘is’ an evolutionary biologist wrote about Hitching’s book, “The Neck of the Giraffe:” It "is one of the silliest and most ignorant I have read for years." And this book is widely quoted by creationists.
There are many complex life forms, but to look at them without studying them and then come to the conclusion that they had a designer and maker is being intellectually lazy.
Waste of 75p. I could buy a Mars Bar with that.
"It argues that there would be no use for two sets of fangs that are incomplete, or some intermediary stage, therefore they must always have existed fully formed."
What would a vegetarian, family friendly, pre-fall black mamba need with these teeth? Did it need them to tackle some tough grass?
Why can't creationists see their own logical inconsistencies? The Mamba was either designed to be a killer which falsifies the assertion that all creatures were vegetarian before the fall, or it was peaceful and it evolved after the fall to be the killer it now is, falsifying the assertion the it could not have evolved such an elaborate set of teeth!
"Waste of 75p. I could buy a Mars Bar with that."
Or even better....something healthy.
"Let’s take a different line of argument"
How about they stop trying to put together 'clever' arguments and actually do some research? Aside from the fact that they would quickly realise that most of their objections have plausible answers already that do not rely on special pleading (too complex to just come about by chance yet designed by my favourite god that just came about by chance is just fine), they would hopefully quickly realise the depth of their own ignorance and perhaps might stop flapping their lips just long enough for them to learn something...
All creationist objections take a similar form...
- Identify some complex feature of the natural world. A quick Google search or nature documentary will quickly provide inspiration. Creationist websites have hundreds of them you can copy-paste without attribution.
- Do no research at all on what is currently known about the evolutionary history of this feature. Ignore any possible fossil evidence, comparative anatomy or phylogenetic studies that shed light on the subject.
- Declare that this feature could not possibly arise by naturalistic means.
- Make reference to 'blind chance' and compare this to some human artifact - a watch, 747 aeroplane, house, computer - almost anything will do.
- Boldly assert that evolution has no answer to this challenge.
- Try to throw in the name of some PhD with a Doctorate in history or philosophy who agrees with you.
- Conflate evolution with atheism ignoring the fact that most intelligent christians accept the fact of evolution and many atheists know absolutely nothing about it.
- Ignore the factual answers that follow.
It all amounts to an argument from ignorance and/or personal incredulity.