What would be your most compelling arguement against creationists and/or intelligent design..?

Question

One example might be: Why did your 'god' leave a plethora of compelling evidence for a 4 billion year old Earth, a 3 billion year old life history, evolution, and that all life is related, and yet you claim something very different?

There are so many..

These people make all sorts of whacky claims, and demand scientific "proof" and/or references, which are freely accessable, but while refusing to see any of the evidence, and if it is ever viewed [glanced over..] it's then simply claimed to be a lie. Without such proof themselves of course..

Granted, there simply is no getting through to them..

The usual creationist tactics and retorts are predictable and shallow, and easily countered. I would like to know what you consider to be the most crucial points against creationism/I.D., and also give them the opportunity to respond with some highly entertaining fictional dribble.

Logical and scientifically based responses directed at any whacky posts welcomed.
Thanks, and enjoy..

Answer 1

The fact that free will is a literal impossibility in the universe in which we find ourselves is pretty condemning.

Not much 'intelligence' behind that.

--------

Fireball226: When you use his name, you can argue the capitalization of it.

When asked his name, the Abrahamic deity supposedly gave an answer, and it was not 'god'. It was, 'I Am Who Am', or in more simple form, "YHVH."

Until you start using the name of your god, I see no reason to show any particular grammatical reverence to its title.

Answer 2

Perhaps the most compelling argument against Creationism is the simple fact that it cannot pass the scrutiny of peer review, and thus has never been published or accepted in any scientific journals - because it is based upon conjecture, not actual observable, testable results.

In order to become a valid theory, one must provide enough evidence that what it hypothesises is factual. However, if you take just a cursory glance at Creationism, you can note that it seeks to further its own cause by attacking Evolutionary Theory with pseudoscience and attempting to "dethrone" it as the leading, accepted theory. ("Have a nice day!" is a perfect example of what Im saying...)
Evolution didnt become the leading Theory by destroying another theory. It became so because it stands up to scientific testing and scrutiny.

Good question, BTW. Star for you!

Answer 3

I would point out the tailbone and the appendix in humans.

Neither serves any biological function, and both are often problematic, as anyone who has had an appendectomy or a broken tailbone can tell you.

Science teaches us that these are vestigial, that is, leftover from a time when we had tails, and when the appendix actually DID something for us. They are in the process of being evolved out.

What would creationists and/or intelligent design proponents tell us about the reasons we have the tailbone and the appendix? Since they serve no function, why did God put them there?

Answer 4

The requirement to introduce "The Fall" to cover either
God's creation not being good, or beneficently designed, depending on the exact theistic position.

If it looks good it's God's, if it isn't it's our fault (Or Adam and Eve's). This is so utterly convenient that it becomes hopeless to look at the world for any evidence. The world could look like *anything* and still fit this schema.
And yet it is maintained that God's nature and power is clearly to be seen in the creation. (Romans 1).
(Including the bits that were cursed? (Genesis Ch 3))

Answer 5

First, I'm of the opinion that some god "may" have created life. I think though, that if he or she did so, that it was done in such a way that the seeds only , or genesis was planted, but left to evolve on its own. I don't believe in some deity that created everything down to minute detail. As an engineer, it's much more fun and interesting to create an autonomous system rather than one that has to be monitored in minute detail. If deity is inquisitive and revels in something that can exist on its own might just have created a system that would exist on its own and evolve.

Answer 6

I happen to think that God created the universe and then evolution took over some 4.5 billions years ago.

Logic will not penetrate the mind of a fundie.If they were capable of logical thought, they would not be fundies in the first place.

Answer 7

Easy. They start from one very fundamental error. What they think they're debunking isn't a theory of evolution that has any weight amongst researchers.

They make up 'facts' and tear them apart. Start with the wrong information and you can only wind up with the wrong conclusions.

Answer 8

My favorite is the fact that pregnant women grow a "yolk sac", a rudimentary organ that now serves no purpose in humans but serves a very important purpose in other mammals (to nourish the embroyo). I just don't see how any creationist could EVER explain that....

Actually,"have a nice day" (I will, thanks) biologists DON'T have a hard time explaining it. It's called evolution. It's the creationists that have a hard time explaining it. But thanks for strenthening my point...

Answer 9

Alright, i did have an answer to that, but it is so predictable so tell me what was my answer?

To the girl above me. Do you wish for us to bring out some things that biologists have a hard time explaining? I have a whole magazine right in front of me.

Forest? The tailbone and appendix both serve a function.

It's useless.

Answer 10

For me personally (since I used to be one) the thing that bothered me the most was that it took god "half a day" to make all the billions of stars, planets, black holes, quaasars, asteroid belts, moons...and a full day to make "humans." Perhaps its just really difficult to get the skin on.

And a half a day to make all the BILLIONS of things in space that I just mentioned, and a full day to make our "sun and moon."

It sounded suspiciously like the people who wrote the bible didn't know much about the universe. :)