yourname2000: The best part about these kinds of Christians is that they reveal themselves to be the stupidest, most inbreed heathen of the bunch. Get it through your thick dinosaur-like skull "jock"fever: evolution IS God's way. Until then, it's the simplest IQ test on the planet: "are you a Christian"...."yes"...."thank you, you're a moron....next!"jockfever: Silly groundless statements are important to the mental disorder known as Liberalism, especially those deeply invested in the unbelievable theory of evolution.
Hope springs eternal, however, so here is an explanation of the video from a web site which relies on facts, evidence and logic, rather than demented personal smears. http://scienceagainstevolution.org/v13i9f.htmHumor 101
If you are familiar with our web site, you know that we enjoy humor with a serious purpose...
People who don’t know much about evolution won’t get the jokes in our video. So, we will explain them to you in this essay. Since explaining a joke sucks the humor out of it, we really hope you watch our video before reading the following paragraphs.For Intellectuals
The title slide shows a book cover that looks remarkably like Evolution for Dummies. It uses a similar color scheme, layout, and fonts. The irony is that this book is for intellectuals rather than dummies.
There are two kinds of evolutionists: innocently ignorant evolutionists and intimidated intellectual evolutionists.
Innocently ignorant evolutionists aren’t dummies—they have just fallen victim to the one-sided propaganda preached in public schools. They aren’t stupid—they just don’t know the truth because it has been censored. They accept, without question, “evolution is a fact,” just because someone told them so. Most of them don’t know anything about evolution. Therefore, most of them will be confused by our video. Hopefully, it will get them to ponder things they have been told, and realize how utterly unscientific the theory of evolution really is.
There are only a few intimidated intellectual evolutionists. There are so few of them that you know who they are. We are talking about people like Eugenie C. Scott, Jerry Coyne, Richard Dawkins, and the editors of Discover Magazine. If you read their work, it becomes immediately apparent that they believe in evolution because they don’t believe what Dawkins calls, “the God delusion.”
They reason that evolution must be true because there isn’t any supernatural creator. They are intimidated because they fear that if evolution isn’t true, a mean, vengeful God will torture them eternally for their unbelief and disobedience. Because of their distorted view of religion, they steadfastly refuse to acknowledge the truth that is staring them right in the face. They call upon all of their intellectual powers to deny the obvious flaws and inconsistencies in the theory of evolution. Witness all the excuses we pointed out last month in Jerry Coyne’s book.
We titled our video Evolution for Intellectuals because it presents the theory of evolution from the intimidated intellectual point of view. It makes scientifically absurd statements as if they were undeniable facts.
Reactions to our video will vary. Innocently ignorant evolutionists will be confused because they won’t get too many of the jokes. Hopefully, it will get them to thinking. Intimidated intellectual evolutionists will be greatly angered by our video because they will get the jokes, and will realize that they expose the absurdity of their claims. But since their belief in evolution is based on fear rather than reason, our video won’t have much affect on them. Creationists will get all the jokes, will laugh, and love the video.Frankencell
One of the stars of our video is Frankencell, the first living thing which came to life through an unguided, natural process which has not yet been discovered. In our video, Frankencell comes to life in the methane and ammonia atmosphere of a dirty diaper. Science is based on observation, but new life forms have never been observed to arise spontaneously in dirty diapers. (Doubtless, Coyne’s excuse is that people try to avoid examining dirty diapers as much as possible. )
Let’s separate the truth from the exaggerated humor. Fifty years ago, when Stanley Miller produced a few organic molecules in a methane and ammonia atmosphere, evolutionists were really convinced that’s how life began. Today, that theory is largely rejected. They know it didn’t happen that way, but since they have no alternative, Miller’s experiment is still in the biology textbooks.
Since evolutionists don’t even have a remotely plausible explanation for the origin of life, they try to exclude the origin of life from the theory of evolution. They say that abiogenesis is not part of evolution when, it fact, it is the very foundation of evolution.
Whether they like to admit it or not, intimidated, intellectual evolutionists believe that some natural process caused lots of different organic compounds to arise from simple molecules. Those organic compounds assembled themselves into a cell with a membrane that allows nutrients in and waste products out. Then, somehow, that cell made the transition from inanimate to animate. That is, just like Frankenstein’s monster, it came to life.
But let’s not stop there. Once it came to life, it had to start acquiring and using energy to grow, and eventually reproduce. If not, it would have died shortly after coming to life, and there would be nothing to evolve.Reproduction
Reproduction is a real problem for evolutionists, on several levels. The first living thing had to reproduce before it died. What compels a single cell to divide itself in two?
The reproduction process had to be perfect enough to create more identical offspring, but it had to be imperfect enough to create different offspring. When an imperfect (perhaps incomplete) reproduction produced the first multi-cellular organism, it not only had to be viable, but the different cells had to perform different functions in harmony with each other. How and why did that happen? Evolutionists don’t know, but they believe it must have happened because there are so many different kinds of multi-cellular organisms.Vertebrates
Multi-cellular animals fall into two categories: vertebrates and invertebrates. That is, animals either have a backbone or they don’t. Evolutionists believe that all vertebrates have a common ancestor, which must have been some kind of fish.
Evolving a backbone isn’t just a matter of evolving a bone down the back. The backbone is what protects the spinal cord, which is an integral part of the central nervous system. So, when evolutionists say that something evolved a backbone, they are really saying that something evolved a functioning central nervous system with a brain connected to at least one kind of sensor (sight, hearing, taste, touch, or smell). That’s one small step for an evolutionist, but one giant leap for a fish.
Fish are sexual creatures, which is another reproduction issue that confounds evolutionists. Sexual reproduction is certainly good. It provides a method of eliminating genetic errors from the population. It also allows for variation. There’s no argument about that. The tough question is, “How did sexual reproduction originate?” The evolutionists’ naïve answer is that, since it is good, it must have evolved. They would like you to accept that without thinking further about it. Let’s think further...(use link for remainder of article)