Most retarded arguments against evolution

[Lord of the Abyss]

As for evidence for evolution, look no further than the fossil record. Doesn't tell you anything about the mechanisms involved, but it sure as hell tells you that its going on.

There's always the old standby, "God/Satan put the fossils there to test our faith/deceive us!"

And pointing out that "in some samples, the fossils that science calls young are above the ones it calls old, which proves the ordering of the fossil layers isn't from the passage of time!" Well, that's because the chunk of rock in question is upside down. Which is why they are still in the same order, bottom to top instead of top to bottom.

[Twigler]

No one mentioned Kirk Cameron's crocoduck yet?

A hilarious show recapped in one sentence: "There's no crocoduck, so evolution is wrong."
You can hear the other team groan.

[mr friendly guy]

LoA beat me to it. I was going to talk about the Fundamentalist Christian almost discovers the sun, which is obviously derived from the second law of thermodynamics prevents evolution.

Kirk Cameron's about the Banana must come a close second. Someone parodied that with a banana was clearly designed by God... as a sex object for women because its kind of the right shape.

The other one I heard (from a colleague who told me with a straight face) "Its not evolution, its natural selection".

Another one I saw in the paper went something like this. Evolutionist argue that bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics equals evolution. When Mr Evolutionist becomes resistant to antibiotics (or any drugs) what does he evolve into.

That crossed so many lines of stupid its like debating someone who doesn't speak English, and you have to slow down to explain what those terms mean. Its clear that person didn't have a freaking clue what the word evolution means nor how people become resistant to drugs. Moreover if we take their argument (assuming for a moment they are serious when they think scientist definition of evolution means becoming resistant to drug counts as changing into a new species) to its logical conclusion they are essentially saying evolution works like Pokemon evolution minus the pokemon battles.

That is people acquire some characteristic and becomes a new species which is capable of passing this characteristic down to their descendents. Like how Pikachu becomes orange and bigger and is now called Raichu, while Raichu's offspring will supposedly be orange Raichus rather than yellow Pikachus. Thats larmarkianism on steroids. I suppose its also similar to saltatations or the "Hopeful monster" hypothesis.

What people need is this book. I have an older copy but it generally goes through most of the usual bullshit arguments including the Noah's ark and Chinese legend rubbish which became popular with a few morons on SB.com. I don't believe it has Kirk Cameron's LOL argument though.

In a shameless plug I did some Christian arguments including anti-evolution ones with a magic the gathering theme a few years ago. Might be amusing to use.

[Liberty]

"How do you know that you can trust your senses? You make that assumption. You are an evidentialist. I am not. Rather than trusting that my senses work, I trust the Bible, the Word God has given us. The Bible explains why we have senses, tells us we can trust them, and explains how the world works. It also tells how the world was created."
This argument is actually becoming very popular in Creationist circles, especially Answers in Genesis.

I would like to know how to better refute this argument: "Humans have consciousness. How the hell do humans have the ability to think complicated thoughts, and think about abstract things?"

[mr friendly guy]

No one mentioned Kirk Cameron's crocoduck yet?

A hilarious show recapped in one sentence: "There's no crocoduck, so evolution is wrong."
You can hear the other team groan.

Man its hilarious. However that woman (Kelly) on the rational team is hot.

[mr friendly guy]

"How do you know that you can trust your senses? You make that assumption. You are an evidentialist. I am not. Rather than trusting that my senses work, I trust the Bible, the Word God has given us. The Bible explains why we have senses, tells us we can trust them, and explains how the world works. It also tells how the world was created."
This argument is actually becoming very popular in Creationist circles, especially Answers in Genesis.

I would like to know how to better refute this argument: "Humans have consciousness. How the hell do humans have the ability to think complicated thoughts, and think about abstract things?"

