Below is a list of my original pages – things that have been removed from the main layout of the site but have not been deleted completely.
Common Creationist arguments
“Evolution is only a theory”. This is true, Gravity is also a theory. In science a theory is a model that is used to explain how something works. Evolution means ‘change over time’, more specifically, ‘any change in the heritable traits of a population over a period of time’. It is a fact, and the way it works is a theory. Gravity is a fact, and the way it works is a theory. Creationists use the Equivocation fallacy in this argument, assuming that the word ‘theory’ means ‘some sort of idea’. This is not true, in Science an idea is called a hypothesis.
“Evolution can’t be proven because it happened in the past”. They then bring up the claim that there are two types of Science, Observational and Historical Science, this is utter nonsense, because Science uses observations in the present to make predictions about the past and the future. This means that Science is not two separate things, but only one method. Evolution also happens in the present, so they should get their facts straight.
“Creation is Science too” or “Creation is an alternative to Science” is a claim that we see a lot. But this is also not true, Science starts with observations and then makes hypothesis and theories to answer it. Creation starts with the conclusion and then tries to prove it, this is a flawed method and is called pseudoscience. It is NOT real Science and is NOT an alternative to Science. If we teach Creation as an alternative to Science then we should also teach that babies are brought by a stalk as an alternative to biological reproduction.
“Evolution can’t be observed or tested, so it isn’t science”. This is wrong, Evolution and itself can be observed AND tested, and the way we know about abiogenesis and the big bang is because we observe the evidence today and make conclusions about the past. We can indirectly test and observe things that happened in the past, which is more than the Creationists can do. Faith just doesn’t seem to convince the Scientists.
“Evolution is wrong because it can’t explain the origin of life/origin of the universe”. Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis, it explains how life can change over time, not how life began. This argument is really useless.
Why bother fighting Creationists?
Sometimes people ask me “why bother debating them”, or “why not just let them believe what they want to?”. Of course they can believe any crazy idea they want to as long as they keep it at home and don’t indoctrinate their children into it. But no, the Creationists come out into the world and preach their ideas, they want Creation taught as an ‘alternative’ to Science in public schools, ignoring the fact that they aren’t the only religion out there. Creationists indoctrinate their children into their beliefs and hold the rest of us back, luckily for the most part the Scientific community ignores the Creationists, because their arguments are destroyed and debating them is a waste of time.
A lot of people were skeptical about the 2014 Ken Ham vs Bill Nye debate, mainly because they felt that it would give Creationists credibility. A Scientist debating a Creationist is like a Geologist debating a person from the Flat Earth Society. But the debate went ahead and Bill Nye’s excellent debunking of Noah’s ark probably convinced some of the people ‘sitting on the fence’ on the matter. But maybe ignoring Creationists is the way to get them to go away.
Back to the point, we could leave them alone if they kept their beliefs to themselves, but they don’t. So the war against ignorance must go on.
‘Just a theory, Evolutionism and supposed controversy’
“It’s just a theory”. An argument so common and pointless that it makes you want to smash your head against a brick wall, especially if it comes up just as you’re starting to get through to someone. I already covered this in my ‘Common Creationist arguments’ article, but I’ll further explain it here. Yes, Evolution, abiogenesis and the Big Bang are theories. Everything in Science is a theory, the Creationists use the word theory whilst using the Equivocation fallacy – misleading use of a term with more than one meaning. In Science a theory is a model used to describe how something works. We have the germ theory, the theory of gravity, the theory of the solar system, the quantum theory, the theory of atoms, and all the others. Facts are part of theories, a fact is not better. A random idea is called a hypothesis in Science, and it has to be tested and peer-reviewed before it gains any credibility.
‘Evolutionism’ is not an actual thing, it is a name used to incorporate everyone who accepts Evolution and an old Earth into one group. Why do Creationists call it that? because it gives them and their idea more credibility. Just like they want to be in more debates to make their religion more credible, Creationists like to add the ‘ism’ to Evolution to make it seem like an equal to their beliefs, when clearly it is not.
“There is huge controversy in the Scientific community over Evolution” Yes, of course! we have 99.9% of Scientists on one side, and a tiny amount of pseudoscientists on the other!
The myth of Irreducible Complexity
A popular claim by Creationists is that some things are ‘irreducibly complex’. They say that things such as the eye or the wing could not have evolved, because they’re too complex, and that things would be no good with only ‘half an eye’. This is an argument from ignorance, the way Evolution works is that you start off with a small, basic organism and it slowly gets more complex. For the eye, you start of with a basic light sensor, and over a long time it grows more complex, it becomes convex, it develops a lens and a pupil. Eventually you get from a basic light sensor to a complex eye.
