Bad Creationism debating tactics obliterated
Are you an idiot who wants desperately to continue to believe in a supernatural entity despite no evidence to do so? Are you intimidated by science, and how it conflicts with your supernatural understanding of the world? Are you concerned evolution makes your Cosmogony seem infantile and basic by comparison? Then head on over to Creationtips.com, where you can learn a whole slew of idiotic talking points, such as.
1. How did the Universe come about?
There is of course no scientific law or demonstrable process that would let something evolve from nothing. If there was nothing in the universe to begin with, obviously nothing could happen to cause anything to appear. [Jake's Note: You'll read this whole "there is no scientific law" rhetoric all the time on the site. Evidently these clowns have no real understanding of what scientific laws are all about.]
Translation: Something can’t come from nothing, therefore my Creator God who willed himself into existence did it.
In any case, this question is supposed to confuse non-believers who aren’t super familiar with astrophysics. How can a Universe come from nothing? Well, Laurence Krauss has some good answers to this question, but it’s still an argument I find quickly paints religionists into a corner. If it’s true you can’t get something from nothing, then why does this rule not apply to their Creator God?
2. How could living creatures come from Non-Life?
There are no provable mechanisms for how molecules could increase in complexity without cells to produce and utilize them. For example, you cannot assume proteins before you have the DNA that codes for them.
Translation: There are no provable mechanisms for life, therefore my improvable deity did it!
Creationists are always a little confused as to how non-living materials create living entities. While we cannot yet fully explain how the necessary proteins arranged themselves to create DNA, it’s important to remember this molecule is not “alive” in the same sense that we are. It’s simply a biological mechanism for replication, and there are other non-organic examples of this as well.
Any creationists using the word “DNA” is a fool; if they believe humans are separate from animals, they should choose a different molecule: this one suggests humans share a common ancestor with all animals. It’s a far cry from their Adam and Eve bullshit.
3. How could new genetic information arise?
The theory of evolution teaches that complex life-forms evolved from simple life-forms. There is no natural law known that could allow this to happen. The best that evolutionists can come up with to try to explain how this might have happened is to propose that it happened by mutations and natural selection.
Translation: I’m confused about evolution, therefore God did it.
Creationists are always confused about how evolution works. They have to be, otherwise it kills their little delusion that Earth was spawned by an invisible deity. They always claim you can’t see evolution in action, even though you can with something as mundane as using anti-bacterial soap. It’s even clearly spelled out for you on the label: if they kill 99.9% of all bacteria, the 0.1% that survived have developed a greater resiliency to this particular soap. Over time, these traits make their way into the population and your soap becomes increasingly ineffectual as we slowly train bacterium to resist us through our germaphobic habits. Tada!
More sophisticated creationists (Intelligent Design) admit this kind of evolution exists, but somehow these types of changes can’t possibly lead to different traits leading to separate species over long periods of time. Even if evolution were wrong, it would not make their magical-spontaneous-sky-man hypothesis any more correct.
…mutations and natural selection do not show gain in information, just rearrangement or loss of what is already there — therefore there may be beneficial mutations without an increase in genetic information.
There’s a wonderful video explaining how a kind of “loss of information” was responsible for humans branching off into a separate species, and you need to check it out.
4. Where is the proof that apes turned into humans?
Thousands of fossils and fossil fragments of apes and humans have now been found — and they don’t show a steady progression from apes to humans at all. Fossils have been found in the wrong time-frames, put into the wrong categories before all the evidence was in, and what was once thought to be the ape-human family tree now actually has no trunk — just unconnected branches.
Translation: I don’t even understand the notion that human beings ARE apes!
This one makes me the saddest, because it reminds me we’re still a long ways away as a species from admitting what we are. You’d think the fabric of society would collapse like a balloon as soon as we all realized we are animals like any other. The fact that we are offended by the notion of being apes goes to show we have little appreciation for the truth, and even less appreciation for how extraordinarily fortunate we are to be alive.
As for debunking this claim the “fossil record keeps changing”, keep in mind the chance of actually finding human fossils is already a rarity (land species always leave less evidence of their existence, and we haven’t been around for long). Our entire collection of ancient hominid bones could fit in the back of a pickup truck, for God’s sake! But to say there’s no evidence we share a common ancestor with apes is simply a pious lie. The evidence is overwhelming (one of the proofs is in the video I mentioned before), and keep in mind so far, the best alternative explanation these creationists offer is the equivalent of magic. How are they so endlessly impressed with themselves?