The answer to your second point, humans can think abstract thoughts because we have a brain thats different from animals. You might have to ask someone more knowledgeable to clear it up, but basically brains have parts which allow "higher functions" eg reasoning, as well as the basic function, ie maintaining respiration, visual spatial percention, proprioception etc. The parts governing higher functions is larger relative to animals.

The answer to the first question is (if you are feeling nasty) challenge them to do something harmful to themselves like stepping in front of a truck. Since they don't trust their senses and the Bible doesn't mention trucks anywhere, he shouldn't really have a problem.

If you aren't, ask them how they know what the Bible actually says if they don't trust their senses. Seems like a fallacy of the stolen concept to me.

[Liberty]

There are some great ones here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qO9IPoAdct8

[Simon_Jester]

"How do you know that you can trust your senses? You make that assumption. You are an evidentialist. I am not. Rather than trusting that my senses work, I trust the Bible, the Word God has given us. The Bible explains why we have senses, tells us we can trust them, and explains how the world works. It also tells how the world was created."

OK. I must be missing something here; not even they could be stupid enough to miss this...

How do they know their senses perceive the Bible accurately? Last time I checked, the Bible was a big hunk of paper with black marks on it. If I can't be trusted to read a geologic column properly, how can I be trusted to read a big hunk of paper properly?

[Samuel]

"How do you know that you can trust your senses? You make that assumption. You are an evidentialist. I am not. Rather than trusting that my senses work, I trust the Bible, the Word God has given us. The Bible explains why we have senses, tells us we can trust them, and explains how the world works. It also tells how the world was created."
This argument is actually becoming very popular in Creationist circles, especially Answers in Genesis.

Because you need to use your senses to read the bible? Unless they have magic telepathy skills they have to trust their senses that the words they read off the page are true. And, more to the point, I don't- I trust my senses as long as they are consistent. If things suddenly darken, it isn't because a cloud went in front of the Sun, but because I blinked. The important test is wheter the evidence our senses recieve is consistent with our previous experiences and with what other people experience.

[D.Turtle]

Okay, here's one, half tongue in cheek and half request for information:

"The whole theory of evolution is predicated on one book, The Origin of Species, which studied the types of BILLS on BIRDS in the GALAPAGOS NOWHERESVILLE ISLANDS and reached conclusions about EVERY FUCKING SPECIES ON EARTH as a result?"

(hopefully) Needless to say, I know enough about insolation (occasional genetics-fucking-with flares), random DNA recombination, and plain old competition to accept evolution as a valid theory, but (and I'm asking from pure ignorance here) are there any other studies besides Darwin's work to further the theory of evolution? If so, why aren't they taught in school? I went to a Catholic high school and we learned about Darwin and Mendel, but fuck-all else about genetic drift or speciation.

You do realize that for example the existence of DNA, genomes, etc. was something Darwin had nothing to do with? The whole "selfish gene" thing? The reason "The Origin of Species" is used so much, is that it is a fucking brilliant work, which clearly lays out enough evidence etc. to be proof in itself of the theory of evolution. There are thousands of works expanding on it, correcting some of its mistakes, and introducing new and additional evidence. However, the basic theory of evolution through natural selection has remained the same.

As for evidence for evolution:
A new strain of Bacteria capable of eating Nylon, a long-running experiment with Bacteria that evolved the ability to metabolise citratea after about 31000 generations in the lab, and a new species of Mosquitoes in the London Underground.

If you need a good book on the evidence for Evolution, "The Greatest Show on Earth; The Evidence for Evolution" by Richard Dawkins is a very good one.

As for stupid arguments, the crocoduck has to be one of the top ones.

[Vehrec]

^ Bacterial resistance to drugs seems, to me, to be a powerful confirmation of the theory of evolution. Shit, seasonal flu shots (yes yes for viral infections) are hit-or-miss.

This seems to be a better, and more recent, and better understood, underpinning to evolution as a theory.

You seem to be talking about the modern synthesis. It's basically 'Everything we've learned about evolution since 1859' in a nutshell. It contains things like:

Genes. Darwin didn't know shit about them. They are the basis of modern evolution.

