Debate 012: Cyclo and Blair debate Evolution

NOTE: I usually don’t post the quick and silly debates. I get a lot of these and the majority of them are from people that have absolutely no clue about what they are arguing about. I don’t have a problem with people engaging in debate; but at least know the subject before you get into a debate. I’ve decided to start posting these debates so that people can see the silliness that enters my inbox. Be warned, in these quick and silly debates I tend to be more facetious and brutally honest. Someone needs to let these people know that they are unarmed.

Cyclo Rebuttal #001:

How ludicrous is the theory of evolution?

Evolutionists believe humans began as tiny sea creatures swimming in the ocean (what kind?) which evolved into wet four-legged amphibians (what kind?), which evolved into furry little rodents (what kind?), which evolved into tiny primates (what kind?), which evolved into biped humans.

Each stage of evolution would have existed for tens of thousands of years (if not millions), but there is no scientific evidence that the above process ever took place! If there is, please identify the specific species’ of each creature identified in the evolutionary chain mentioned above, including the transitional forms. Remember, the evolutionist believes these to be the ancestors of human beings, but the evolutionist is unable to identify any of them. Then again, to proclaim a little prehistoric amphibian (which existed as such for thousands of years) as a direct ancestor of man would surely destroy one’s credibility!

Even amongst dinosaurs, only completed species exist in the fossil record. There is no evidence, for example, that the Tyrannosaurus Rex ever evolved from another type of creature.

The evidence says creation.

The theory of evolution is a LIE of epic proportions.

Response to Cyclo #001:

I want to personally thank you for giving me a good laugh. I haven’t laughed like that in a long time and it felt good. I appreciate it. Of course at the end of your letter I realized that you weren’t joking and that kind of stole the laughter away, but alas…

CYCLO: “Evolutionists believe humans began as tiny sea creatures swimming in the ocean…”

That is not what evolutionists believe. Perhaps you should study up on evolution a bit more before making an arse of yourself in “trying” to discredit it.

CYCLO: “…(what kind?)…”

I’ve heard Creationists like Duane “same-old, same-old” Gish and Kent “Man’s law sucks” Hovind use the word “kind”. I’ve asked them on several occasions to define what a “kind” is and they have never done so. Can you explain what a “kind” is? No one in the scientific community uses this term, so I don’t know what you mean.

CYCLO: “…which evolved into wet four-legged amphibians, which evolved into furry little rodents, which evolved into tiny primates, which evolved into biped humans.”

Is that what you really believe? You honestly believe that evolution is what you describe above? No wonder you’re so lost. I wouldn’t accept the scientific validity of evolution if I thought it was what you described, either.

CYCLO: “Each stage of evolution would have existed for tens of thousands of years (if not millions), but there is no scientific evidence that the above process ever took place!”

Considering that your “above process” is seriously flawed and doesn’t even come close to the actual evolutionary process – then your statement is correct. However, there is a considerably vast amount of evidence to back up the actual evolutionary process – not the imagined one that you created in your little tirade.

CYCLO: “…including the transitional forms.”

You Creationists are funny. Here’s how this works. Every time that science finds a transitional species, the creationists refuse to recognize it. Instead they insist that there should be two transitional on either side. This means that every time a transitional species is found – they Creationists make up two more “gaps” on either side of it. It’s as if they expect transitional fossils to appear like pages in a flip-book cartoon, with each species only altered minutely so that if you scan all the pages you’ll see the species “glide” into new form. That only shows the ignorance of creationists and their lack of scientific ability.

CYCLO: “Remember, the evolutionist believes these to be the ancestors of human beings, but the evolutionist is unable to identify any of them.”

Any of what? Your “above process” is careless and uninformed. Perhaps if you care to elaborate or at least behave like an actual scientist instead of a religious creationists with no scientific knowledge, then perhaps I can help you understand. If you’re looking for the transitional species from the ancestral species that spawned the modern primate and modern human lineages, then those species have been identified. Certainly not all of them. There will always be “gaps” because we haven’t dug up every corner of the earth looking for fossils.

What you should keep in mind when it comes to transitional species is that we are always filling in the “gaps” that creationists love to talk about. Over the last 25 years there have been remarkable discoveries made that have filled in “gaps” that the creationists used to point to (now they point at others) and several species have been identified closely to the flip-book cartoon that creationists like to think of (whales, for example).

CYCLO: “Then again, to proclaim a little prehistoric amphibian (which existed as such for thousands of years) as a direct ancestor of man would surely destroy one’s credibility!”

