NationStates Jolt Archive

Not that I take either hypothesis at all seriously but it seems to me the only evidence supporting either Creationism or if you prefer its politically correct skin of Intelligent Design is refutation of evidence supporting evolution and generally half-baked ones at that. I am curious what evidence there is to treat what is by mythology by definition as being science. Anyone?

I don't mean to sound like flamebaiting, but it has been noted both by evolutionists and by certain apologist Creationists (such as Alvin Plantinga) that the typical and the more fundamental Creationist positions tend to rely on attacking Evolutionism more than building up their own theories. The trouble for Creationists is the (geologically-indicated) timescale of "prehistoric" events; they have to fit a lot of phenomena under the general umbrella of "It was the Flood!"

Moreover, many tend to use attempts at reductio arguments which appear at first logically sound but upon inspection turn out to be false. An example, from this very board:

"The Sahara is actually expanding... this means that if you go back a million years there would have been no desert there."

This is a gross oversimplification, assuming that in the last million years all environmental effects have remained the same, when in fact it would be a much safer assumption that the desert has been there for some time, judging by the Sahara's positioning in relation to the sun and in relation to the local water sources, primarily.

There is no direct evidence for Creationism. However, they will try to move the goalposts by saying that "Well, you can't prove Evolution either because no scientific theory can be proved." At this point, they have actually changed nothing (relevant). They have invoked the problem of induction, but that's all. They can't prove their side either.

However, what indicative evidence there is for Creationism is hugely overwhelmed by the indicative evidence for Evolutionism. Hugely so. And no amount of rhetoric, reinterpretation or propaganda will change that.

Creationism is often based on faith. People who have the belief on those grounds don't request proof, they just believe.

Creationism is often based on faith. People who have the belief on those grounds don't request proof, they just believe.

Exactly. I have no beef with this, as long as those people who believe on the basis of faith don't try to claim they're believing based on scientific evidence (hermeneutics notwithstanding). It's those who claim that they don't believe based on faith but evidence and then proceed to roll out discredited (note I don't say "disproven") arguments which constitute an attempt to prove their case. That is not faith.

"Faith begins precisely where thinking leaves off." - Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling (and no, he didn't mean it to be offensive; he meant it to be supportive!)

Ok, proof of ID... Intelligent Design. Howabout comparing Humans with something that we know is a product of Intelligent Design. Computers and Robotics.

Let’s start with the power supply...
Computers & Robotics need electricity... without it, performance... well there is none.

Humans need food, water and oxygen to produce the 'bioelectric' energy needed to function properly... deny any of these and performance starts to go down.

Internal workings.
CPU:
Computers & Robotics have a processor that calculates and regulates the information given to the CPU.

Humans have brains... it's our CPU... our processor so to speak.

Circuitry:
Computers & Robotics wires, cables and integrated circuits are everywhere in the pc.

Humans have the Nervous system, a complex series of ‘wires’ that relay information to our CPU (Brain)

Cooling System:
Computers & Robotics have fans inside… some larger systems use water or temperature controlled Air Units. Should the system get to Hot, performance goes down.

Humans have sweat and our Respiratory systems… these are used to regulate heat keeping us in operational temperatures.

Input Devices.
Computers & Robotics Floppy Drives, Keyboards, Microphones, touch pads/screens, optical cameras/scanners…

Humans Taste, Touch, Sight, Hearing, Smell… Our Input Devices….

Memory
Computers & Robotics depends on how much we install.

Humans depends on how much we train ours…

Storage devices.
Computers & Robotics Hard drive, and external storage methods such as Diskettes, CD, Tapes, punch cards…

Humans our brain, and external Storage methods such as Paper and writing implement, Tapes, CD, Computers…

Output Devices
Computers & Robotics Monitors, Printers, Speakers and Disks (CD and otherwise.)

Humans Speech, writing, motions…

Protection
Computers & Robotics MacAfee… Norton’s…

Humans Immune system…

Structure
Computers & Robotics have their cases, their superstructure…

Humans have bones and skin.

Articulation.
Computers & Robotics joints and servos…

Humans muscles and Joints.

Programming
Computers & Robotics what ever the programmer puts in.

Humans school anyone?

Form
Computers & Robotics function biased form. Over the centuries, we design computers and Robots to perform specific duties… different ‘versions’ are being worked on each day. Robots designed to paint cars cannot do the same as robots designed for healthcare or for under sea exploration. Computers are getting faster and smaller with each new ‘generation’… also man is constantly trying to build Robots in a humanoid form. But first starting with animal/insect like bodies and are slowly working their way up the ladder.

Humans and other life on this planet are also function oriented. People who live in higher climates are physically different than people who live in valleys… for instance, their lung capacity is different. Each Generation of ‘Humans’ are living longer. Evolution can be said to be earlier versions of the current form. As each form fails in its trial… it becomes obsolete… or extinct. And in the case of Christians… are we not ‘made’ in God’s Image? For some of the others, Man is the highest form one can achieve on earth.

Reasoning.
Computers & Robotics every year we hear more and more of A.I. becoming reality. Video Games and Movies utilize computers that react in a more ‘human’ like method. Programmers are programming Robots to react to their environment… adapt and ‘learn’ through outside stimulus… Wi-Fi/remote allows the exchange of information without the need for cables… and each new ‘program’ teaches the Robot something new.

Humans *whistles*

We talk about Robots building/programming Robots… artificial Humans… Bio-ware… A.I. … how would the Ultimate Robot view us… as their creator? Or a foiled evolutionary path? We go through different Versions of computers… (TSR 80’s anyone?) And each new version is different than the last… what about the evolution of Man… could it not be said that each ‘version’ of man is a bench mark in the creation of the ultimate form of Man? We create Computers and Robots with a sophistication that rivals the human body, yet believe that we, ourselves are a product of chance?

How is that even evidence? We make things in our own image and use some ideas (but not all) that nature thought up because they work, so what?

*snip*

You've proven nothing besides we have some analogous functions with robots. You've yet to show any proof that we were actually created, while evolution clearly shows how these things that you posit created came into being.

<snip>

The simple answer is that one is organic and one is inorganic. It's like cold blooded vs. warmblooded creatures, of course the lifestyles and needs will be different. That doesn't automatically mean that there's a god involved.

There is no direct absolute proof that cannot be explained as somehting else. The only thing that stands is that it cannot be proven wrong. Some would argue that you can't prove something that is nonexistant to be nonexistant, and this is absolutely so. I, however, beleive that God did create life, in whatever process it does not matter. I beleive this because I have faith, as is stated above. Absolute proof that God does not exist would change my mind, but no absolute proof on that can be given. I would like to note that I do not beleive that the world is 6,000 years old since that is a common attack on christians. Only conservative christians beleive that. I do, however, beleive that mankind is 6,000 years old and the first human, given the name Adam in the Bible, was created by God then.

What direct supporting evidence does creation/ID have?

Ummmm .... a little something I like to call .... the Universe.

What've you got?

There is no direct absolute proof that cannot be explained as somehting else. The only thing that stands is that it cannot be proven wrong. Some would argue that you can't prove something that is nonexistant to be nonexistant, and this is absolutely so. I, however, beleive that God did create life, in whatever process it does not matter. I beleive this because I have faith, as is stated above. Absolute proof that God does not exist would change my mind, but no absolute proof on that can be given. I would like to note that I do not beleive that the world is 6,000 years old since that is a common attack on christians. Only conservative christians beleive that. I do, however, beleive that mankind is 6,000 years old and the first human, given the name Adam in the Bible, was created by God then.
Which is why bones have been found dating back to the 8000 BC era?

The simple answer is that one is organic and one is inorganic. It's like cold blooded vs. warmblooded creatures, of course the lifestyles and needs will be different. That doesn't automatically mean that there's a god involved.

One's actually alive, concious, totipotent and not made of man made materials too. :confused:

There is no direct absolute proof that cannot be explained as somehting else. The only thing that stands is that it cannot be proven wrong. Some would argue that you can't prove something that is nonexistant to be nonexistant, and this is absolutely so. I, however, beleive that God did create life, in whatever process it does not matter. I beleive this because I have faith, as is stated above. Absolute proof that God does not exist would change my mind, but no absolute proof on that can be given. I would like to note that I do not beleive that the world is 6,000 years old since that is a common attack on christians. Only conservative christians beleive that. I do, however, beleive that mankind is 6,000 years old and the first human, given the name Adam in the Bible, was created by God then.

Thats just as ridiculous as beleiving in the traditional 7 day creation story.

The only way i'll take ID remotely seriously is if somone comes up with a test that can be designed to be able to falsify ID. Care to take a try anyone?

Ummmm .... a little something I like to call .... the Universe.

What've you got?



oookayyyy...

Ummmm .... a little something I like to call .... the Universe.

What've you got?
How does that support intelligent design?

How does that support intelligent design?

How does it not? Can you tell me, for absolute certain, what was going on prior to neutrino transparency?

How science can negate the Almighty escapes me.

Ok, proof of ID... Intelligent Design. Howabout comparing Humans with something that we know is a product of Intelligent Design. Computers and Robotics.

~snipsnip~

This man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume) was fat and Scottish. But he was not just fat and Scottish; he was also a philosopher, who conclusively and permanently eradicted the Design argument from analogy (your version of it). Sorry, old chap.

How does it not? Can you tell me, for absolute certain, what was going on prior to neutrino transparency?

How science can negate the Almighty escapes me.
Best possible answer is I don't know. That doesn't automatically suggest god.

Anyway, I thought we were talking about the intelligent design argument against evolution. You know, the one where people think god made each and every species as-is, and "macroevolution" just can't happen for some reason never actually explained.

You've proven nothing besides we have some analogous functions with robots. You've yet to show any proof that we were actually created, while evolution clearly shows how these things that you posit created came into being.wrong, Evolution does not disprove Intelligent Design. it only shows how life evolved, not that there might be some "higher being" that may have started the process. I am not arguing a "Bible Literal" creation, but that Evolution is the "how" while God is the "Who".


The simple answer is that one is organic and one is inorganic. It's like cold blooded vs. warmblooded creatures, of course the lifestyles and needs will be different. That doesn't automatically mean that there's a god involved.and one works with the material one can. we already created fruits by gentically blending them with other fruits,
we have Stem Cell Research that may (repeat May) allow us to grow organs and who knows... perhaps create life with "Bioware." The example I gave is something man (with their limited knowledge) can do that can run parallel to what God has done.

New Watenho']This man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume) was fat and Scottish. But he was not just fat and Scottish; he was also a philosopher, who conclusively and permanently eradicted the Design argument from analogy (your version of it). Sorry, old chap.

Aye, he's a smart man is that Robbie Coltrane.

Ummmm .... a little something I like to call .... the Universe.

What've you got?


A few things I like to call... the fossil record, Miller's discharge experiment, speciation in isolated environments, genetic similarities of >98% with chimps, ancestral RNA elements within modern cells, the endosymbiotic theory...

continue ad nauseum...

<snip>

We create Computers and Robots with a sophistication that rivals the human body, yet believe that we, ourselves are a product of chance?

In a large universe, a lot of things can happen by chance, and if we weren't suffieciently advanced to be aware of our conciousness(or whatever you wish to call it), then we wouldn't be able to contemplate it, so that we happened by chance isn't that suprising. Its like saying:

"Given that we exist, what are the chances that we exist"

Its a certainty, and if on another planet life was to start then they could wonder the same things as us, but given chances of 10^(-20), its still resonable to think that life will evolve in a universe of this size.

wrong, Evolution does not disprove Intelligent Design. it only shows how life evolved, not that there might be some "higher being" that may have started the process. I am not arguing a "Bible Literal" creation, but that Evolution is the "how" while God is the "Who".
Evolution=life

Evolution+god=life


Occham's razor suggests that the 'god' is an unnecessary variable, and thus the first hypothesis is more likely the correct one.

The only way i'll take ID remotely seriously is if somone comes up with a test that can be designed to be able to falsify ID. Care to take a try anyone?

First, I must clarify my own position on the issue, and it is this: there is significant empirical evidence for the theory of evolution and little to none for intelligent design, and until there is a preponderance of countervailing evidence to support it I will continue to refuse to believe that an invisible and omnipotent god created a universe whose evidence runs counter to his own existence, meddled incessantly for millennia in the lives of the people and then stopped abruptly, and finally left an old, ratty, and many-times-modified scroll as the only justification on which the people should organize their lives according to his desires.

A creationist would take issue with your question, and they would have a fairly significant reason. You point out wisely that their theory cannot be disproved by any body of evidence, but you refuse without recourse to admit their evidence. On what condition will you admit to the court of science the feeling in the collective creationist belly that there is a god?

Best possible answer is I don't know. That doesn't automatically suggest god.

Only possible answer is you don't know. Nobody knows ... yet. Speculation abounds, although my very favorite explanation is "God saw that the light was good, and God separated the light from the darkness".

Or, as Zohar puts it: Deep within the spark gushed a flow, imbuing colors below, concealed within the concealed of the mystery of the Infinite. Basically, the creation of God as a cocoon for the Infinite. Then, once the universe became transparent to neutrinos (about 1 second after the Bang), some very exciting things started happening, but I'll stop there.

Anyway, I thought we were talking about the intelligent design argument against evolution. You know, the one where people think god made each and every species as-is, and "macroevolution" just can't happen for some reason never actually explained.

Well, Torah explains it, but people refuse to look. Hell ... Job even mentions dinosaurs. People are content with the idea that everything happened in 6 days and was just "made to look old". Evolution is, after all, the Devil. :D

A few things I like to call... the fossil record, Miller's discharge experiment, speciation in isolated environments, genetic similarities of >98% with chimps, ancestral RNA elements within modern cells, the endosymbiotic theory...

continue ad nauseum...

How does any of that negate a Creator?

How does any of that negate a Creator?
Negates ID and suggests evolution.

Negates ID and suggests evolution.

Not necessarily. Like I said ... we don't know what was going on prior to neutrino transparency. Maybe models were being built to spec for the assembly people and Genesis speaks of those models.

Had to go back and change a couple things on our model, too. After the factory recall, we get a second, slightly different, Creation model in Genesis ch. 2.

All in how you look at it, I suppose.

A creationist would take issue with your question, and they would have a fairly significant reason. You point out wisely that their theory cannot be disproved by any body of evidence, but you refuse without recourse to admit their evidence. On what condition will you admit to the court of science the feeling in the collective creationist belly that there is a god?

I'm not sure I understand this part. I dont think there is any evidence for ID, and a feeling, no matter how many people its held by, does not pass for evidence at all.

Anyway, I thought we were talking about the intelligent design argument against evolution. You know, the one where people think god made each and every species as-is, and "macroevolution" just can't happen for some reason never actually explained.

No, no, no, you naive fool. You can't maintain a consistent topic of conversation with ardent creationists. The depth of evidence scares them. You just have to follow along as they switch nomadically from topic after topic, fleeing in righteous fright as you debunk every point with ease and introduce strong evidence. It's exactly like arguing against the Iraq war: you can't stay on the same topic so you jump around with them and hope they realize they have little to no relevant argument.

Only possible answer is you don't know. Nobody knows ... yet. Speculation abounds, although my very favorite explanation is "God saw that the light was good, and God separated the light from the darkness".

Or, as Zohar puts it: Deep within the spark gushed a flow, imbuing colors below, concealed within the concealed of the mystery of the Infinite. Basically, the creation of God as a cocoon for the Infinite. Then, once the universe became transparent to neutrinos (about 1 second after the Bang), some very exciting things started happening, but I'll stop there.



Well, Torah explains it, but people refuse to look. Hell ... Job even mentions dinosaurs. People are content with the idea that everything happened in 6 days and was just "made to look old". Evolution is, after all, the Devil. :D
If Job had dinosaurs in his time then why don't we find their remains mixed in with the rubble of old cities that stood back then? We only find them buried in sedimentary stones that are much, much older than the earliest human or even hominid remains.

If Job had dinosaurs in his time then why don't we find their remains mixed in with the rubble of old cities that stood back then? We only find them buried in sedimentary stones that are much, much older than the earliest human or even hominid remains.

No no no ... not Job in his time. The Book of Job mentions dinosaurs, not Job himself.

I use the example, among others, to show justification for not only evolution, but that we were not placed here alongside all other species. Other attempts were made, but an engineering glitch here and there and *oops* ... giant Iguanas.

It doesn't negate Intelligent Design, just puts purist Creationists in their place by showing them the very book they rely on as evidence of the "6 Days" spits on their own theory.

Intelligent Design still has its place. Think of it more as a dynamic than an absolute.

I'm not sure I understand this part. I dont think there is any evidence for ID, and a feeling, no matter how many people its held by, does not pass for evidence at all.

Of course not, at least not in the rational, euclidian worldview you and I share.

But to some creationists, that's all they need and our refusal to bow down and agree marks an impudent stubbornness to enraging to describe. There's sort of a thought process disconnect between the radicals on both sides, and though it's unfortunate, we all need to make efforts to be a bit more conciliatory.

Even, no, especially me. You saw the result of me succumbing to the alluring temptation to ridicule and scorn the evident irrationality (from my point of view) of the creationist argument.

Evolution=life

Evolution+god=life


Occham's razor suggests that the 'god' is an unnecessary variable, and thus the first hypothesis is more likely the correct one.
Really... Evolution = life... what was the very first form of life and how did it come to being?

I've always believed that Evolution=changes in Life. so in order for man to evolved it must've evolved from an earlier form right?
so what did the first form of life evolve from?

using Occhams Razor, the simplest answer is, 'it was there.'

using Kant's Naturalist Philosophy, 'It was always there'

so when the Earth was a molten mass of Magma and liquid rock... while the atmosphere was thick with sulfur, somewhere there was on molocule of life, somehow surviving against all odds... but then how did it get on that ball of molten rock?

How would Occham's Razor and Hume's Naturalist Philosophy explain the appearance of the very first life form? Does evolution tell us how the First form of life sprang out? and can it be scientifically proven in a lab?

Honest Questions here.

The seas were full of random chemicals. When isolated pools of water started to evaporate, the concentration of chemicals allowed fairly large amounts of complex organic molecules to form. After this had happened many millions of times, the chemicals eventually combined in a coherent form which could reproduce, and were encased in a phospholipid membrane conveniently provided by the nature and abundance of phospholipids and some small wave or similar turbulence. There's your life, evolution explains the rest. And yes I know, this is simplified.

Not necessarily. Like I said ... we don't know what was going on prior to neutrino transparency. Maybe models were being built to spec for the assembly people and Genesis speaks of those models.

Had to go back and change a couple things on our model, too. After the factory recall, we get a second, slightly different, Creation model in Genesis ch. 2.

I always wonder what happened to the first ones. Did they get left out in the cold? Poor first model...

Really... Evolution = life... what was the very first form of life and how did it come to being?

I've always believed that Evolution=changes in Life. so in order for man to evolved it must've evolved from an earlier form right?
so what did the first form of life evolve from?

using Occhams Razor, the simplest answer is, 'it was there.'

using Kant's Naturalist Philosophy, 'It was always there'

so when the Earth was a molten mass of Magma and liquid rock... while the atmosphere was thick with sulfur, somewhere there was on molocule of life, somehow surviving against all odds... but then how did it get on that ball of molten rock?

How would Occham's Razor and Hume's Naturalist Philosophy explain the appearance of the very first life form? Does evolution tell us how the First form of life sprang out? and can it be scientifically proven in a lab?

Honest Questions here.

You seem to have a strange definition of life. There is nothing special about the molecules that make up life, they still obey the same laws of physics that all other molecules do, evidenced by the fact that there is no single definition of life. So why is the theory of abiogenesis, briefly outlined by Catushkoti so hard to contemplate? Life is really just a more complicated arrangement of molecules than non-life.

Ummmm .... a little something I like to call .... the Universe.

What've you got?
Are you proposing you have the functioning faculty of the ENTIRE UNIVERSE available for you to demonstrate how it does or doesn't support the current attempt at faith-based rationale? In a lab setting, with controls and everything? Really?
What color shirt am i wearing? Should be easy to tell ...

Seriously everyone,
chill out.
may I recommend the most highly anticipated parody of the summer?
http://www.delamarpenn.net/images/StrongBad-LOTR.jpg

Not that you'll listen, but I've generally found that this argument produces no results. I must admit though joining in in the ID/Evolution debate is always tempting.... but has been, in my experiance ultimatly fruitless and frustrating.

and by the way,
I think what he is trying to say is that he dosen't understand how anyone, after observing the universe could honestly beleive that it all " just happened".

and by the way,
I think what he is trying to say is that he dosen't understand how anyone, after observing the universe could honestly beleive that it all " just happened".
The point is a different word should be used. I'll challenge anyone hither & thither to provide ANY concrete evidence of having witnessed the whole "UNIVERSE", it's supposed uniformity (given that the definitions/parameters of such AREN'T KNOWN) and/or any direct benevolent or malevolent deity involved in running such affairs. We're doing inference and local understanding tests and that's really all we can do at this stage.
It simply is that these kinds of arguments really aren't the kinds of things humans seem qualified to bitchslap each other about. Really. It irks me so.
As you'd said, ultimately fruitless and frustrating.

