In a previous blog entry Addressing some obvious Strawmen I already announced, that I might revisit some Creationist arguments. I’m going to address some of their arguments again in this post. So let’s get started shall we:

T: “How come Evolution stopped?We don’t observe a Cow turning into a whale today!”

Me: “Aside from the fact, that Whales aren’t related to Cows (yes I’ve met a creationist who thinks Evolution claims that) we do in fact still observe evolution. Our lifetimes are too short to notice it with cows or whales but we have observed speciation within fruit flies for example or within bacteria. We have even observed organisms gaining brand new traits via random mutations. One very interesting case would be the Lenski experiment. Here’s a link to a peer reviewed paper concerning the Lenski experiment with e.coli: The Lenski experiment

T: “But it’s still bacteria.”

Me: “Yes it is still bacteria but you fail to see why this is significant. More importantly though, you put your own creation model into checkmate right now. If you want to imply, that bacteria is one “kind” of organism then you have implicitly defined the word kind as a domain. If we look at the domain Eukaryota, I can now say that dogs and cats and pigs are all one kind and with that you’d need to acknowledge macroevolution. More importantly you’d have to believe in macroevolution over the course of just 4000 years. I suggest you improve upon your taxonomy.”

T: “Carbondating is unreliable!”

Me: “While I do concede, that carbondating has been known for giving large margin’s of error it is incorrect to say, that it’s unreliable. It merely becomes unreliable when you misuse the method. If you date the wrong material, such as fossils which have been buried or diamonds etc. the results are going to be wrong. See Carbondating has an upper dating limit of 55.000 years. If you want to date a Dinosaur bone with this method you’re going to land in error, because dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago. How we know they did 65 million years? Through various other dating methods which cross confirm each other. ”

“Before the Fall, all animals were herbivores.Sharp teeth are only evidence for sharp teeth. They were required for the leaves and fruits etc.”

Me: ” If you look at the skull of T-Rex it’s quite clear, that he was NOT a herbivore. Creationists like to bring up Panda’s or fruit bats at this point. product-168-main-main-big-1448059333

If you look at it you can clearly see that he has mostly molars. A lion or T-Rex has vastly different teeth so the analogy fails. More importantly though, carnivores and herbivores not only differentiate when it comes to teeth, they also have different digestive systems. Therefore the creationist would have to believe, that the T-Rex evolved a new digestive system after the fall, with which he would have to acknowledge macroevolution. Or maybe God just added it at random to today’s carnivores but then we would need a mechanism based on which God decided on this. Either way, this argument hopelessly collapses.”

Goodbye from yours truly,

Rene von Boenninghausen @Renevelation

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s