Answering creationist "arguments"

I said this post would be good, and while it is not particularly unique, it is very entertaining. This is of course an incomplete list, but I'll expand upon it later when I find some more "arguments".

If humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

Ok, almost everyone has heard this one, and almost everyone thinks it is stupid. But for those who think it is convincing, I'll explain it this way. All dogs were bred from wolves, so how come there are still wolves? It's because only a small group was changed. And there are so many different breeds of dog, but they all have the same ancestor species, the wolf. The same thing applies to humans and monkeys, and apes. We all evolved from a common ancestor. It wasn't a monkey or an ape of today. It was something that had the shared traits of all, and most likely in a more primitive form. There was a divergence of genetics in the past, one side went on to become monkeys, the other to become apes (humans are just really smart apes).

Creatures don't live for millions of years!

Once again, this is stupid, even to some creationists. The million year timeline isn't for the individual, but for the genetic group it is part of. Their defendants over the course of millions of years adapt to survive in drastic ways (depending on the circumstances). If a being did live for millions of years, that'd be amazing, and worthy of study and preservation.

I did a (insert radiometric dating technique here) on my dead cat and found it to be thousands of years old. Therefore radiometric dating is false.

Okay, well first off, that's fucked up. Second, there are many reasons why a false result could have been achieved. First and foremost, radiometric dating is to brides on very old things. Fossils, or rocks that are at least a couple hundred years old. Thief younger than this are going to give a false result. Or, if you were using a more appropriate dating method (and thus disproving your conclusion anyway) there is a high chance for human error. I doubt you have a degree in any of the sciences, which makes it unlikely that you know the correct processors. Or perhaps it was confirmation bias comung into play. Doing multiple tests and only one of them was wrong, so you hold it up as a triumph. Silly creationists, tricks don't work well in science.

Scientists like to use big words to sound more impressive, like deoxyribosenucleic acid, for example. Sounds impressive, right? Ever seen what happens when you put something in acid? It dissolves. If we had that throughout our bodies, we'd all dissolve. So much for the theory of evolution.

I respond to this thusly: ever eaten an orange, or a lemon? Those have citric acid in them. And not just a kittle. How come your teeth and stomach didn't dissolve? Remembering from my Chen days (a couple years back) I think an acid is defined as having a readily bonding hydrogen atom on it. Like HCl, or hydrochloric acid. The acidity is determined by the number of free H+ ions in a solution, I think. I'll check my facts and comment the results on this post.

So that is it for the arguments I've seen/heard. If you know of any that you want me to answer, or want to challenge my answers on these, just comment, and I'll get right on it.

Defense of Irreducible Complexity?

I recently came across a video on YouTube which was a clip from a "documentary" in which an apparent biochemist suggest evolution was trumped due to the Irreducible Complexity of the bacterial flagellum. We've all heard this before, and have heard the rebuttal. This post isn't about that. This is about how, I've noticed, creationists try to avoid reading the arguments and facts. It seems that for those new to Internet debate its a simple mass-denial, where a group all deny it, and congratulate each other on how 'smart' they are. Those of a little more experience get to the accusations quickly. I asked a simple question about the nature of empiricism, and he accused me of preparing to move the goal posts or accusing him of being misinformed, or under-educated on the subject. I will now explain what confuses me.

Firstly, where are the goal posts going to move? On my side of the field, to keep with the metaphor, they are securely set at the position of evolution from simpler stages. Where will they move? To my mind there is nowhere for it to go. I'm not saying anything about their side, so I can't move their goal post.

Second, why do I need to move the goal post? My side is more then adequately presented, theirs is obviously an argument from ignorance. I can even show it. The best example of goal-post moving is when an evolution-denier asks for a certain level of proof, and when it's presented he say that he actually meant a higher level of proof. I am SO confused.

Third, I've sent 1 message, and the guy assumes I'm out to get him. I was just trying to ascertain his level of knowledge of science and the scientific method, and he gets hostile. Seems to me that if a point is strong enough, one shouldn't need to make accusations until something actually happens.

In order to try and either get him to withdraw his accusations, or at least calm down, I replied with a message asking him to explain what he meant, and assured him that I'm sure he educated himself on the subject before posting his video. To not do so would be completely retarded. He hasn't responded yet, but it hasn't been long.

I do hope I can converse with this guy intelligently, although to do so I would need to penetrate his shield of ignorance, an I do not have the patience for that. Chances are, I'll have to debunk every false fact he says and point out any logical fallacies he uses.

If you happen to run across someone of this calibre, be careful, as they have enough experience in debating to make the slightest mishap seem like a enormous hole in your point. 'Tis better to disengage if unprepared, or to proof-read all posts. ALWAYS THINK BEFORE YOU SPEAK! Otherwise we may have to re-align your logical compass.

Just me ranting about a guy on the net... Until next time,
crites evidentia logica.