http://factsnotfantasy.com/evolution.php
[b]It's just a theory.[/b][spoiler] Yes, just like gravity is "just a theory". Anti-evolution types tend to not understand what "theory" means in a scientific context. It means that the idea started out as an hypothesis, based on observation; that researchers made predictions based on the observations and the hypothesis; that they collected more data, tested those predictions and re-examined the original ideas, and that this process has been done over and over and over until the idea is supported by so much evidence that it is as close to fact as science can come. Further, like any theory in science, it can be falsified if some new data comes along showing it to be wrong. Contrast this with the "theory" (and I use the quotes on purpose, there) of Intelligent Design or Creationism. ID consists pretty much only of questioning evolution. It makes no predictions. It has no research testing any ideas. It cannot be falsified. The "evidence" provided of supposed irreducible complexity does not rule out evolution of the structures examined, nor does it show how such a structure may have been designed and created as is. In short, though evolution deniers claim that ID is a theory, it is not.[/spoiler]
[b]There are no transitional fossils.[/b][spoiler] Every fossil, and indeed every living creature, is transitional between an older form and a newer (or yet to come) form. We have a pretty good collection of fossils that show a transition from older forms to newer forms, such as the transition of large land mammals to whales. Scientists using the Theory of Evolution have even predicted a transitional form and where to find it. This transitional fossil, tiktaalik, was found based on these predictions. [/spoiler]
[b]Evolution denies god(s).[/b][spoiler] Nothing in the Theory of Evolution denies the existence of god (or any other deity). At best, it merely contradicts a literal interpretation of either of the two biblical creation stories (and any of the countless other creation stories from other religions/cultures). All that the theory of evolution does is show how everything came to be the way it is without the need for god(s). [/spoiler]
[b]Evolution says that life just sprung out of nowhere.[/b][spoiler]Not true. The Theory of Evolution says nothing about the origins of life. Rather, the theory examines how life changes over time and across environments after it already exists. There is a branch of science, however, that is examining the origins of life: abiogenesis. But, that is currently separate from the ToE and is still in its infancy, scientifically speaking, but making awesome progress.[/spoiler]
[b]Why not teach the controversy?[/b][spoiler]That's just the thing, there is no actual scientific controversy! The only controversy is that which has been manufactured by creationists and intelligent design proponents. Sure, there may be specific elements where one scientist may disagree with another scientist, but those are specific mechanisms and particulars of the theory, not the entire theory itself. By this same logic, one should teach the "stork" theory of human reproduction.[/spoiler]
[b]I can accept micro-evolution, but not macro-evolution.[/b][spoiler]That argument makes no sense. There is no such thing as micro or macro evolution in a scientific sense. They are both the exact same thing, one is just a matter of greater time. The terms were also manufactured in order to lend a false legitimacy to evolution deniers when it was even beyond their denialism to reject observed and proven instances of evolution happening. So instead of accepting a proven fact, the goalpost was moved.[/spoiler]
[b]Evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics[/b][spoiler]This statement not only highlights a poor understanding of evolution, but also of all physics. First of all, the earth itself is not a closed system. The sun provides a great deal of energy for order to be built from. Not only that, but I highly doubt that most creationists can actually state the Second Law (or even the first) of Thermodynamics. I suggest a strong course in actual science taught by an accredited school of science.[/spoiler]
[b]What about the list of scientists that disagree with Evolution?[/b][spoiler]
This list is probably one of the most dishonest pieces of propaganda out there. It was put together by the "Discovery Institute" (an organization with no credentials and fewer scruples). The list of "scientists" generally are not scientists, and if they are, most are not in any way qualified to talk about biological evolution. Also, the initial statement as presented to some scientists was twisted as to project a meaning different from what the actual reputable scientists contend. Just because a certainaspect may be in question, the entire theory is in no danger of suddenly falling out of favour.[/spoiler]