Mutation. Changes in genes, one of the main origins of new traits. Another thing Dawing didn't know about.

Soma-germ line separation. The body and the mechanism of inheritance are separated. This bears repeating.

Chromosomes. Protien and DNA structures that appear when the cell divides, containing groups of genes. Dawrin and Mendel were both ignorant of these. Mendel chose traits for his plants that were fortunately not on the same chromosomes so he could independently asses them. If Mendel had chosen linked traits, he'd likely have been doomed from the start to fail.

Crossing over. During meiotic cell division, chromosomes break and recombine. If you examine the rate of recombination between two different linked genes, you can actually tell how far apart they are. Fruit flies were the first species to have their genes mapped in this manner. Since they only have four chromosomes, it's rather easy to do.

Population Genetics. First branch of Genetics, although I know some geneticists who are touchy on the subject. It's a big field in and of itself, and defining what a population is is a big part of why a lot of evolutionary studies take place on tiny islands. Deals with the frequency and distribution of genes in actual groups. Needs to account for things like bastards when doing fieldwork in humans.

Genetic Drift. Primary cause of evolution in very small populations and those not under selection. Tends to cause mutants to be eliminated from large populations.

Gene Duplication. The other big source of new varriation. You have a gene that codes for hemoglobin? If you make an extra copy, you can now have one of them mutate into something 'useless' which can then wait until a use is found for it or mutate into irrelevancy and junk DNA. Something like...Myoglobin. It's the protein that makes red meats red btw. Stores oxygen on site until it's needed to give the muscles some surge capacity.

Evolutionary Development. Evo-devo, the hot new field in Evolution today. It concerns things like humans having flat faces, dogs having curly tails and the rare fly mutants that grow legs from where their eyes should be. Reveals that huge structural differences can be cause by very tiny changes in the genetic structure of specific directing genes. It's very complicated but very cool.

Is it taught in school nowadays?

Well, yes and no. It's big. Huge really. You could dedicate every high school class on science to it, and you'd still be leaving huge amounts of the theory by the wayside. It's a synthesis to boot. Nobody discovered it on their own, even if there are central founders. so it doesn't sit well with heroic theories of science about people discovering things that everyone else was too much of an idiot to grasp. Still, if evolution was taught to you in high school, it would be a watered down form of the modern synthesis.

[Liberty]

From the Answers in Genesis website:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... pologetics

When explaining their beliefs, Christians often feel they must first prove the Bible or prove the existence of God. This approach reveals that they do not yet understand the Bible’s approach, known as presuppositional apologetics.

Presuppositions are simply beliefs that everyone has that affect how they think, view the world, interpret evidence, and read the Bible. Apologetics is a reasoned defense of beliefs. So presuppositional apologetics is a reasoned defense of Christian beliefs based on recognizing our presuppositions.

For instance, my presupposition is that God exists and He has given us His Word (the Bible) that is absolute truth. So I use the Bible as the basis for how to think, interpret evidence, explain the world around me, and read the Bible. An atheist’s presupposition will most likely be that there is no God and that truth is relative. An atheist believes that man decides truth, and so he thinks, interprets evidence, and views the world and Bible accordingly.

If we start off believing the Bible is the Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16; Psalm 18:30; Proverbs 30:5), then we use it as our axiom. An axiom (often used in logic) is a proposition that is not susceptible to proof or disproof; its truth is assumed. The Bible takes this stance, assuming God’s existence to be true and not something to be proven (Genesis 1:1; Exodus 3:14; Revelation 1:8).

The battle is not over evidence but over philosophical starting points: presuppositions. As Christians, we should never put away our axiom—the Bible—when discussing truth with others. This would be like a soldier going into battle without any armor or weapons. Asking a Christian to abandon the Bible for the sake of discussion is like asking an atheist to prove there is no God by using only the Bible. You would be asking the atheist to give up his axiom.