Everywhere you look in nature you get a gradual slope of complexity, that’s why no animals have wheels; they can’t really evolve. Irreducible complexity does not exist, a gradual slope of complexity is what we see every time throughout history.
“But where are the transitional fossils?”.
Ugh, this argument? Maybe if I ignore it then it will go away…
“There are huge gaps in the fossil record”.
“Why are there no half-crocodile half-duck fossils then?”
Okay, ignoring it didn’t work, I’ll debunk it then.
Creationists seem to think that if Evolution is true then we need to be seeing ‘transitional fossils’. Basically some sort of half-tiger half -horse hybrids. Anything from Crocodile-ducks to camel-birds, they want to see it. But nature isn’t a freak show, nor is Evolution. The reason we don’t see these things is because that isn’t how Evolution works. When raptors Evolved into birds they didn’t start by getting beaks and then becoming a half-and-half hybrid. No, we get raptors that slowly became more and more bird-like. Even someone with a basic understanding of Evolution should know that we don’t ever get Crocoducks.
And to clarify, the transitional fossils are everywhere. Every single fossil we find is a transitional one, being slightly different from the ones before and after it. And there are no gaps, it is pure nonsense, Creationists see two fossils and say that there’s a gap in-between, when we fill the gap with a fossil in the middle they say that there’s now two gaps. We don’t need to dig up every single fossil that exists to prove Evolution. The ones we have already show us that lots of small changes over long periods of time makes animal species change.
On top of that, we don’t even need the fossil record to prove Evolution, but it does help.
Abiogenesis, the origin of life
One of the things that Creationists don’t like about Science (among all the other things they don’t like about Science) is that it can explain how life came from chemicals. Granted, we don’t have the complete theory yet, but we are getting closer. Creationists claim that life can’t come from chemicals for a number of reasons, a website I once saw said something similar to this:
“Imagine that all life on planet Earth disappeared, all you have are rocks and dust. How can life come from that? that’s the Evolutionist’s unanswerable dilemma, it shows how much faith they have to put into their preposterous answers”
I would agree with them, IF that’s what anyone thought! The pre-life conditions on Earth was extremely different to their scenario. Instead of rocks and dust we had a mass of chemicals floating about in water and volcanic pools, our atmosphere was completely different as well. Suddenly abiogenesis doesn’t seem so irrational. Life is basically a complex string of chemicals, biochemistry is what makes us work. And when left alone in a pre-life condition, complex chemicals bond together to form animo acids, sugars and even some of the four bases that constructs DNA. We have successfully created Nucleotides in the lab, and then from that you have to create polynucleotides, then you an get some basic RNA.
DNA and proteins have to work together, you can’t have one without the other, and Creationists know this. But RNA can duplicate itself and store information, doing both jobs, once Evolution and mutation kick in the RNA can become more complex, Evolving into the DNA and proteins that make life possible. Abiogenesis is not a ‘preposterous answer’ that requires faith, because 1. faith is belief without evidence, and 2. we have evidence that this process can happen. Arguing that it is preposterous is an argument from personal incredulity, and just because your brain is too limited to see how Science works doesn’t mean that it can’t happen!
Carbon dating and other dating methods
One of the biggest factors in calculating the age of the earth is carbon 14 dating. But of course Creationists claim that is inaccurate. Most of their claims are based on lies, and very, very stupid tests. To begin with, many Creationists say that Scientists have carbon dated things that we know the age of, and the dating has failed, but this is nonsense, no such thing has ever happened. Many Creationist sites say that carbon dating has dated recently killed sea animals as 20,000 years old. This is true, but it is because of something called the reservoir effect. I will explain this effect when I explain how carbon dating works in a minute. Their second claim is that we have dated fossils that are thought to be millions of years old, and the dating said that they were only thousands of years old. This is also true, but it is because they were carbon dating petrified fossils, if you know Science and how dating works then you’ll know why this is so ridiculous. You can’t carbon date petrified fossils because they contain NO carbon! They are completely made of minerals, the reason the Scientists got a reading at all is because the stuff museums put on the bones contains carbon, and such a large amount of the stuff gives the thousand year reading.
Carbon dating works because plants absorb carbon 14 from the air, animals that consume the plant also consume the carbon. The stuff stays in them and then slowly starts to decay and break down into other elements when the plant/animal dies, all Scientists have to do is see how much carbon 14 is left to get an accurate reading. The only problem with this method is that we must assume that the amount of carbon in the atmosphere was constant throughout history, but we have no reason to assume otherwise. The reason we got a very incorrect reading from the freshly killed sea animals is because the animals absorb extra carbon from the water that they live in, giving a false and unreliable reading. This is why carbon dating is typically used on plants.
