Creationism
Creationism...oh Creationism. There's nothing quite like a theory with no evidence that has millions of followers, is there? No, there really isn't. Why so many people believe it is easily explained, yet the reasons why they refuse to look at the evidence that is literally slammed into their face is a complex mystery.
Some readers may be a little shocked that I have come right out and said Creationism has no evidence. No, really. It's completely true. I'll explain why.
Show Me the Proof!
I considered leaving a big, empty space for this heading, but I figured it would be space better used if it is filled in. So, facts about Creationism. Quickly, open another tab and search "creationism evidence." You will hit a gold mine of religious websites making various claims, some of which are quickly determined to be nearly insane (this just in, the T-Rex was a vegetarian? And who would've thought that an entire 10 "scientific facts" (in quotes because they are either incorrectly stated, analyzed, or just completely wrong in general, but more on that later) would disproves evolution? The website that has herbivorous T-Rex's does! Anyways, I'm off topic, let's get back to cold hard facts.
Firstly, the most commonly sourced piece of "evidence" for Creationism is the bible. Unfortunately for them, there is no way to be sure if anything mentioned in the bible is actually true. Not only was it written a couple thousand years ago, but it was been edited and changed various times in those two thousand years. Add in the terrible contradictory statements , the talking animals, and anything else odd that you may notice (there sure are a lot of them) and you have yourself a book that simply can't hold itself up in an arguement. There isn't an ounce of evidence that suggests the bible was written by a god (and if it was proven then they wouldn't need the bible to prove their god anyways), so we must assume it was written by people. Something written by someone does not hold up as evidence. If we followed that path then I may as well start up a religion that follows the Lord of the Rings. After all, it has a book which talks about it, so it must be true! Also, it is rather amusing that creationists will quote the bible to prove that it is the word of god. So if I wrote a book, and in it I mentioned that it is the word of the hobbits, then therefore hobbits must exist, since what's in the book is their word? No, that doesn't make sense. Neither does the bible.
As Mark Twain once said, "The Bible has a noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies."
Despite what you're local priest or incredibly religious friend may say, the Bible can not be trusted as a reliable source for facts, and therefore any use of it in an attempt to persuade someone towards Creationism is foolhardy to say the least.
So What Else is There?
And here comes the fun/depressing part. I say fun because at this point Creationism literally has nothing going for it. I also say depressing because hundreds of millions of people follow Creationism. Well, let's start with some examples of usual Creationist arguements. Note: This section may overlap slightly with Evidence for Evolution. If you feel like you've read some of this before, you probably have if you have read the evidence page.
*Insert body part here* is too complex to have just "evolved" by chance!
There's a few things incredibly wrong with that statement. Firstly, things do not evolve "by chance". Natural Selection ensures it. Anyone who knows the basics of evolution can tell you that. Secondly, let's just say that said body part didn't evolve. In no way does that make Creationism a more valid option (you'll see this as a recurring theme in just about all Creationist arguements). Now, on to their actual point. A common target of this is the eye. An incredible organ, they say. It let's us see the world around us, and in every way the eye points to evolution. Don't believe me? Obviously you don't understand the eye that well.
Let's start with the basics. As many people know, the image on the retina (that the eye "sees") is actually completely inversed from reality (down is up and up is down). It is the brain that reverses this problem so that we can still see everything the way that it actually is. Why wouldn't a creator form an eye that portrays the correct image on the retina? It would be less work on our brain, so why not? Did you know that you have a blind spot in both eyes? Never noticed it? Probably because the brain covers that up too by subbing in vision from your other eye so you don't have a random black hole in your vision. And have you ever wondered why there's such a complex mesh of nerves and veins jumping every way imaginable IN FRONT of the rods and cones (the "seeing" part of the retina)? I bet you never knew that one either. So why on earth would a creater make such an inefficient eye? He wouldn't. The poorly designed eye is one of the trademark marks of Evolution. As animals evolve, a large evolutionary leap is made every now and then (i.e. the eye), but that new eye is terrible at doing what it is supposed to, and so it takes generation after generation of evolutionary patchwork to make a reasonably functioning eye. That patchwork of course looks ugly (ever sewed a patch onto a hole in a pair of jeans?) and makes the thing look like a mess, but it works, and that is what's important.