That’s why you have no credibility – because you are the one that has claimed amphibians are the direct ancestor of man. Science has made no such claim. Your ignorance of evolution is astounding – but also explains why you’re a creationist.

CYCLO: “Even amongst dinosaurs, only completed species exist in the fossil record. There is no evidence, for example, that the Tyrannosaurus Rex ever evolved from another type of creature.”

Again, your ignorance of the process is revealed. Do you expect us to find a Stegatyranatricerasaurus? A hybrid between Stegosaurus, Tyrannosaurus and Triceratops? If we ever find that elusive “cat-dog” that creationists demand then it will be proof of creation – not evolution. To expect the pre-Tyrannosaurus species to look like a Tyrannosaurus again reverts back to the “flip-book cartoon” that ignorant creationists expect. Science does not expect such because they know better and understand the process – unlike ignorant creationists.

CYCLO: “The evidence says creation.”

What evidence? If you have evidence of creationism then you better identify it because the creationists are wallowing in the sewage of ignorance and religious dogma without a ray of light from any scientific evidence. They are drowning in their own ignorance.

CYCLO: “The theory of evolution is a LIE of epic proportions.”

Seen any black helicopters lately?

Cyclo Rebuttal #002:

BLAIR: “That is not what evolutionists believe. Perhaps you should study up on evolution a bit more before making an arse of yourself in “trying” to discredit it.”

Then how did the ancestors of humanity begin if not as tiny sea creatures in a pre-human from according to the theory of evolution? Did tiny rodents pop up on dry land and start the evolutionary process?

BLAIR: “Can you explain what a “kind” is? No one in the scientific community uses this term, so I don’t know what you mean.”

I simply want you to identify each and every pre-human species on the human “evolutionary ladder” leading up to human beings.

BLAIR: “Is that what you really believe? You honestly believe that evolution is what you describe above? No wonder you’re so lost. I wouldn’t accept the scientific validity of evolution if I thought it was what you described, either.”

Sir, that is what you believe! Unless you believe the creation account involving the fully formed, fully human Adam and Eve. I asked you to list all of the pre-human stages of “human evolution” beginning with the first few cells and leading all the way up to human beings.

BLAIR: “Considering that your “above process” is seriously flawed and doesn’t even come close to the actual evolutionary process – then your statement is correct. However, there is a considerably vast amount of evidence to back up the actual evolutionary process – not the imagined one that you created in your little tirade.”

LOL! Then by all means, list the evolutionary process … but you can’t, because there is no conclusive evidence! Just desperate speculation that depends on stuff like a dog becoming a horse. A dog has four legs and a tail = a horse has four legs and a tail!!! A horse evolved from a dog!!! Or did a dog evolve from a horse???

BLAIR: “That only shows the ignorance of creationists and their lack of scientific ability.”

No, it shows the ignorance of evolutionists who cannot support their secular religion with anything but known violations of scientific laws.

BLAIR: “If you’re looking for the transitional species from the ancestral species that spawned the modern primate and modern human lineages, then those species have been identified. Certainly not all of them. There will always be “gaps” because we haven’t dug up every corner of the earth looking for fossils.”

Sorry, extinct monkeys and apes don’t count. Then again, where did monkeys and apes come from? For that matter, what were primates before becoming primates? Were they furry four-legged rodents?

BLAIR: “Over the last 25 years there have been remarkable discoveries made that have filled in “gaps” that the creationists used to point to (now they point at others) and several species have been identified closely to the flip-book cartoon that creationists like to think of (whales, for example).”

Uh, the transitional gaps have not been filled and will never be filled, because they don’t exist!

Then again, one could show an evolutionist the fossils of a mouse and a porcupine or a horse and a dog and the evolutionist will claim, based on certain similarities, that one evolved into the other or vice versa, but that doesn’t make it true!

BLAIR: “That’s why you have no credibility – because you are the one that has claimed amphibians are the direct ancestor of man. Science has made no such claim. Your ignorance of evolution is astounding – but also explains why you’re a creationist.”

I believe creation, because it’s true. I asked you to list the pre-human ancestors of man starting from the very beginning of life on Earth, and you’ve been unable to do so.

BLAIR: “Again, your ignorance of the process is revealed. Do you expect us to find a Stegatyranatricerasaurus? A hybrid between Stegosaurus, Tyrannosaurus and Triceratops? If we ever find that elusive “cat-dog” that creationists demand then it will be proof of creation – not evolution.”

