A new member said he had to give an 8 minute persuasive argument for his public speaking class.  His topic was evolution vs. creative design.  A number of posters listed sites he could use, and I made some suggestions.

Unfortunately, the CFI website had a glitch and lost posts and everything else for the last three days or so.  I’ll try to reconstruct my suggestions for him, and I hope he signs up again.

A major problem people have is using too many words, and this dillutes their arguments.  Write your paper as if you were going to give a half hour talk (3,000 - 3,500 words), then go through and see what words and phrases you can eliminate without hurting the meaning.  Try to be as succinct as possible, and boil it down to about a thousand words.  That should be about 8 minutes and carry a lot of punch.

To you other posters who had links or suggestions, re-enter them here.

Occam

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

and

Talk Origins

A common phrase among creationists is, “Fish don’t walk.”  They’ve even got a website of the same name. 

Well, if a picture is worth a thousand words, here is a two thousand word rebuttal in under 2 seconds:

Plus, how do creationists explain the human tailbone?

Sorry I didn’t see that this was posted, so I posted again saying the same thing.

To clarify my topic: it is a policy speech about why creationism/ID shouldn’t be taught in science classrooms.

Rocinante, I hesitate to say anything, because I am not an expert. But I believe your top picture is an axolotl. Maybe the bottom one is, too; but I’m not as certain of it.

An axolotl is an amphibin. Definitely not a fish.  It is true that some fish can move for short distances on land, but they do so with their fins. No known fish ever had feet or legs,

Bill

BDearmore - 28 July 2008 06:16 AM

Rocinante, I hesitate to say anything, because I am not an expert. But I believe your top picture is an axolotl. Maybe the bottom one is, too; but I’m not as certain of it.

An axolotl is an amphibin. Definitely not a fish.  It is true that some fish can move for short distances on land, but they do so with their fins. No known fish ever had feet or legs,

Hi Bill,

I didn’t post these, so am not sure, but the bottom appears to be a picture of a mudskipper, which is an amphibious fish with legs.

Since all land animals are descended from aquatic ones, in a sense we are all “fish with legs”. The only difference between a fin and a leg is how it is used. If a fin is used to move on land, it is a leg.

If there was no evolution there would be no men. The only purpose for men, who are modified women, is for sex. The only purpose for sex is evolution (it is the means to vary randomly the DNA of the offspring from that of the mother). Without evolution, women would produce female children by parthenogenesis, as a very few species sometimes do. Therefore the existence of males of any species proves evolution, as does the differences between offspring, their parents and each other.

BTW, if you have time look up “Dr Tatiana’s Sex Advice to All Creation”.

BDearmore - 28 July 2008 06:16 AM

Rocinante, I hesitate to say anything, because I am not an expert. But I believe your top picture is an axolotl. Maybe the bottom one is, too; but I’m not as certain of it.

An axolotl is an amphibian. Definitely not a fish.  It is true that some fish can move for short distances on land, but they do so with their fins. No known fish ever had feet or legs.

Bill

It might be better to ask why whales, dolphins and others breathe air with lungs, not water with gills. Or why penguins can’t fly.

Doug, I agree that the bottom critters are mudskippers, and I should have recognized them. Thanks for pointing it out.

I don’t agree that a fin is a leg if it’s used to walk with. Nevertheless, this fish still walks, more or less; so the point of the picture that a fish can walk is true.

The axolotl in the top picture is not a fish, however. It is an amphibian.

My only purpose in mentioning this was to prevent some embarrassment, before a knowlegeable creationist happens to notice it.

If there was no evolution there would be no men

You are very right, Sanity. Thank nature for evolution!

I was not disputing the fact of evolution. I was only saying the pictured animals are not fish. However, as Doug pointed out, I was probably mistaken about the bottom picture.

If there was no evolution there would be no men

BDearmore - 28 July 2008 09:27 PM

You are very right, Sanity. Thank nature for evolution!

I was not disputing the fact of evolution. I was only saying the pictured animals are not fish. However, as Doug pointed out, I was probably mistaken about the bottom picture.

Well, my reply was to the original post!