The prophets and the apostles never tried to prove God’s existence. They started by assuming God’s existence, and they always reasoned from Scripture (Acts 17:2, 17; 18:4, 19). By using the Word of God, we are actually pitting the unbeliever against God and not our own fallible thinking.

You can't make this shit up.

[RedImperator]

" If we evolved from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys around? Why haven't they all turned into humans? "

Then again, the Kirk Cameron-endorsed: "Bananas are perfectly shaped by god to be held and eaten as a snack"-argument probably tops everything else.

This is my all-time favorite bad argument for anything ever. The best part? Cameron is actually partly right--the banana you see in the supermarket essentially has been created for human consumption. The problem is, it's been created by humans.

This is what a wild banana looks like. The fruit is small and virtually inedible thanks to all the tooth-cracking seeds (just look at the fucking thing; would you bite into that?). Not only that, but Cameron and Comfort picked a banana varietal with a known historical lineage, one which wasn't widely sold commercially until the 1950s. If Kirk Cameron's fundamentalism wasn't so widely documented (virtually everyone who worked on Growing Pains has stories about how difficult he was to work with after his conversion), I would assume this whole argument was a troll or a deliberate own goal.

[Alerik the Fortunate]

From the Answers in Genesis website:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... pologetics

When explaining their beliefs, Christians often feel they must first prove the Bible or prove the existence of God. This approach reveals that they do not yet understand the Bible’s approach, known as presuppositional apologetics.

Presuppositions are simply beliefs that everyone has that affect how they think, view the world, interpret evidence, and read the Bible. Apologetics is a reasoned defense of beliefs. So presuppositional apologetics is a reasoned defense of Christian beliefs based on recognizing our presuppositions.

For instance, my presupposition is that God exists and He has given us His Word (the Bible) that is absolute truth. So I use the Bible as the basis for how to think, interpret evidence, explain the world around me, and read the Bible. An atheist’s presupposition will most likely be that there is no God and that truth is relative. An atheist believes that man decides truth, and so he thinks, interprets evidence, and views the world and Bible accordingly.

If we start off believing the Bible is the Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16; Psalm 18:30; Proverbs 30:5), then we use it as our axiom. An axiom (often used in logic) is a proposition that is not susceptible to proof or disproof; its truth is assumed. The Bible takes this stance, assuming God’s existence to be true and not something to be proven (Genesis 1:1; Exodus 3:14; Revelation 1:8).

The battle is not over evidence but over philosophical starting points: presuppositions. As Christians, we should never put away our axiom—the Bible—when discussing truth with others. This would be like a soldier going into battle without any armor or weapons. Asking a Christian to abandon the Bible for the sake of discussion is like asking an atheist to prove there is no God by using only the Bible. You would be asking the atheist to give up his axiom.

The prophets and the apostles never tried to prove God’s existence. They started by assuming God’s existence, and they always reasoned from Scripture (Acts 17:2, 17; 18:4, 19). By using the Word of God, we are actually pitting the unbeliever against God and not our own fallible thinking.

You can't make this shit up.

I.E. You cannot talk to me unless you agree ahead of time that everything I say is unquestionably correct and whatever you think to the contrary is wrong. They are stuck in what S.I. Hayakawa calls the "organization around master symbols," they idea that people cannot communicate effectively unless they agree upon metaphysical axioms first. Which functioned well enough in large areas with a centralized religion, like say Europe or the Middle East during the middle ages. But its useless trying to communicate with someone from a different worldview. As Hayakawa said, such people aren't really interested in communication, since they believe you can't say anything meaningful to them unless you share axioms, and they're not interested in getting to know yours since they're confident they already have all the correct ones. And then they get raving mad at you when you point out that its arrogant and ineffective behavior.

Also dovetails into Francis Schaeffer, who is always wrong about everything (well maybe an exaggeration, but applies almost as well to him as to Aristotle, who never seems to have entertained the notion that he could be mistaken about something). To summarize Schaeffer's book "The God Who is There," his arguments go basically:
1. Without God, Man has no worth
2. I like people, therefore Man has worth.
3. Hence, God exists.