No, that would be evidence of evolution, because the creationist believes each animal was created complete in the macro-sense, whereas the evolutionary theory requires thousands of transitional forms … with thousands of animal species changing into completely different species, which completely and utterly violates the laws of science.

From the very beginning…

Please list the creatures in the evolutionary chain leading up to a giraffe.

Please list the creatures in the evolutionary chain leading up to a saber tooth tiger.

Please list the creatures in the evolutionary chain leading up to a t-rex.

Please list the creatures in the evolutionary chain leading up to gorillas.

Please list the creatures in the evolutionary chain leading up to a whale.

Please list the creatures in the evolutionary chain leading up to brontosaurus.

Please list the creatures in the evolutionary chain leading up to a stegosaurus.

Please list the creatures in the evolutionary chain leading up to a woolly mammoth.

Please list the “creatures” in the evolutionary chain leading up to human beings.

BLAIR: “To expect the pre-Tyrannosaurus species to look like a Tyrannosaurus again reverts back to the “flip-book cartoon” that ignorant creationists expect. Science does not expect such because they know better and understand the process.”

They don’t know the process, because scientists have been unable to identify an evolutionary chain leading up to dinosaurs and mammals. A lot of species yes, an evolutionary chain no. The fanatical evolutionist then gets desperate and claims that species gave birth to completely different species (like a pig suddenly giving birth to a moose!), which violates the laws of science of course, but makes for a good laugh.

BLAIR: “What evidence? If you have evidence of creationism then you better identify it because the creationists are wallowing in the sewage of ignorance and religious dogma without a ray of light from any scientific evidence. They are drowning in their own ignorance.”

You’ve already drowned in ignorance. I made a simple request and you’ve been unable to fulfill it … which is why the scientific evidence, in all intellectual honesty, points to creation!

But then I never expected you to fulfill a request which cannot be fulfilled.

Response to Cyclo #002:

CYCLO: “Then how did the ancestors of humanity begin if not as tiny sea creatures in a pre-human from according to the theory of evolution? Did tiny rodents pop up on dry land and start the evolutionary process?”

Your statement oversimplified the issue and you stated that humans evolved FROM sea creatures. Sea creatures and earlier single-celled organisms are certainly in the ancestral lineage of the evolutionary path and development of the hominids, but we did not evolve directly from sea creatures or rodents, as you stated. As I have stated before, you need to be specific and discuss this issue scientifically. If all you are going to do is rant and rave then there is no point in discussing anything with you. Sweeping statements will not get you anywhere and neither will mischaracterized statements.

CYCLO: “I simply want you to identify each and every pre-human species on the human “evolutionary ladder” leading up to human beings.”

What does that have to do with kinds? Why can’t creationists define “kinds” that they constantly use? I know the word comes from Genesis, but Genesis and creationists fail to define their use of the word. Care to actually define kind?

Anyway, I can only identify the pre-human species that we have actually found and identified. It is fair to say that there are still “gaps” of missing species. Until we dig up every piece of earth and look for fossils we can never be sure that we’ve filled in all the “gaps”. Transitional species are found all the time as we uncover more examples.

There’s no point in duplicating information that is available elsewhere. Here are some good sources for the evolutionary lineage of hominids:

CYCLO: “Sir, that is what you believe! Unless you believe the creation account involving the fully formed, fully human Adam and Eve. I asked you to list all of the pre-human stages of “human evolution” beginning with the first few cells and leading all the way up to human beings.”

That is not what I believe. Four-legged amphibians did not evolve into furry rodents and furry rodents did not evolve into primates. You are grossly oversimplifying the process in order to make it sound ludicrous. While this methodology may sound impressive to the uninformed and scientifically illiterate, it will not work here. Until you can accurately describe the evolutionary process, as stated by evolutionary science, then you are in no position to debate the issue.

CYCLO: “LOL! Then by all means, list the evolutionary process … but you can’t, because there is no conclusive evidence! Just desperate speculation that depends on stuff like a dog becoming a horse. A dog has four legs and a tail = a horse has four legs and a tail!!! A horse evolved from a dog!!! Or did a dog evolve from a horse???”

Perhaps we should start out simple since you obviously have no clue when it comes to evolutionary science. I certainly don’t have the time to teach you basic biology and evolutionary science. Instead I will direct you to some beginner web pages that are designed to teach kids about evolutionary science. After you get up to at least a high school level of understanding science and evolutionary science then I can direct you to more complicated sources. In the meantime, I suggest you check out:

CYCLO: “No, it shows the ignorance of evolutionists who cannot support their secular religion with anything but known violations of scientific laws.”