Carbon 14 has a half-life of about 5,700 years, so it usually only used to date things less than 60,000 years old, any older and there isn’t enough carbon 14 left to provide an accurate reading. Luckily for us we have many dating methods for many different materials, we have uranium dating and potassium-argon dating for rock layers, and fission-track dating for fossils, just to name a few. And Uranium alone has a half-life of a few billion years, so we know that we have a reliable dating method to date any substance from any time frame.
Dinosaurs and the Garden of Eden
It appears that Creationists view the Flintstones as a documentary. Regardless of what the bible says they think that dinosaurs lived in the garden of Eden with Adam and Eve. I suppose it beats thinking that dinosaurs didn’t exist. There are a number of Creationist ideas about what happened to them as well, the first is that dinosaurs all died out during the flood for some reason, I don’t know why considering the bible said to take all animals, and dinosaurs are animals too. The second; and most common, is that dinosaurs are actually dragons. Besides the fact that most dinosaurs look nothing like dragons the Bible says that dragons, witches, demons and all that stuff are real, so that must mean that dinosaurs are dragons. Another interesting claim is that dinosaurs never died out, just that after the flood they got smaller, and turned into reptiles. Watch out, that Gecko you own is out to eat you! However they clearly overlook the fact that dinosaurs are more related to birds than reptiles, they are warm blooded and some even had feathers. Not to mention the fact that a worldwide flood wouldn’t cause animals to shrink. And finally we have the crazy idea that dinosaurs never died out and they still live today, they’re just hiding. Good luck trying to hide a Brachiosaurus.
The next topic I want to discuss is the garden itself. It supposedly had all animals in it, and death didn’t exist back then. But how do you explain disease? did those life-forms exist back then? if not then the garden didn’t have all animals in it. Secondly they say that all the carnivores didn’t eat meat. This is ridiculous, cats cannot live without a carnivorous diet, it contains proteins that keep them alive. And carnivore’s teeth and stomachs are designed for flesh, they literally wouldn’t work on a vegetarian diet. A Creationist video on YouTube claimed that a Tyrannosaurus ate plants for two reasons, firstly because somehow their teeth are supposed to resemble machetes, and secondly because the roots connecting their teeth to their jaws were very weak. The problem with their first claim is that dinosaurs don’t eat by unhinging their jaws and swinging their teeth around like giant knives. And their second claim is actually based on fact. Some predatory dinosaurs had weak teeth because they were designed to come out when they got stuck in bone. Like sharks, dinosaurs regrew their teeth, and it was much simpler for a tooth to detach when it got stuck in bone than have the dinosaur trying to pull itself free for the next half hour. So as you can see there really is no evidence that any carnivore can sustain itself on a herbivore diet, and even less evidence that it ever happened.
The Big Bang
The Big Bang is the term given to the sudden formation of the universe. 13.8 billion years ago the universe was compiled into a tiny dot known as a singularity. By some still unknown cause this singularity rapidly expanded, and over billions of years formed the universe. “What evidence is there for the Big Bang” the Creationist might ask, this is a genuine, intelligent question. And I shall answer it, the Big Bang is supported by four main pillars of evidence.
Movement of the Universe: The first pillar is the fact that everything is moving apart, everything in the universe is moving away from one another, gradually picking up speed. This indicates some sort of expansion – the Big Bang.
CBM: Another pillar of evidence is called Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. This is a type of radiation scattered all across the universe, it makes the background noise you hear on really old radios. We have mapped this radiation all across the universe, and it is the sort of thing you would expect to find if there was once a hot, rapid and sudden expansion.
Light elements: The third pillar is the abundance of light elements, during the first few minutes after the Big Bang protons and neutrons were able to bond together and form light elements, the simple ones like Tritium and Helium. After those first few minutes the universe cooled down and the bonding of subatomic particles couldn’t happen outside of stars. The big bang predicts that there is about 75% Hydrogen and 25% Helium in the Universe, and the actual ratio is 74% Hydrogen and 26% Helium. This is a strong indicator that the Big Bang is correct.
Large structures: the Big Bang is currently the only theory that could explain how clusters of planets and stars formed, a large scale scattering of particles that later clumped together to form galaxies with large, empty voids between them is what has happened. And it fits in perfectly with the Big Bang.