[b]Do you honestly think that all this came about by chance?[/b][spoiler]Again, this shows a fundamental misunderstanding and denial of basic chemistry, physics, and even biology. While there are certain "random" elements involved in evolution and pretty much every natural process, keep in mind that the "room" for order in the universe is increasing. Not only that, the majority of processes are not at all left to chance, but rather follow very natural and orderly constraints of the universe. What is basically being erected by this question is a "strawman argument".[/spoiler]
[b]What about the "Irreducible Complexity" of the eye, blood, flagellum, etc.?[/b][spoiler]Well, first of all, "irreducible complexity" is a non-sense term invented by creationists and intelligent design proponents. All it really says is that they can't possibly understand a particularly complex mechanism, so therefore something else did it. The basic premise behind irreducible complexity is to take a well designed item, remove a part to break it, and proclaim that it's broken... The problem is that it's entirely backwards thinking, and doesn't take into account how something was actually built up. Every single item of irreducible complexity has an answer, however creationists and intelligent design proponents will keep throwing out examples of complex systems until they hit upon one that their debate opponent may not have all the facts on. As soon as they find that one thing that someone may not know the answer to, they proclaim victory for their entire side, totally ignoring all the other instances where their argument was trounced.[/spoiler]
[b]What about the woodpecker's tongue, the panda's thumb, the whatever's thingy, etc.?[/b][spoiler]Again, this is all part and parcel of the "throw enough poo at your opponent, and eventually you'll hit on something they don't know" strategy. Most of the things that creationists and intelligent design proponents will throw out are horrid misunderstandings of the basic biological mechanisms at work, so not only are you debating evolution with them, but you need to correct them on how whatever strawman they have thrown out is wrong from the sense of basic biology, not only from an evolutionary standpoint.[/spoiler]
Those who deny evolution are really denying nearly ALL science that has been conducted in the past 200 years, and the sheer amount of education needed to catch them up to reality is nearly insurmountable.
I'm pretty sure all the counter arguments are covered.
-
5 RepliesEdited by SSG ACM: 4/9/2015 5:31:03 AMThe scientific method is used to prove a hypothesis to be true under experimentation that can be qualified or quantified, observed, and then concluded into theory; and if that theory can be repeated and observed over an extended period, that theory becomes scientific law. ...and that's what evolution is: a theory.
-
6 RepliesI'll only believe I evolved from monkies if I get to also be part Saiyan... Or get to legally throw my poo at people that make me mad.
-
7 RepliesDevils advocate mode on Who is to say evolution wasnt guided by some higher force Devils advocate mode off. Hood post bye
-
55 RepliesSir, your my hero. Thank you for taking the time out of your day to make a full list on why denying evolution is stupid so that others like me don't have to. Really dude, thank you. Also, look up Christians against Dinosaurs, it's pretty stupid. The girl is arguably one of the most brain-dead of people I have ever seen. Still, keep up the good work of educating our generation on science and fact. You earn an off-topic nobel prize.
-
12 RepliesI don't mean to annoy or anger anyone.. but religion is just a belief. Science is a fact. God hasn't been seen/heard aside from [b][i]personal "revelations"[/i][/b]. I can prove why gravity works, how humans are made, what came before us.
-
5 RepliesWhy do you care what I believe?
-
3 RepliesI will be pretty straightforward - trolling those who deny scientific method is within itself a sort of hypocrisy. Like, how do you bring someone to agreement with your persuasion? There is a method.
-
2 RepliesI like the wag you put that without insulting religion. At least what I read of it. If I'm right, thank you. If not, oh well I'll be going now.
-
2 RepliesNeed 3 for crota cp Send msg for inv Gt same as user
-
4 RepliesEdited by Solaire: 4/8/2015 4:57:52 PMScience is correct whether someone believes in it or not.
-
3 RepliesMy brother gave me the micro-evolution argument before and I thought it was pretty silly. But this was back when he was in high school. I'm sure he accepts it now.
-
11 RepliesVery solid arguments, intellectual, not an ass, I liked it. Although I don't completely agree with you I can understand all points given.
