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.
-
1 ReplyHow can evolution be real if our steel beams aren't real? [spoiler][∆]™[/spoiler]
-
9 RepliesEdited by TunnelSnakesRule: 4/8/2015 11:20:49 PMEvolution is a moot point. I love how something with no application can spark so much controversy among people. If I were to post "I'm skeptical about evolution" then I would get 50+ replies telling me I'm wrong with complete ignorance to the signs I leave when I'm trolling (I've actually tested this by the way). Why is this such a hot topic? Why are people on both sides willing to defend their stance on this issue to the death? The truth is that peoples stances on this issue is apparently detrimental to other stances on social issues, morals and so forth because most people are incapable of saying " I like x, I prefer x and I don't need any other reason as to why I like x." It always has to be either " I like x because I'm a good god fearing man and if I don't openly oppose y then god will send me to hell" or " I believe in x because science and logic so anybody who likes y is an idiot."
-
2 RepliesA Creationist walks into a bar. The bartender asks him what does he drink. "Nothing," says the Creationist, "I don't believe in Alcohol, therefor it doesn't exist." Bad joke but you get the point. The creationist blatantly walks into a bar full of alcohol and denies it's existence just because of his beliefs. Cue the awkward laughter! *awkward laughter*
-
6 RepliesTo state you believe in micro evolution means you believe in the idea that one species of said animal can turn into a different species of THE SAME animal over time. But you don't believe that they can become totally different animals.
-
4 RepliesTrue, but does it slice [i]and[/i] dice?
-
5 RepliesGuess what [spoiler]who cares[/spoiler]
-
1 ReplyDo you think you will convince anyone? Do you think anyone of the other side of the argument will convince you? No, so what's the point
-
1 ReplyAnd this post will do absolutely nothing it is purposed too.
-
Yeah but will it blend?
-
3 RepliesIf trying to prove points and spark debate is your game, please look at this convenient chart of the human Internet users psyche.
-
6 RepliesScince!
-
3 RepliesArgument thread without references = trolling Take the time to do it right or don't do it at all.
-
2 RepliesCan we stop all the religious threads? All Christians have got there point across and all atheist have got there point arcoss, we'll all see if we're right or wrong when we die so there
-
5 RepliesEdited by Clever Username: 4/8/2015 4:51:31 PMAll in all pretty good thread. Someone finally understands that evolution doesn't disprove God, just a literal translation of the creation story(s)
-
15 RepliesEdited by Abject Tangent: 4/8/2015 8:09:21 PMNever mind. You people don't want to listen so whatever.
-
9 Replies*In Ricky Bobby voice* With all due respect, now I mean with [u]all due respect[/u], this is the stupidest thread I've ever seen. Not talking about the original article but the rest of it.
-
Literally perfect. Awesome job.
-
Science yesssssss [spoiler]feels so good[/spoiler]
-
-Salutes- Good job. You did good.
-
12 RepliesI feel like these kind of threads shouldn't exist on this site, because I like to think the offtopic population is at least educated. On a microscopic level, at least. This is the kind of gay crap I'd see on reddit.
-
-blam!-ing thank you. You are a gentleman and a scholar.
-
2 RepliesIs this all you have to do?
-
4 RepliesMen have evolved to use deny till we die in all situations. It's only natural.
-
4 RepliesThis is a very good and comprehensive post! I wonder how many people on this forum actually disagree with evolution. I figured that this group of people were in the small minority. I especially like how you addressed the literal interpretation of the story of creation since I think that's where most of the hang ups come from on evolution. I'm Mormon so I often have a different view on creation as it is in the bible. Did you know that the word "eternity" does not denote an infinite amount of time, but instead a vast but finite amount of time? "Days" in the bible could refer to an undetermined amount of time. Mormons also believe that it wasn't god alone who created the earth but the spirits in heaven that aided in it creation. They believe that as premortal spirits we all were there helping to build the earth. The (unscientific) theory that god utilized natural processes of evolution to create life on earth is called theistic evolution.
-
4 Replies[u] [/u]
-
2 RepliesWow! Nice knowledge base! I could make a freaking easy paper about what you have brought forward....hmmmmmm [spoiler]*writes essay paper*[/spoiler]