“But what caused the Big Bang?” is a common Creationist question, and the truth is, we don’t know. We might never know, but it doesn’t make Creationism right, that’s the False Dichotomy fallacy. We do however have a number of hypothesis concerning the matter, I covered the one that I support in my ‘Common Misconceptions’ article. Besides an eternal universe there are hypothesis about energy turning into matter.
“The universe has to have a cause”. Sadly for the Creationist the answer to their argument is that there is no evidence to indicate that the natural laws applied before the big bang, and if everything needs a cause then what about God? why should God get a free pass and not the universe? it’s called begging the question. If you are content to believe in a non-caused deity then I am content to believe in a non-caused universe. End of story.
Creationists also seem to have the obsession about things popping out of nowhere. They often say that “something can’t come from nothing” during debates on the topics of Evolution, abiogenesis and the Big Bang. That might be true, and we have no reason to think that it can, but that isn’t what the Big Bang (or any other Scientific theory for that matter) says. Another problem they have is that they think that if they prove the Big Bang wrong then that means Creationism will suddenly win by default, but no, we would modify our current theory to fit all of the evidence, this has happened before many times, with both Evolution and the Big Bang.
The not-so-missing link
Humans are Apes, we are also Monkeys, Rats and Bananas. We share DNA with every single living organism on the planet. We are really just hairless apes sitting around on a speck of dust in the middle of nowhere. Contrary to Geocentrism, Heliocentrism, Anthrocentrism and all the other nut-job ideas circling around in the ignorant corners of the internet, we are really not that important. But don’t let that get you down, we still colonized the earth, and sooner or later we will colonize the solar system. Humans being the last surviving hominids, the species that climbed from nothing to supremacy, seems much more honorable and epic than the idea that humans were made from mud and ribs by a God.
Creationists claim that there is a ‘missing link’. Maybe there did use to be one, but not anymore. We discovered Lucy (the Australopithecus, not someone’s old granny), and to this day that ape-like creature remains famous. But that isn’t the only one, we actually have many fossils filling the gaps between man and ape. We have homo habilis, homo erectus, homo neanderthalensis, australopithecus and many, many other species. We have an in-depth record of all ancient humans.
The Creationist might claim that these species are still human, or they’re just deformed, overlooking the massive structural differences in skull shape and skeleton build. But if that were true, then why was every single primitive human deformed? seems unlikely. On top of that we have a handy little thing called Deoxyribonucleic acid. It is a bit of a mouth-full to pronounce, but it allows us to clearly see that Neanderthal man was a different species to us.
Thermodynamics and DNA
“but it goes against the 2nd law of Thermodynamics” the Creationist might exclaim, or they might save words and just scream “THERMODYNAMICS”. Either way, this is an old argument and really means nothing. Creationists claim that the second law of thermodynamics makes Evolution and abiogenesis (the origin of life) impossible. They say that ‘order can’t come from chaos’ or ‘everything breaks down’, and they call it the second law. But actually, a simplified version of the second law of Thermodynamics is this:
The total entropy of a closed system will increase over time.
This law has nothing to do with Evolution and abiogenesis, mainly because the Earth is NOT a closed system, it receives energy and heat from the sun, and it expels some of the energy back into space. If a Creationist starts talking about the 2nd law of Thermodynamics then you should ask them: ‘do you know how many laws of Thermodynamics there actually are?’. Chances are the silence will be deafening. (Better wear ear-muffs just in case)
Our next claim is a very common one, it is that “DNA can’t create new information”. Well, DNA isn’t information, it is a collection of Nucleotides, Polynucleotides and other genetic matter. Some sites get too involved in the Scientific stuff, and you end up staring at all the complex chemical names thinking “huh?”, so I’ll spare you the chemicals. My point is that DNA doesn’t follow the information theory, and a string of chemicals can easily change itself AND duplicate itself.
Receding moon arguments
Let’s get down to business, the Moon is receding at about 3.8 centimeters per year, this is caused by the friction generated by it controlling the tides. This also causes the Earth to slow down, and helps the core stay nice and hot.
Creationists say that because the Moon is receding this fast, a few millions of years ago it would have been inside the Earth. This is true, but don’t go running to Church and believing 100% of the bible yet. The Moon isn’t receding at a constant rate. The speed it recedes at is dictated by how much water is on the equator; in the past the super-continent Pangaea covered most of the planet, drastically reducing the amount of water on the equator. This means that the Moon was receding at a much slower rate, debunking the Creationist argument.
Not only that, but the guy who came up with this idea didn’t even get it peer-reviewed, so it just shows his insecurity, he knew that his facts were wrong, but he wanted the masses to believe him anyway.