There are more examples of evolutionary patchwork which are mentioned in the Evolution section. But now, more Creationist arguements!
The Dating, It's All Wrong!
There are literally hundreds of stories around the internet about how terrible and inaccurate radioactive dating is. One example I can remember specifically mentioned using Carbon dating on a live snail, and the result was that it was thousands of years old. Oddly enough the test was performed by a biologist, also known as someone not qualified to properly apply the test and interpret the results. Oh those Creationists and their silly attempts at evidence. In reality, radioactive dating is completely accurate, with an error margin of approx. 1%. Radioactive dating measures the amounts of a certain radioactive element, as well as the element it decomposes into, to determine the age of the object being tested. Radioactive elements have half lives, which means that after a certain amount of time only half of the original substance will remain. The other half will have spontaneously decomposed into whichever element that radioactive element turns into. The rate that atoms spontaneously decompose is known, however the timing that each atom will do so is completely random. Regardless, there are a multitiude of different elements that can be tested for, and many overlap with eachother which increases the legitimacy of the results. Also, Carbon-14 dating can overlap with tree rings (every year a tree grows a new ring), which further proves their accuracy. To refuse this is to refuse chemistry, physics and math, as well as hundreds of years of research. Creationist claims against this are simply untrue or, as in the snail example, so poorly executed that the results are completely questionable and not valid in the slightest.
Also, this does nothing to prove Creationism.
They Found Dinosaur and Human Footprints Together!
This has been proven as a hoax. Anyone still using this arguement may be deserving of a slight slap to the face.
Evolution is Just a Theory!
In science, a theory is not simply an idea that someone shouted out and a few people agreed with. No, a theory is something that is upheld with proof and evidence, yet can be disproven easily. On a side note, did you know gravity is a theory? It's true, as nobody has a clue why mass is attracted to other mass, yet gravity is as widely accepted as a fact. What's the difference between gravity and evolution (no, not in that sense)? We experience gravity and our everyday lives, but evolution requires (usually) millions of years to make much of a difference. Regardless, something being a theory doesn't mean it is "just a theory."
Also, this doesn't do anything to prove Creationism.
Why are there no Intermediate (Transitionary) Fossils?
Possibly the most used arguement, it is a complete load of bull. There are intermediates. In fact, every single fossil found is an intermediate between two other species. The reason why this question is still being asked is quite simple, which I will explain in an example. Let's say we have the numbers 1 and 10. A creationist would look at our numbers and say "show me the intermediate number!" We pull out a 7 (it is in between 1 and 10). We now have 1, 7, and 10, but that 7 didn't satisfy the creationist. No, he wants to see the intermediate between 1 and 7 now. We pull out a 3, but now the creationist demands the intermediate between 1 and 3, so we rip out a 2. Believe it or not, but the creationist now wants an intermediate between 1 and 2! Do you see a trend? For every intermediate fossil we find, creationists demand we find two more, one on each side in the evolutionary scale. It's honestly a never-ending quest of showing fossils only to have them demand more fossils. It's a ridiculous arguement because, as I said, any fossil is an intermediate. But that becomes a problem eventually, and we'll return to the example to explain it. They want something between 1 and 2, so we pull out a 1.5. Unfortunately, we aren't completely sure if the 1.5 is a 1 or a 2. If we name it a 1 then the creationists declare that we still haven't found the intermediate. Same thing will happen with a 2. But the 1.5 isn't different enough from 1 or 2 to become its own whole number (i.e. a species). Saying "unfortunately"earlier was a mistake, as this is exactly what we would expect from an evolutionary scale! There should be fossils that are partly one species and partly another, simply because that is what it is! Need proof of this? Head over to your local museum while I find the spot in my book that mentions this very topic.
The Magnetic Field is weakening! If it decreased at this rate for billions of years there would be no magnetic field around Earth!
Give a friendly pat on the back to the creationists as they are now accepting that science does indeed bring correct information to the table. Next, have a laugh at their obliviousness to the Earth's magnetic field which reverses itself every 200,000 years or so. We are heading into one, hence why Earth's magnetic field is weakening. It does that, as shown in volcanic rocks that give us periodic snapshots of the earth's magnetic field. Also, and who would've though, but this does nothing to help prove Creationism.
The Sahara Desert should be way bigger if the world is older than 5,000 years!
