• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Challenge to Atheists

grayman

Happy-go-lucky Heretic
grayman
Joined
Apr 24, 2006
Messages
5,655
I found these videos entitled "Challenge to Atheists" that supposedly demonstrate why evolutionary theory is wrong.

There's one about a turkey-like bird from Australia, One about dolphins , and giraffes. There's probably more but these will give you an idea of what they are like.

Comments?
 
Last edited:
I heard that if a giraffe falls over in the wild that it's got a good chance of ****ing itself up pretty bad.
 
Well, less than 20 seconds into the video linked from 'giraffe' and I already note that they are on about "non-physical intelligence and emotions". Proof that these are non-physical is conspicuously absent.

ETA: And after that, it's just one big argument from incredulity. When will creationists come up with a new challenge. There has to be at least one fallacy left they haven't fully exploited, right?
 
Last edited:
I watched the "turkey bird" video. Assuming all his claims about the unusual and impressive behavior of the bird are true, his argument boils down to "how can this bird know to do X when no one taught him?"

Instinctive behavior. Instincitve behaviors that lead to reproductive success are traits like any other, and are slelected for. The nest building behavior is a type of sexual selection and run away sexual slection leading to bizarre behaviors and outlanding anatomical developments is well documented (see the Irish Elk.)
 
What a bunch of embarassing videos. Sounds like their chain of "arguments" was made up by an 8 year old to convince 5 year olds.
 
The dolphin video essentially says that dolphin anatomy is so improbable that it could not have evolved from a land based ancestor. Gee, it's a real shame that dolphin evolutionary history is quite well supported by the fossil record showing early odontecetes going back more than 30 million years, including a gradual torque and elevation of the nostrils, development of pectoral flippers, elargement of the section of the skull that lead to the melon, decreasing diversity in dental structure until nearly all odontecetes have roughly identical conical teeth, and the extremely gradual loss of rear limb bones.
 
Last edited:
Marquis de Carabas said:
Well, less than 20 seconds into the video linked from 'giraffe' and I already note that they are on about "non-physical intelligence and emotions". Proof that these are non-physical is conspicuously absent.

ETA: And after that, it's just one big argument from incredulity. When will creationists come up with a new challenge. There has to be at least one fallacy left they haven't fully exploited, right?
Click to expand...

Agreed.

"Non-physical" intellegence my cute Cuban culo. Don't they know the first thing about neurology?
 
ImaginalDisc said:
The dolphim video essentially says that dolphin anatomy is so improbable that it could not have evolved from a land based ancestor. Gee, it's a real shame that dolphin evolutionary history is quite well supported by the fossil record showing early odontecetes going back more than 300 million years, including a gradual torque and elevation of the nostrils, development of pectoral flippers, elargement of the section of the skull that lead to the melon, decreasing diversity in detal structure until nearly all odontecetes have roughly identical conical teeth, and the extremely gradual loss of read limb bones.
Click to expand...

Remember ID, the Earth is only six thousand years old. :rolleyes:
 
ImaginalDisc said:
The dolphin video essentially says that dolphin anatomy is so improbable that it could not have evolved from a land based ancestor. Gee, it's a real shame that dolphin evolutionary history is quite well supported by the fossil record showing early odontecetes going back more than 30 million years, including a gradual torque and elevation of the nostrils, development of pectoral flippers, elargement of the section of the skull that lead to the melon, decreasing diversity in detal structure until nearly all odontecetes have roughly identical conical teeth, and the extremely gradual loss of rear limb bones.
Click to expand...
There's plenty of fossils of giraffids, too --- heck, we've still got okapis.

[swiki]Neck of the Giraffe[/swiki]

Here's Honanotherium.

honanotheriu.jpg
 
Wheezebucket said:
I heard that if a giraffe falls over in the wild that it's got a good chance of ****ing itself up pretty bad.
Click to expand...

That's because God insanely gave this planet way too much gravity for our size. As if beeing able to torture and rape and murder each other wasn't enough, we have to worry about serious damage and death just falling over, to say nothing about falling several times our body length.
 
In the giraffe video they speculate at length how the uber-designer "created" and "thought about" the smart way in which a giraffe calves, but they never show any video footage of a calving. Why only some generic beauty shots during the entire video? Is there something "un-christian" about the calving of an animal? Unsuitable for sunday school?
 
Gah, what a pile of dried up nostril pickings.

Each of those videos are basically "argument from incredulity". "I don't understand, therefore it must be wrong!!".

As others have said already, science pretty much has answers for all their comments. And basic answers too, it's not complex stuff.

Cheers,
TGHO
 
Well, I've got a question for all you evoloutionists, Why do I never find a giraffe in my peanut butter?
 
The Great Hairy One said:
Gah, what a pile of dried up nostril pickings.

Each of those videos are basically "argument from incredulity". "I don't understand, therefore it must be wrong!!".

As others have said already, science pretty much has answers for all their comments. And basic answers too, it's not complex stuff.

Cheers,
TGHO
Click to expand...
I think you mean "if I can't explain this, it must be a miracle! Praise Lord!"

Dawkins explores this quite elegantly in his books.

Charlie (I wish I could explain ID'ers) Monoxide
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom