Are people STILL using the "tornado going through a junkyard making a caddilac" argument to disprove evolution

Question

Because that's just plain sad.
I actually read it a few moments ago and I thought to myself "oh that guy did'nt just say that and mean it did he?"
I mean come on people, are you REALLY so poorly educated that this is an argument that you think is convincing?
Please tell me that this is some kind of joke...

Thank you matthew for providing us with a PERFECT example of just the kind of ignorance I was talking about.

And just when I thought people couldn't get any stupider, torobye(sp) pops up with that bucket of BS.
Honestly, do you have to work at being that ignorant or does it come naturally for you?

Answer 1

Yes some people still use that as an argument.Along with "Even Darwin re-canted on his deathbed".
Some people need to get an education

Answer 2

It's also truly sad that you "actually" believe in the silly myth that life appeared strictly by accident due to some chemicals, then became alive, and from there slowly evolved into more complicated creatures.
Now really.....think about this.....the universe works on Entropy, that is that energy and matter will eventually go to a more simpler state of existence. This includes life as well. Yet something else appears to maintain the high complexity of life and the continuation of it, in the opposite way that Entropy works. Could it be a divine energy perhaps?
Now I'm not familiar with the tornado argument. Instead let's use another hypothetical experiment:
Suppose you have a giant bowl. You throw in lumber, wiring, glass, concrete, etc. In other words, everything you would need to build a nice house. You then spin and shake this bowl. You hit it with lightning, heat, cold, radiation, water. You do this for millions of years. Do you actually think you'll have a fully built house? Most likely you'll say, "impossible." In the end, you would need "intelligent design" to make this simple house. Now this was just a house. Imagine the complexities of DNA and life. Still think we're just an accident?
Also if we're just an accident, then there is no God of any sort. You might as well do whatever you want to make your life comfortable, even if it involves hurting or killing others, being that you won't have to worry about divine punishment. With all of lifes miseries, why should life continue? What would be the point? What's also the point of compassion and mercy? They just get in the way of "survival of the fittest."
So, before you continue to spew more arrogance....think about what I have just written and reflect upon it. You may actually realize that the "poorly educated" may not be so uneducated as you think!!

Answer 3

People stopped using this aurgument when on Oct.31 2006 , a tornado in Kansas went through a junkyard and made a Caddilac.

Answer 4

Just because the bible says 'God' created earth and man does not make it true. It's just some books.
The truth is (and there is no way to disprove this and no argument that could ever prove otherwise), we are evolved monkeys in clothes on a rock in space orbiting a star.
End of argument.
If they don't believe in that, they are mentally incompetent.

Answer 5

Have you ever driven an '85 Seville? If you had, you'd think that the whole "tornado through a junkyard" thing might just be plausible...

Answer 6

People who are uneducated are prone to regurgitate stupid sayings without truly understanding the issue. This is one of the primary reasons that religion frightens me so much, it seems that there is a relationship between ignorance and the strength of ones convictions.

Answer 7

People who live a sheltered life dominated by religion, and starved of truth and reason, probably hear this from the pulpit and think that it must be a persuasive argument.

Answer 8

I believe it's been upgraded to a 747. The Caddy wasn't winning over believers.

Answer 9

Yep, they really are.

The saddest part is, they are honestly baffled when we don't fall for such a ridiculous, ignorant "argument." That level of ignorance actually makes my brain hurt.

Answer 10

You are just too smart for your own good, because that is a perfect argument. It's the truth. That's about what the odds are that all of the universe a has evolved by chance and chaos. Laugh all you want. This argument will be settled for us all one day and I can promise you, the lies you have blindly accepted won't be so funny to you then.

The New Testament says that..."because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.Because although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise they became fools, and changed the glory of incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man - and birds, and four footed animals and creeping things.
Romans 1:20-23

And for marooned.. who thinks we haven't studied evolution, all I have to say to that is that you aren't going to get through 6th grade without a thorough indoctrination into evolution. It's searching out the truth when you realize how ridiculous evolution really is that's tough. You certainly can't find it in the public schools of today. We've all seen the so called fossil record that tells us how this sceleton of a creature that in no way resembles a whale is the ancestor of the whale because it has a "similar ear structure", or how frogs rabbits andbirds evolved from the same ancestor because their leg joints are similar. Give me a break. We've heard it all in school and just because we don't accept it as the Gospel truth doesn't mean we are any less inteligent than you, because you do.

Harvard's Stephen Jay Gould put it this way"Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless." In other words, Throughout the geologic layers, which supposedly formed over eons - the various kinds of fossils remain essentially unchanged in appearance.They show no evolution over long ages. Paleontologists call this "stasis."
Wouldn't a fossil record, showing all animals complete when first seen, is what we'd expect if God created them whole, just as the Bible says?
Austin H. Clark, the eminent zoologist of the Smithsonian Institution, was no creationist but he declared:
"No matter how far back we go in the fossil record of previous animal life upon the earth we find no trace of any animal forms which are intermediates between the major groups of phyla.
This can only mean one thing. There can only be one interpertation of thisentire lack of any intermediates between the major groups of animals - as for instance betweenbackboned animals or vertebrates , the echinoderms, the mollusks and the arthropods
If we are willing to accept the facts we must believe that there never were such intermediates, or in other words that these major groups have from the very first, borne the same relation to each other that they have today."
.British science writer Frances Hitchens wrote" On the face of it, then, the prime function of the genetic system would seem to be to resist change ; to to perpetuate the species in a minimally adapted form in response to altered conditions, and if at all possibe to get things back to normal. The role of natural selection is usually a negative one : to destroy the few mutant individuals that threaten the stability of the soecies.
Why aren't fish today, growing little arms and legs, trying to adapt to land? Why aren't reptiles today developing feathers?Shouldn't evolution be ongoing?
Evolution Is not visible in the past, via the fossil record. It is not visible in the present, whether we consider an organism as a whole, or on the microscopic planes of biochemistry and molecular biology,where, as we have seen, the theory faces numerous difficulties. In short, evolution is just not visible. Science is supposed to be based on observation.
L. Harrison Matthews,long director of the London Zoological society noted in 1971:"Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parrallel to belief in special creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true, but neither up to the present, has been capable of proof.
Norman MacBeth wrote in American Biology Teacher:
"Darwinism has failed in practice. The whole aim and purpose in Darwinism is to show how modern forms descended from ancient forms, that is to construct reliable phylogenies(genealogies or family trees). In this it has utterly failed...Darwinism is not science."
Swedish biologist Soren Lovtrup declared in his book Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth:
I suppose nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology;for a long time now people discuss evolutionary problems in a peculiar" Darwinism" vocabulary -- "adaptation","selection pressure","natural selection", etc.--thereby believing that they contribute to the explanation of natural events.They do not, and the sooner this is discovered, the sooner we will be able to make real progress in the understanding of evolution.
As natural selection's significance crumbles, the possibility of God, creation and design is again making a wedge in scientific circles. In a 1998 cover story entitled"Science Finds God" Newsweek noted:
"The achievments of modern science seem to contradict religion and undermine faith. But for a growing # of scientists, the same discoveries offer support for spirituality and hints of the very nature of God...According to a study released last year, 40% of American scientists believe in a personal God---not only an ineffable power and presence in the world, but a diety to whom they can pray."
Author David Raphael Klein may have said it best:
"Anyone who can contemplate the eye of a housefly, the mechanics of human finger movement, the camoflage of a moth, or the building of every kind of matter from variations in arrangement of proton and electron, and then maintain that all this design happened without a designer, happened by sheer, blind accident-- such a personbelieves in a miracle far more astonishing than any in the Bible."