Obviously, this is not the forum for a detailed listing of transitional species. The “Book of Life” takes up so much space that it had to be separated on tons of web pages that share resources. You’ll just have to do the research on your own. I suggest you start at a comprehensive list of evolutionary links at: TMA Evolution Links (I no longer maintain the massive link database).

CYCLO: “Sorry, extinct monkeys and apes don’t count. Then again, where did monkeys and apes come from? For that matter, what were primates before becoming primates? Were they furry four-legged rodents?”

Why don’t extinct species count? 98% of all the species that have ever walked on the Earth are now extinct. Your statement only exaggerates your ignorance when it comes to science and specifically evolutionary science. Monkeys and apes, as you call them, which we refer to as modern primates, all evolved from a common ancestor that hominids share. Hominids did not evolve *from* modern apes – they evolved *alongside* them from a common ancestor. The australopithecines are good start.

“Furry four-legged rodents” evolving into apes is again a good example of your ignorance. You can oversimplify the process all you want to make it sound corny, but all it does is make you look stupid to the scientifically educated. Until you are willing to discuss the issue scientifically and prove that you at least have a working knowledge of evolutionary science (college level) then there is no point in discussing this with you. Until you grasp the basics then I’m wasting my time. Do your research and learn about evolutionary science. Then come back and talk to me.

Again, I’m not going to teach you basic biology and evolutionary science. You’ll have to study on your own by using some of the suggested links above or purchasing a scientific book about evolutionary science.

CYCLO: “Uh, the transitional gaps have not been filled and will never be filled, because they don’t exist!”

Congratulations. You have successfully fallen into the typical Fundie episodic fits that are normal in these types of discussions. I’d rather argue the non-existence of Santa Claus with a 5-year-old than debate with a Fundie that hasn’t a clue about evolutionary science and not what he’s been brainwashed with a Sunday School by a preacher that wouldn’t know science if it smacked him in the face.

CYCLO: “I believe creation, because it’s true.”

Prove it. No other creationist has been able to do so – even the ones that actually have a basic understanding of rudimentary evolutionary science.

CYCLO: “I asked you to list the pre-human ancestors of man starting from the very beginning of life on Earth, and you’ve been unable to do so.”

No, you asked me to list “kinds”. It wasn’t until this email that you clarified your question and asked for a complete list of hominids. I have provided you the links above to get that information.

CYCLO: “No, that would be evidence of evolution, because the creationist believes each animal was created complete in the macro-sense, whereas the evolutionary theory requires thousands of transitional forms … with thousands of animal species changing into completely different species, which completely and utterly violates the laws of science.”

That is a false statement. Transitional species does not mean that you’ll find 50 species with a set of nostrils slowly moving away. Transitional species mean an intermediary species between two others. The debate over environmentally exacerbated change or punctuated equilibrium and other methods are still a debated issue.

CYCLO: “Please list the “creatures” in the evolutionary chain leading up to human beings.”

For all your lists you will need to dig into a book and get the information. The information is too comprehensive to list here. I can only say it so many times: I can’t teach you basic biology via email – you’ll have to learn it on your own.

CYCLO: “The fanatical evolutionist then gets desperate and claims that species gave birth to completely different species (like a pig suddenly giving birth to a moose!), which violates the laws of science of course, but makes for a good laugh.”

Please point me to one evolutionists that said anything remotely close to “pig giving birth to a moose”. Remember, that to the scientifically literate person, which you are not, your ramblings sound stupid. You only sound “smart” to the uneducated creationist.

CYCLO: “You’ve already drowned in ignorance. I made a simple request and you’ve been unable to fulfill it … which is why the scientific evidence, in all intellectual honesty, points to creation!”

You made no simple request. You asked me to list “kinds”. “Kinds” is creationist lingo for “I’m an idiot that thinks the Bible is literal because I’m too stupid to understand what an analogy is”.

If you’re as smart as you think you are (only stupid creationists agree with you) then you should be able to prove creationism. If evolution is as fallacious as you claim and creation so sound, then you should have absolutely no problem presenting that evidence here and proving to me that evolution is false and creationism is true. Can you do it? Or are you ignorant of creation “science” as well?

I could argue for creationism better than you can. Do your fellow creationists a favor. Shut up before you further tarnish their reputation for being ignorant buffoons.

 NOTE: Cyclo never responded back. Hopefully he went and did some research.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s