Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Isn't evolution wonderful? — 10 (leaf lizard)

So materialistic evolutionary faith requires that we envision this dialogue between two lizards, forty-eight kajillion years ago:
Larry: Len, help out a pal?
Lenny: Sure, Lar, anything.
Larry: You know I can't see myself.
Lenny: Right, of course. None of us can.
Larry: So, I was thinking what a bummer it is, all of us looking like beefsteaks. All the predators keep snapping us up.
Lenny: Too true, too true. Leo, the other day.
Larry: Good guy, Leo.
Lenny: The best.
Larry: So, I was thinking, "Who eats dead leafs?"
Lenny: Go on.
Larry: Well, just sayin'. Wouldn't it be cool if we could just look like dead leafs?
Lenny: Cool is what that would be, Lar. But where's this going?
Larry: I says to myself, "Self - why not? Why not be your best dead leaf now?"
Lenny: Hunh.
Larry: So this is where you come in.
Lenny: Yeah?
Larry: Yeah. Watch me turn into a leaf, tell me when I get it right.
Lenny: Hunh.
Larry: I need to get the shape just right, the color just right, and I want to have veiny things like on a leaf.
Lenny: Hunh.
Larry: Then, after that, you have to help me find a fertile lady lizard who can do the same thing, and who knows how to pass on an acquired trait to our kids.
Lenny: Hunh.
Larry: Okay, so... ready? Here we go. On "three." One, two...

Plus, at no extra charge, this irony: the lizard's name  is the Satanic leaf-tailed gecko. Perhaps so named because of how ridiculous it makes materialistic naturalism look?


NoLongerBlind said...


"I says to myself, "Self - why not? Why not be your best dead leaf now?"

This has got to be one of your all-time best smack-downs of the absolute lunacy of the theory of evolution.

But, that's just me sayin'. I coitanly ain't as qualified as them highly edjoocated, sophisticated, sciencey guys.

The only letters after my name are Jr.

NoLongerBlind said...

FWIW, I think that current, cutting-edge science has pegged that dialog as taking place 3.5 Nonillion
years ago.

Not to be nit-picky or anything; just thought you'd want to keep your facts straight for sake of credibility.

Anonymous said...

Oh come on Dan. Be fair.

The conversation you presented would be impossible. But now, if you added about 5,000,000 additional lizards and had them talk real slow, like say, 1 word every 10,000 years or so...clearly that would be different.


Way cool lizard though. I've never seen anything like it.
God's smart.

GrammaMack said...

What a cool-looking creature! Kudos to Larry and Lenny. :-)

Steven R. Robertson said...

So is this the new version of Lewis' trilemma: Larry, Lenny, or Lord?

Kaffinator said...

I'm pro-evolution but I love this series. Keep up the good work Dan!

Whatever secondary mechanism God employed to made these creatures, they are clearly artistic masterpieces all. All glory and praise to the Artist!

Herding Grasshoppers said...

Oh Dan,

Love the dialog :)

And the series.


Brad Williams said...

You dupes! That's actually a leaf and not a lizard. Evolution went too far and the lizard actually became a leaf. Isn't that awesome?

Leaf it to Dan to trick everyone like that.

Mesa Mike said...


I had thought it was the trees that evolved leaves to look like lizards, but you're telling me it's actually the other way 'round?

Fred Butler said...

Can I send that Bob fellow leaving comments at my blog? Maybe he can straighten out all you insane creationists.


SandMan said...

That's not a lizard. That's the money you could be saving with Geico!

Michelle said...

Is "leafs" a deliberate pluralization error to fit the dialogue or do I get the honour of correcting you? :)

Either way, well done. I'm going to show that lizard/leaf pic to my children and together we'll give all credit and praise to the Creator.

Anonymous said...

That is just amazing!

Too bad about Leo. :(

Susan said...


Rita Martinez said...

lol!! loved it! :P

Penn Tomassetti said...

That lizard looks so cool in the state of being at his best dead leaf now!

CR said...

Kaffinator: I'm pro-evolution but I love this series.

I realize I'm late on this, and you may not even be monitoring this for a response and your profile doesn't have an email, but this is a curious statement you're making. I mean, when the Lord saved me I was a theistic evolutionist. I don't know much about you and how long you've been in the faith so I'm taking a shot in the dark.

But as Christians, I don't think we'll ever get the full content of salvation unless we understand the biblical doctrine of man and what man was like when the Lord made him. Man as he came out of the hands of God and was placed as perfection in paradise. And I think to really appreciate salvation we must understand what happen to man as the result of the Fall and as result of sin.

And if we don't understand what man was like before the Fall and what happened to him after the Fall I don't know that we can fully appreciate what is meant by salvation. If we believe in evolution which says that man is a creature that has evolved out of the animals and is still evolving and hasn't yet arrived then we can't have a full appreciated doctrine of salvation. In a sense, man doesn't even need salvation if he is always evolving.

The way to see salvation is to see man who is in the Garden of Eden, perfect in full communion with God enjoying fellowship without sin and in a state of perfect innocence. But then he was tempted and fell and committed sin and terrible consequences followed and God delivered us out of the terrible penalty of sin. Our definition of salvation must never be less than that.

Anyway, hope you'll appreciate that someday.