Likewise I can turn the argument around. The Moon was once 20% closer in the past, but in order for the Moon to get from where it was then to where it was now in 6000 years it would have to have been receding at 15 KILOMETERS a year, which is impossible, the earth doesn’t have enough equator to allow this to happen. So we don’t have a supersonic racing Moon, we have a really slow one moving away steadily over hundreds of millions of years.
Even in this day and age we still have large groups of people believing that there was a worldwide flood that happened about 4,500 years ago, killing everything except a few people and 2 of every animal, or was it 7 like the Bible said a little later? Either way, this claim is the most ridiculous Creationist idea that I have ever come across, and I will show you how easy it is to destroy.
Creationists claim that the water came from a place called ‘the fountains of the deep’, and such a place has never been found. It would take 4.23 times the amount of water that exists on earth to flood it completely. And fresh water and salt water don’t mix, it would have become a mass of poisonous liquid that would kill all who drank it, due to it being salty, and it would kill all water animals. And then of course all this extra water had to go somewhere, a bit of a problem, don’t you think?
Even if a flood happened and there was somehow enough water to cover all the mountains, there is still a problem. The oxygen levels at above Everest would be too thin to breathe. Everything would have suffered Hypoxia and died.
The Ark itself is impossible, the ark was said to be larger than any wooden ship ever built before, but a wooden ship any larger than 300 feet isn’t stable, wood is such a bad boat material that if a ship is too long it bows and twists, the ship capsizes very quickly. And the Ark was even bigger than 300 feet. Not only that, you can’t fit 16 – 30 million species on a boat of that size, even if the Ark was big, it still wouldn’t be able to fit that many animals on it. We’ll discuss the Creationist’s Ad Hoc loophole to that later.
Storing the animals is hard enough, you also have to feed them, clean them and water them, you would also have to have all the plants that would have been wiped out, and all the fungi, disease and virus’, all for a whole YEAR. It quickly becomes noticeable that fitting all life on planet earth into a little wooden boat is impossible.
Trees and Records
The oldest trees alive date to about 4,750 to 5,000 years ago, and they are the Bristlecone pine trees, this is a problem for Creationists, as both trees and ancient records from the Chinese, Indians, Babylonians and Egyptians pre-date their flood. Nowhere in written history does anyone say “oh yea, then our entire civilization was wiped out”.
To get around the problem of the animals on the Ark Creationists talk about ‘kinds’, besides it not being a correct biological classification, (we have Phylum, Kingdom, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species, no kinds.) it is very vague. They say that you have a dog kind, a cat kind, a bird kind. etc. But when you ask them what kind of animal a Raccoon, Platypus, Kangaroo or Echidna is it completely throws them. They often say that there is a Platypus kind, so the definition of ‘kind’ swaps from Order or Class to Species.
Regardless of how they define ‘kinds’, you still have to feed, water and clean those kinds, and even IF you managed to get 16,000,000 species into 7000 ‘kinds’, you would need to see 11 new animals evolving every DAY to get to our current level of biodiversity. Besides being impossible, this is coming from the people who claim not to accept evolution.
The Grand Canyon
This is a popular topic for Creationists, they claim that the Grand Canyon was made by a huge flood, this is stupid for many reasons. Firstly, the shape of the canyon is like the ‘S’ of a river, a flood would have made more of a ‘l’ shape. Secondly, if the water was powerful enough to do that then it would have left the planet covered in Grand Canyons. There is a few topics and arguments concerning the canyon, and I don’t have time to list them all, but I encourage you to look at the Atheist YouTube videos to see them debunk this ancient claim.
Rock layers and fossils
rock layers are massive indicators that there was never a flood, if there was a giant flood then we’d have a large mess of rocks with hundreds of fossils, but no, we get ordered layers with more basic fossils as we go down, we rarely find a fossil trying to swim, nor do we get rabbits next to stegosaurus. The specific ordering of rock layers indicates a slow build up, not a freak event.
land bridges and kangaroo chaos
a popular argument for us who accept evolution is the following: “how did the animals get back to Australia and other far away countries?”. If the flood happened the Ark would have landed on a mountain in the Middle East. But how did the Kangaroos get back to Australia?Especially considering they didn’t leave a single fossil on the way? and so far Creationists don’t have a solid explanation for this.
The flood really is one of the weakest Creationist ideas, and it is so easy to debunk and tear down that I don’t know why anyone still believes in it, maybe it’s because they’re too busy shoving their fingers in their ears and shouting “LA LA LA” as loud as they can.