-
4 Replies[quote][b]It's just a theory.[/b][spoiler] Yes, just like gravity is "just a theory". Anti-evolution types tend to not understand what "theory" means in a scientific context. It means that the idea started out as an hypothesis, based on observation; that researchers made predictions based on the observations and the hypothesis; that they collected more data, tested those predictions and re-examined the original ideas, and that this process has been done over and over and over until the idea is supported by so much evidence that it is as close to fact as science can come. Further, like any theory in science, it can be falsified if some new data comes along showing it to be wrong. Contrast this with the "theory" (and I use the quotes on purpose, there) of Intelligent Design or Creationism. ID consists pretty much only of questioning evolution. It makes no predictions. It has no research testing any ideas. It cannot be falsified. The "evidence" provided of supposed irreducible complexity does not rule out evolution of the structures examined, nor does it show how such a structure may have been designed and created as is. In short, though evolution deniers claim that ID is a theory, it is not.[/spoiler] [b]There are no transitional fossils.[/b][spoiler] Every fossil, and indeed every living creature, is transitional between an older form and a newer (or yet to come) form. We have a pretty good collection of fossils that show a transition from older forms to newer forms, such as the transition of large land mammals to whales. Scientists using the Theory of Evolution have even predicted a transitional form and where to find it. This transitional fossil, tiktaalik, was found based on these predictions. [/spoiler] [b]Evolution denies god(s).[/b][spoiler] Nothing in the Theory of Evolution denies the existence of god (or any other deity). At best, it merely contradicts a literal interpretation of either of the two biblical creation stories (and any of the countless other creation stories from other religions/cultures). All that the theory of evolution does is show how everything came to be the way it is without the need for god(s). [/spoiler] [b]Evolution says that life just sprung out of nowhere.[/b][spoiler]Not true. The Theory of Evolution says nothing about the origins of life. Rather, the theory examines how life changes over time and across environments after it already exists. There is a branch of science, however, that is examining the origins of life: abiogenesis. But, that is currently separate from the ToE and is still in its infancy, scientifically speaking, but making awesome progress.[/spoiler] [b]Why not teach the controversy?[/b][spoiler]That's just the thing, there is no actual scientific controversy! The only controversy is that which has been manufactured by creationists and intelligent design proponents. Sure, there may be specific elements where one scientist may disagree with another scientist, but those are specific mechanisms and particulars of the theory, not the entire theory itself. By this same logic, one should teach the "stork" theory of human reproduction.[/spoiler] [b]I can accept micro-evolution, but not macro-evolution.[/b][spoiler]That argument makes no sense. There is no such thing as micro or macro evolution in a scientific sense. They are both the exact same thing, one is just a matter of greater time. The terms were also manufactured in order to lend a false legitimacy to evolution deniers when it was even beyond their denialism to reject observed and proven instances of evolution happening. So instead of accepting a proven fact, the goalpost was moved.[/spoiler] [b]Evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics[/b][spoiler]This statement not only highlights a poor understanding of evolution, but also of all physics. First of all, the earth itself is not a closed system. The sun provides a great deal of energy for order to be built from. Not only that, but I highly doubt that most creationists can actually state the Second Law (or even the first) of Thermodynamics. I suggest a strong course in actual science taught by an accredited school of science.[/spoiler] [b]What about the list of scientists that disagree with Evolution?[/b][spoiler] This list is probably one of the most dishonest pieces of propaganda out there. It was put together by the "Discovery Institute" (an organization with no credentials and fewer scruples). The list of "scientists" generally are not scientists, and if they are, most are not in any way qualified to talk about biological evolution. Also, the initial statement as presented to some scientists was twisted as to project a meaning different from what the actual reputable scientists contend. Just because a certainaspect may be in question, the entire theory is in no danger of suddenly falling out of favour.[/spoiler] [b]Do you honestly think that all this came about by chance?[/b][spoiler]Again, this shows a fundamental misunderstanding and denial of basic chemistry, physics, and even biology. While there are certain "random" elements involved in evolution and pretty much every natural process, keep in mind that the "room" for order in the universe is increasing. Not only that, the majority of processes are not at all left to chance, but rather follow very natural and orderly constraints of the universe. What is basically being erected by this question is a "strawman argument".[/spoiler] [b]What about the "Irreducible Complexity" of the eye, blood, flagellum, etc.?[/b][spoiler]Well, first of all, "irreducible complexity" is a non-sense term invented by creationists and intelligent design proponents. All it really says is that they can't possibly understand a particularly complex mechanism, so therefore something else did it. The basic premise behind irreducible complexity is to take a well designed item, remove a part to break it, and proclaim that it's broken... The problem is that it's entirely backwards thinking, and doesn't take into account how something was actually built up. Every single item of irreducible complexity has an answer, however creationists and intelligent design proponents will keep throwing out examples of complex systems until they hit upon one that their debate opponent may not have all the facts on. As soon as they find that one thing that someone may not know the answer to, they proclaim victory for their entire side, totally ignoring all the other instances where their argument was trounced.[/spoiler] [b]What about the woodpecker's tongue, the panda's thumb, the whatever's thingy, etc.?[/b][spoiler]Again, this is all part and parcel of the "throw enough poo at your opponent, and eventually you'll hit on something they don't know" strategy. Most of the things that creationists and intelligent design proponents will throw out are horrid misunderstandings of the basic biological mechanisms at work, so not only are you debating evolution with them, but you need to correct them on how whatever strawman they have thrown out is wrong from the sense of basic biology, not only from an evolutionary standpoint.[/spoiler] Those who deny evolution are really denying nearly ALL science that has been conducted in the past 200 years, and the sheer amount of education needed to catch them up to reality is nearly insurmountable. I'm pretty sure all the counter arguments are covered.[/quote] you're a mother-blam!-ing genius