[Samuel]

So I use the Bible as the basis for how to think, interpret evidence, explain the world around me, and read the Bible.

There is a hole with no bottom.

An axiom (often used in logic) is a proposition that is not susceptible to proof or disproof; its truth is assumed.

You can prove an axiom is invalid by showing that chain of inferences off of it lead to a contradiction.

[Tanasinn]

Yeah, gotta give my vote to the so-called Atheist's Nightmare argument. You know, the one where the imaginary friend engineered the banana perfectly for human holding and consumption?

[AATC-86]

I encountered two gems while debating a YEC. While the arguments she made aren't strictly against evolution, she made them in order to prove that the Bible is absolute truth (including Genesis).

"The hill Jesus was crucified on exists, it's REAL! So you see, the Bible must be true."

And:

"Have you read the Bible? It's so perfectly written. Does that not prove divine intervention?"

[Pulp Hero]

I had a friend who is well read in science descibe a debate on science with some under informed co-workers.

It basically went as follows:

COWORKER: "There is no evidence for evolution"
FRIEND: "Yes there is." *Begins listing off sources*
COWORKER: "Well those aren't true."

Ad nausum.

[mr friendly guy]

"How do you know that you can trust your senses? You make that assumption. You are an evidentialist. I am not. Rather than trusting that my senses work, I trust the Bible, the Word God has given us. The Bible explains why we have senses, tells us we can trust them, and explains how the world works. It also tells how the world was created."

OK. I must be missing something here; not even they could be stupid enough to miss this...

How do they know their senses perceive the Bible accurately? Last time I checked, the Bible was a big hunk of paper with black marks on it. If I can't be trusted to read a geologic column properly, how can I be trusted to read a big hunk of paper properly?

Unfortunately they are stupid enough to miss this. It is a stolen concept fallacy. Its no different from the "its wrong to judge others" (variation of the let he is without sin cast the first stone). Usually used against me when I obviously judged someone who they like and found wanting. The same problem arises. If its wrong to judge others, stating it out loud is itself a judgment, hence your own judgment should be wrong by your own perverse logic.

[Adam Reynolds]

I have once heard both the second law of thermodynamics and microevolution arguements from a high school science teacher. He stated that while he did agree that evolution must exist that did not mean that humans had to have evolved from cells. He also stated that the second law would make it difficult.

In his defense, he wasn't a biology teacher and did not teach this during class, I had known that he was Mormon and so I asked him once during a break out of curiosity regarding his belief.

[Simon_Jester]

Was he a physics teacher? That would be worse; anyone with a physics degree ought to know the Second Law of Thermodynamics doesn't work that way, because they ought to have derived it and understand it.

[Alerik the Fortunate]

Some teachers just have a clear wall of separation that they admit to: the scientific theories all say this, and we have to go with it in practical application because it's the only model that works, but I personally believe that everything was miraculously created by my personal god within the last 10,000 years. Because.

[PainRack]

"That's speciation, an example of evolution."
"Ah, but that's micro-evolution, not MACRO-evolution"

Seriously. The ONLY kind of macro-evolution he would accept was transformation of "Kind".

[adam_grif]

Another vote for the Thermodynamics "argument".

I've also had "radioisotope dating methods are all wrong" and "evolution takes millions of years but people don't live for millions of years". I think the latter might have been a deliberate troll though, I doubt anybody could genuinely be that stupid.

[Ritterin Sophia]

^ Ah, but don't you see? That's MICRO evolution, not MACRO evolution! HA!

Probably the saddest excuse for a strawman ever constructed.

As for evidence for evolution, look no further than the fossil record. Doesn't tell you anything about the mechanisms involved, but it sure as hell tells you that its going on.

If those don't work you can always point to the Italian Wall Lizards.