15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

[BushOut06]

I came across this site while using Firefox's Stumble! program (I highly recommend it, by the way). I'm not going to paste the entire article here, because it's 7 pages long, but it gives 15 highly detailed responses to common creationist arguments. Here's just one:

13. Evolutionists cannot point to any transitional fossils--creatures that are half reptile and half bird, for instance.

Actually, paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate in form between various taxonomic groups. One of the most famous fossils of all time is Archaeopteryx, which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs. A flock's worth of other feathered fossil species, some more avian and some less, has also been found. A sequence of fossils spans the evolution of modern horses from the tiny Eohippus. Whales had four-legged ancestors that walked on land, and creatures known as Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus helped to make that transition . Fossil seashells trace the evolution of various mollusks through millions of years. Perhaps 20 or more hominids (not all of them our ancestors) fill the gap between Lucy the australopithecine and modern humans.

Creationists, though, dismiss these fossil studies. They argue that Archaeopteryx is not a missing link between reptiles and birds--it is just an extinct bird with reptilian features. They want evolutionists to produce a weird, chimeric monster that cannot be classified as belonging to any known group. Even if a creationist does accept a fossil as transitional between two species, he or she may then insist on seeing other fossils intermediate between it and the first two. These frustrating requests can proceed ad infinitum and place an unreasonable burden on the always incomplete fossil record.

article link: http://sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=1&catID=2

[Richard D]

1. One of the things . . .

. . . I think that creationists have no concept of is that of time. How long is 4 billion years? They seem to think in terms (biblical) that life started around 5000 years ago. So of course in that period of time evolution couldn't have taken place. I also think that grasping the number "4 billion" is extraordinarily difficult for most people. It's a lot longer than a really really long time.

[BushOut06]

2. kick kick kick

I think people really need to see this, so when creationist fundies start spewing their crap, we'll have plenty of ammo to hit them back with.

Obviously arguing facts with fundies like these is a waste of time - but if anyone around is listening, maybe they'll take a few things away from it.

[tjwash]

3. There is only one problem with all of that.

None of it will get heard by the people that need it the most. If you attempt to tell them any scientific facts, they quickly stick their fingers in their ears while screaming "LALALALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!!" while simultaneously retreating into the bible.