No, that is a terrible assumption to make. It assumes that the current rate of desertification (something like 4 miles per year) has been a constant for the past 5,000 years. First of all, the Saraha actually used to be bigger during the last ice age (that's ironic). When the glaciers started melting, more rain fell in the Sahara and it shrank. More recently however, like the 1900's, desertification in the surrounding areas of the Sahara were helped along by humans, therefore increasing the rate that the Sahara grew at. But recent reforestation programs where plants are placed in strategic areas to hold of the desert are working, and it is now disputed on whether the Sahara is now growing or shrinking. Regardless, this entire question depends on a constant rate of desertification, which is not the case.
Erosion! Erosion would take just 14 million years to flatten the continents below the oceans!
First of all, where does that statistic come from? I've honestly seen it a hundred times, but I have yet to hear how on earth someone could determine something such as that. First of all, just to put this out there, the movement of the earth's plates constantly push up mountains. For example, Mt. Everest grows about 6cm per year (including erosion). Incredible, how land seems to be capable of growing faster than erosion can undo it.
For those wondering, the Himalayas, which are still growing, will eventually stop once the continental plates involved stop grinding against eachother (this won't happen for quite awhile). Then, with the mountain growth now halted, erosion will take over. The mountains will shrink, and their remains will spread out somewhat, forming fertile plains that are great for farming.
Anyways, this point is ridiculous. Also, I'd like to see someone try to erode a forest floor. Good luck. Those roots don't like giving up their soil.
I almost forgot. This doesn't prove creationism.
If the Earth is older, and Humans are millions of years old, then there would be way more people!
No. No there wouldn't. Humans haven't always had it this easy. Even just a few thousand years ago the life expectancy was about 40 years old. Not to mention many women and children died in childbirth, diseases were widespread, there was terrible healthcare, constant tribal wars, a limited food and water supply, limited land, etc... Using an everyday growth rate today to try and go backwards in time doesn't work. We're a lot more advanced than we used to be, and thus we are capable of keeping more people healthy and well fed. It's like trying to use current greenhouse gas emissions to determine the amount of Carbon dioxide in 1000BC. You can't do that, since the rates of greenhouse gas production varied greatly during that timespan.
The Earth's rotation is slowing! It can't be billions of years old!
"Evolution undermines the sanctity of life. We see abortion and euthanasia (mercy killing)."
And here they make it seem like its the end of the world if an abortion is performed. Now, a person's position on abortion and euthanasia are completely their own and in no way I intend to attack anybody's views, but there are people who strongly believe in abortion and euthanasia as a good thing. How evolution leads to abortion I will never understand, but apparantly they enjoy jamming all atheists, evolutionists, and liberals together under a single roof.
FUN FACT TIME: Multiple Popes have believed in Evolution (with God as a helping hand of course, but still, it's a start.)
Anyways, continuing on...
"Evolution opens the door to racial prejudice."
What? This literally leaves me looking at the screen with an eyebrow raised as I vigerously attempt to follow their path of flawed logic that led to this conclusion. Apparantly they attempt to use Nazi Germany to explain it, but using a madman as an example is insanity.
By the way, Religion opens the door to witch hunts. And we sure don't want any more of those.
If evolution is true, humans and animals are basically the same.
Congratulations, the creationists have finally come to the same conclusions hundreds of millions of people around the world came to a long time ago. Give them another hundred years or so and they just might recognize that the Earth is not the center of the universe.
Now let's veer off course a little bit. Quite often Creationists will post the question "What happened before the big bang? How did everything get here? Surely it didn't just pop into existence!"
First of all, current theories suggest there was no "before" the big bang. Time itself started at the big bang. There never was anything before it. Also, this has nothing to do with evolution. Don't let them try to recourse the entire debate. Their question is also highly ironic: "Surely it didn't just pop into existence!" Well, we'll know once we figure out what happened during the big bang. Now, if you ask the creationist where everything came from, he or she will respond with "God created it all." Somehow, they think using the word God takes away the ridiculousness of everything coming into existence from nothing. By the way, it doesn't. All that they have done is replace a scientific "to be determined" with the word God. It doesn't solve anything. It doesn't explain anything. It is a simple way around a complex problem, which tends to be what religion does when it explains things.
And so ends this page for now. But don't worry, more will be added soon!