How does it not? Can you tell me, for absolute certain, what was going on prior to neutrino transparency?

How science can negate the Almighty escapes me.
That has nothing to do with this discussion. Science does not deal with god, it does not deny or nor affirm any kind of dvine being.

The question posed to you is what actual evidence do you have for creationism or intelligent design. The question was not, what current gaps in evolution allow you to cling to this belief. Do you have even a shred of evidence that life was shaped by a divine force? Current life tends to show evidence that it was not design as intelligently as we would like to believe. Vestigial organs and fundamental flaws in organs like eyes show a large room for improvment. If you want to believe the universe and all life was created by god that is fine, but irrelevant to this thread.

Really... Evolution = life... what was the very first form of life and how did it come to being?

I've always believed that Evolution=changes in Life. so in order for man to evolved it must've evolved from an earlier form right?
so what did the first form of life evolve from?

using Occhams Razor, the simplest answer is, 'it was there.'

using Kant's Naturalist Philosophy, 'It was always there'

so when the Earth was a molten mass of Magma and liquid rock... while the atmosphere was thick with sulfur, somewhere there was on molocule of life, somehow surviving against all odds... but then how did it get on that ball of molten rock?

How would Occham's Razor and Hume's Naturalist Philosophy explain the appearance of the very first life form? Does evolution tell us how the First form of life sprang out? and can it be scientifically proven in a lab?

Honest Questions here.
Misuse of Occham's razor. It does not state the simplest explanation is correct, rather the explanation that is testable that has the least number of variables is most likely correct (why geocentricism is generally refuted, dispite having ligitimate physical models to back it up, because the logic for them is extremely tourtured)

That's abiogenesis. Another topic, another time. Pick up a good college level biology textbook and they should have a chapter on it.

Really... Evolution = life... what was the very first form of life and how did it come to being?

I've always believed that Evolution=changes in Life. so in order for man to evolved it must've evolved from an earlier form right?
so what did the first form of life evolve from?

using Occhams Razor, the simplest answer is, 'it was there.'

using Kant's Naturalist Philosophy, 'It was always there'

so when the Earth was a molten mass of Magma and liquid rock... while the atmosphere was thick with sulfur, somewhere there was on molocule of life, somehow surviving against all odds... but then how did it get on that ball of molten rock?

How would Occham's Razor and Hume's Naturalist Philosophy explain the appearance of the very first life form? Does evolution tell us how the First form of life sprang out? and can it be scientifically proven in a lab?

Honest Questions here.

This is based on a misunderstanding of abiogenesis and Pasteur's experiments. Pasteur proved that the life you see under the microscope right now is generated only from existing life. He never said that at some time in the distant past, life was not initially started by one or many generative incidents caused by the convergence of naturally occuring proteins and amino acids.

If you look at the Miller experiments, you'll note that you don't need a god to create some very lifelike or protolifelike things; you only need a lot of goo, carbon dioxide, and lightning. Basically, he tried to recreate what the early Earth would look like in a lab, ran some current through the sludge he concocted, and oddly enough, he started getting some very lifelike stuff growing in his sludge where before, the sludge was sterile.

Moreover, you really need to look up David Hume. He made what most philosophers and theologians consider the linchpin arguments not for the fact that God does or does not exist, but the fact that you can't infer that fact from the existence of the world. That, case in point, is exactly the point CSW was trying to point out: he wasn't saying that God does or does not exist, but merely that there is no need to explain the existence of the world in terms of God.

I picked up a copy of 'Creation Magazine' in the newsagent's yesterday. As the title suggests, it's a magazine for Creationists.

A guy in one of the letters to the editor a guy claimed that he believed that budgies 'prove a creator' because
a)'Budgies have been bred in many different colours, but the original green is still the healthiest (sic)

and

b) While he has taught his budgie many words it cannot make its own sentences.

The latter point would seem to prove nothing more than that budgies are not terribly intelligent and the former seems rather to be evidence in favour of evolution.

I realise some Creationists probably have better arguments than this, I just wanted to share it because I was amazed by how silly it was.