Shall we dispell some of the lies creationists tell about the Science of Evolution?

Question

Some of the lies include these whoppers;
"Evolution has never been observed"
This is an outright fabrication. Insects develop a resistance to pesticides over a few generations. That's Evolution folks. Do NOT be led astray and told it's not. Because it is.
This rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.

Here is another;
"Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics"
This one is funny because whoever tells this fib obviously doesn't understand thermodynamics.
The fact is, it would only violate the 2nd law if the earth was a closed system. See that big shiny ball in the sky during the day? That's the sun and it provides us will all the free energy we need. Making the earth an open system.

Here is another;
"there are no transitional fossils"
Patently untrue. But no matter how many we present to the creationists out there they simply plug thier ears, stamp thier feet and yell "is not! is not".

Sorry morons, it is so.
There are literally thousands upon thousands of transitional fossils. But none of them seem good enough for the uneducated masses of bible thumping, sister-screwing, gap-toothed, idiots out there.
Too bad. Evolution is reality, wether you like it or not.
No matter how much you stamp your feet and refer to outdated and irrelevant books of bronze age jewish mythology.

Here is an excellent link listing a very small fraction of the transitional fossils we've found.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
read it and weep.
Oh and for those of you who feel the need to post a link to "answering genesis" dot com, save it, most of us have seen that comedy website and have laughed ourselves silly reading it. It has been so thoroughly discredited that many creationists advise each other to disregard it.

Wolf,
Yes the moron really did say that.
I'm as gobsmacked as you are.
Can you imagine being that ignorant, and still have the ability to breathe?
Astounding.

Wow Jett,
And here I thought Phil's answer was the height of ignorance.
Yet here you are and prove me wrong.
I'd explain it to you, really I would, but you simply don't have the intellectual capacity to understand any sort of explanation that is based in reality and not based on mythology.
You have my pity.

Answer 1

"That is not evolution, what is happening is all the insects that have the gene pool to resist pesticides live and all the others die causing a shift in the ratio. Think about it. If no insect had the ability to resist pesticides, then what insects would be around to have babies that are resistant. your being a little ridiculous "

This might be the funniest answer I've every seen. Translation: "It's not evolution, because its evolution"

this dude described natural selection to a tee.

Good post, but you can't convince people who don't use science as a base for their knowledge.

And for the record on these answers: Evolution does not mean a new species, it simply is a change in a gene pool over time. then when enough of these changes add up, there is a new species.

Answer 2

I am. I believe it's pleasant that technology's assumptions get criticized, however alas creationism presents no respectable criticisms. Every feedback of evolution I have ever come throughout is centered on a deep false impression of evolutionary conception. If a character is so unique that a generally accpeted conception is fake, won't they a minimum of pass by way of the efforts of performing some elementary study earlier than launching criticisms? The lack of awareness of creationists approximately their discipline is appalling. Again, there demands to be a location for legitimate feedback, its what makes the seek for reality and skills robust. But the arguments placed forth through creationism are rarely legitimate criticisms. I have spent three years now watching into the evolution/production "controversy" and have not begun to listen to a critique of evolution which both isn't fully centered on lack of awareness or could now not additionally invalidate all different theories, adding heliocentric conception, the speculation of gravity, atomic conception, germ conception, and many others. Sarah W: You fully misunderstood what he used to be announcing. i like jesus: You consider that guy used to be made out of clay and filth. Isn't that fairly what pond scum is? And primates and monkeys don't seem to be the equal factor. All monkeys are primates, however now not all primates are monkeys. Creationists have a tendency to mention that "evolutionists" declare that persons advanced immediately from monkeys (that's, our newest non-human ancestors had been monkeys). This is an excessively ignorant misrepresentation of what "evolutionists" are correctly announcing. radrich: You are correct, persons must learn approximately opposing reviews. But persons that consider in evolution don't seem to be making statements approximately the bible, they're making statements approximately biology. A character who reviews biology does now not must learn the bible to recognize biology. And in the event you believe so, then why don't you the Qu'ran additionally? And the bhagavad gita, and the Guru Granth Sahib, and all of the different devout books. Yes, if a character is attacking the bible, she or he must have learn one of the vital bible. Likewise if a character wishes to assault the Qu'ran, they must recognize it. If, as you assert as a way to preserve a unique conception approximately production, one demands to learn all different feasible production myths, persons gets nowhere. A studying of the bible, even as most likely rewarding even to the nonbeliever, isn't foremost to a security of darwinism or an assault on clinical creationism.

Answer 3

That is not evolution, what is happening is all the insects that have the gene pool to resist pesticides live and all the others die causing a shift in the ratio. Think about it. If no insect had the ability to resist pesticides, then what insects would be around to have babies that are resistant. your being a little ridiculous

Other than chlorophyll, There is nothing in this world that can use the suns energy. How would you even come up with chlorophyll because without all the necessary elements even they would be destroyed by the sun. I'm not saying that we don't use the sun. But any one who has anything that has laid out in the sun understands it all gets destroyed eventually, how can life come about? It can't do it naturally

Show me one transitional fossil and I'll show you a fraud.
Nebraska man= 1 pigs tooth
piltdown man= 1 human skull + 1 monkey jaw
Australopithecus= heavy duty chimpanzee bones just like modern chimps that dwell on the ground
Aborigines= black men with strong jaws

Answer 4

I agree with your point, but it's argued very poorly. Yes, microevolution has been observed, but what a lot of creationists are looking for is a speciation process. It's a nigh impossible demand, which is what makes it valid in their eyes.

The 2nd law one is a very shallow argument in many ways. In this statement, it seems to want to apply a law to an unrelated field. This makes me think that either you chose an easily refutable argument for your own ease or that you just got this one from an uneducated creationist, neither of which builds your case.

Your fossil argument has no substance. Point to examples at least. This one's about as hollow as arguments that say something's true because a book said so.

So to answer your question, yes, let's go ahead and dispell some myths. Since you brought it up, you can go first.

Answer 5

Very well said. I stopped trying to tell them anything.

People who squeeze their eyes shut, put their fingers in their ears and scream "NAH NAH I CAN'T HEAR YOU" every time you show them evidence are people you can not reason with. It is like talking to a 3 yr old. I have considered telling them "BECAUSE I SAID SO" just to see if it would work.

EDIT: HOLY JESUS did the creationist above me really say

"Your fossil argument has no substance. Point to examples at least. This one's about as hollow as arguments that say something's true because a book said so."

Hollow.....because........a book said so???????

Wha...Wha.......What about your ENTIRE BELIEF SYSTEM THAT CAME OUT OF A BOOK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

My God.............I can't take it. The illogic astounds me!

Am I crazy or did he not just invalidate religion with that argument?

Answer 6

I'm guessing that you know nothing of how the body works on a molecular level.
Insects not responding to pesticides is not evolution because they don't turn into a different species.
It's also very very ironic that you criticize us for believing a book a few thousand years old, yet you believe we evolved from millions of years ago and there is no proof? Just a theory.
Poor guy

Answer 7

Well put.
Hospital bacteria have also evolved and have become deadly resistant to antibiotics.
Perhaps we should focus on epistemology, the philosophy of knowing. Faith is the belief in the irrational, illogical, the superstitious.

Answer 8

Even if the earth was a closed system, that would not preclude evolution, as long as the earth was not in a state of maximal entropy.

Answer 9

Good luck my man, I'm sure there are a lot of deaf ears here. It would be nice if you made a difference.

Answer 10

Science is the only one that can PROVE where we all come from. Something that religion has yet to prove. Believing in something is true does not make it true.