-
1 ReplyWhy is this here?
-
5 RepliesDon't forget how most "intelligent design" proponents also advocate for the idea that the earth can't be any older than 4000 years. This denies geology, the law of conservation of energy, laws of thermodynamics, hell, it even denies the laws of motion (I.E. The moon and its orbit). I'm pretty sure intelligent design also tries to deny the Big Bang and various other theories we have about how the universe works. My personal favorite is observing how they like to pick and choose which laws of physics are okay based on their immediate need to say we're wrong about something. I personally don't get their intense obsession with the idea that there must be some awesome power that lords over us all with some grand plan that completely negates our notion of free-will. ThT in itself is a giant contradiction to their entire argument! If intelligent design is true, then God can't be omni-benevolent. Look at what we have done to the planet in our 10000 years of human civilization. In another few hundred years the planet will be uninhabitable. Great plan.
-
29 RepliesVery good post. You forgot the common argument "nature could create something this perfect referring to how 'perfect' organisms are and how well they work)" And the answer to that it, nature isn't perfect. A prime example would be the rabbits digestive tract. In the large intestine (after the small intestine where nutrients are absorbed) there is a cacecum (I think that's how it's spelled) where food gets trapped and fermented, along with bacteria to break the cellulose down into glucose. Which is pointless because the large intestine absorbs water, not nutrients. So rabbits end up needing to eat their own feces. Surely a higher being wouldn't have intentionally designed something like that, would they? [spoiler]unless they have a messed up sense of humor[/spoiler]
-
1 ReplyEdited by Hoggs Bison: 4/9/2015 2:09:01 AMPeople pick and choose what to believe based on whether or not it fits their worldview. I don't think most people who deny the reality of evolution are consciously choosing to deny science. Outside the realm of scientific practice, issues like evolution and climate change are less about the science itself and more about belief systems and politics, and I doubt that an argument based on scientific validity would really sway any of the deniers.
-
1 ReplyEdited by Bloom Unknown : 4/9/2015 2:15:52 AMI'm stealing this from you and copy and pasting it every time those arguments are brought up (ok maybe not [i]every[/i] time).
-
1 ReplyEdited by HAIL SATAN 666: 4/9/2015 2:04:33 AMSadly some people don't understand words nor Logic, Britton
-
2 RepliesIm an intelligent design proponent and I believe in evolution.
-
2 Replies
-
1 ReplyEdited by SPRTN89: 4/9/2015 1:46:22 AMThe argument that gravity and evolution are the same is faulty.. One is based on observational science, the other is based on historical science.. Plus evolution with a lower case e is definitely real.. People who don't believe in evolution don't believe in changes from one species to another, which there is still not a single fossil record proof of. Survival of the fittest is legit. Just like gravity is legit, but the complete knowledge of how gravity works is not completely known.. Likewise the nature of evolution isn't known.. Most of the gravity in the universe is unexplainable hence dark matter, a made up object to satisfy our equations
-
2 RepliesI went to a Catholic school for High School. We had education on evolution. I believe that evolution is all there, even though I believe in God (I'm not Catholic however). Alternative Canadian education>90% other education
-
1 ReplyStop oppressing me!
-
154 RepliesLmao, this is sad.
-
1 ReplyHow can evolution be real if our steel beams aren't real? [spoiler][∆]™[/spoiler]