12 Replies to “Animals that Shouldn’t Exist According to Intelligent Design

  1. 1
    AaronS1978 says:

    The American humanist association a.k.a. the American atheist who care about humans association because they think humans will be awesome.

    Is this video a joke? Her big argument is something Like a mudskipper. I’m not quite understanding why these animals wouldn’t exist in intelligent design.

    Now I understand that they can and should exist, it’s the fact that she thinks that these animals somehow discredit intelligent design that is what’s really blowing my mind. she obviously has no understanding at all about intelligent design even on the slightest degree.

    What bothers me more is that this woman was given any time at all to spout her childish and insulting arguments, the old “we are too stupid to understand evolution because she’s so smart” and she doesn’t realize how stupid she sounds. The fact that I wasted time watching this video pisses me off.

    Abby you if you read these posts, you are ridiculous and you are a joke. The fact that you got a degree shows more to the fact that you did the work Then it does to your intelligence.

    Oh and let’s not forget the universe is so big we are insignificant crap! I am so sick of that argument. Don’t forget Mrs. Abby you’re just as insignificant and unimportant as everybody else! Your are shooting yourself in the foot when you make that comment! Is it because you’re too stupid to realize that that’s what you’re doing when you’re calling everybody and significant because the universe is big! Here is a hint you are in here to, and under your philosophy if you died tomorrow nobody should care you are insignificant!

    And once again apparently only scientist have access to this pivotal knowledge that the universe is super big all of these insignificant and moronic religious people have no knowledge that the universe is so vast not one of them including the Vatican which has astronomers studying this vast universe every single day. Because them dumb dumb religious people don’t have any clue about how big and awesome this universe is because you’re an evolutionist and you’re so damn smart.

    I’m gonna have to go back in time and let George Lemaitre know that the universe is super big and that his believe in God is ill placed! You know because he was only a physicist priest who came up with the Big Bang theory but I’m sure you’re smarter than him and you’re obviously more humble!

    I apologize for my Lewis Black rant but boy did that feel good. I do not appreciate people like that.

  2. 2
    ET says:

    Wow. What a whopper of a straw man! I don’t understand how an alleged academic could posit such a willfully ignorant argument.

  3. 3
    AaronS1978 says:

    It’s painful that these are the type of people that literally sit there and tell you that you’re an ignoramus for believing in some “Magic man in the sky”

    When that’s not even the Christian God anybody believes and that’s more of a slap in the face for anybody that believes in Zeus, Which is where that whole aesthetic came from the old man with a long beard that tosses lightning bolts from a cloud.

    Yet many Christians are the dumb ones according to them

  4. 4
    mike1962 says:

    Erect straw man. Knock it down. Next.

    People really should have a deep level understand of a subject before criticizing it. It makes them looks so foolish when they don’t. (But it does provide a little amusement for some of us.)

  5. 5
    FourFaces says:

    Why does this person look so hateful?

  6. 6
    es58 says:

    What is her argument? Does she say explicitly?

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    as to the mudskipper: Tiktaalik’s discoverers believe the animal ventured onto land just as present day mudskippers do, propping up on their fins. Tiktaalik was debunked. Darwiinists are still hunting for the supposedly ‘transitional fish’

    The Evolution of the Darwin Fish – February 17, 2018 – David F. Coppedge
    Excerpt: Darwinians believe that fish crawled out onto land—their fins becoming pentadactyl limbs—then returned back to the sea multiple times in the form of ichthyosaurs, pinnipeds and whales.,,,
    After Darwin, various ‘transitional’ fish with bony fins were subsequently proposed and deposed (see sign, above), but Darwinians didn’t become excited until Neil Shubin’s Tiktaalik fossil (6 April 2006), though some disagreed (4 December 2008).,,,
    Subsequently, though, tetrapod tracks were found a full 10 million Darwin Years earlier (6 January 2010), undermining Shubin’s claim to have found a transitional form.
    Darwinians are still hunting. Some of their claims seem outlandish (if you’ll pardon the pun). Who would think that rays and skates would be candidates? Sharks and rays—cartilaginous fish—don’t look ready to crawl onto the land. Science Daily, though, jumps on a new idea coming out of the New York University School of Medicine: “Walking fish suggests locomotion control evolved much earlier than thought.” [Thought by whom? See tontology.]
    Cartoons that illustrate evolution depict early vertebrates generating primordial limbs as they move onto land for the first time. But new findings indicate that some of these first ambulatory creatures may have stayed under water, spawning descendants that today exhibit walking behavior on the ocean floor. The results appear February 8 in the journal Cell.
    “It has generally been thought that the ability to walk is something that evolved as vertebrates transitioned from sea to land,” says senior author Jeremy Dasen, a developmental neurobiologist in the Department of Neuroscience and Physiology at the New York University School of Medicine. “We were surprised to learn that certain species of fish also can walk. In addition, they use a neural and genetic developmental program that is almost identical to the one used by higher vertebrates, including humans.“
    https://crev.info/2018/02/evolution-darwin-fish/

    Mudskippers. The Strangest Creature ever to Defy Evolution
    December 14, 2016
    Excerpt: No fossil evidence exists for their putative evolution from some pre-mudskipper organism. Scientists are not even able to satisfactorily classify modern mudskippers into a family, leaving their evolution to pure speculation. They were once included in the Oxudercinae subfamily, within the family Gobiidae (gobies), but recent molecular studies do not support this classification. Darwinists are now stymied about their phylogeny, and can only speculate concerning from what and how they could have evolved. A major problem for evolution is that the first mudskipper in the fossil record is morphologically a modern mudskipper.
    Long assumed to be a transitional animal between a swimming fish and a tetrapod (four footed) animal, a recent study by Kutschera and Elliott (2013, p. 1) concluded that, although some walking fishes such as mudskippers “shed light on the gradual evolutionary transition of ancient fishes to early tetrapods … they are not the ancestors of tetrapods, because extant organisms cannot be progenitors of other living beings.” As Polgar, et al. note, more study is required to detail the evolution of the mudskipper (2014, p. 179).
    Many experts have hypothesized that fish fins evolved into terrestrial limbs, a theory that also does not fit the facts (Clack, 2012, p. 136). For example, the earliest tetrapods were not pentadactyl (having five fingers and toes) as are modern tetrapods, and the fossil evidence does not support the fin to limb evolution (Clack, 2012, pp. 136-137).
    Summary
    In short, the mudskipper is not a fish that evolved legs or an amphibian that evolved to look like a fish, but a graceful well designed swimmer in water that gets along so well out of water that they spend most of their life on land and thrive in large areas of the world. We have no evidence of fish-fin to tetrapod limb evolution, and the mudskipper does not help to explain the major missing links that can bridge the two structures. Like the duck-billed platypus, the mudskipper contains a unique mosaic of features found on many different animals. And this situation is bad news for evolutionists.
    http://www.create.ab.ca/mudski.....evolution/

  8. 8
    forexhr says:

    ‘Unrealized Genomes’ as the Ultimate Falsification of the Evolution Theory – https://darwinfalsified.wordpress.com/

  9. 9
    aarceng says:

    I saw that video some time ago and was amused at her talk. How could she not see that the mudskipper is designed for the specific environment it occupies.

  10. 10
    OldArmy94 says:

    She is making a philosophical argument, not one based in science, and someone needs to call her out on it.

  11. 11
    Ed George says:

    I think that we have to get past the fact that she is a terrible public speaker and address the issues that she has raised.

  12. 12
    ET says:

    She raised issues? Really? Like what?

Leave a Reply