Christoforge vs Creationism: Answers in Genesis

Next up on out tour of creationist crap is the website 'Answers in Genesis' who have attempted to collate all the stupid arguments that evolutionists use. Let the irony commence.
_____________________________________________________________________________
https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/12-arguments-evolutionists-should-avoid/
_____________________________________________________________________________

No, I'll admit that these first two points are actually fair points. Proclaiming something as a fact and only understood by the intelligent does make it true, and I find it increasingly noticeable that people use science as almost another religion, discrediting arguments in the same way that 'Answers in Genesis' is doing here. This ignorance fails to look at the larger picture, jumping to conclusions. This is hopefully what I'm going to be debunking today by actually providing some evidence instead of making the vague assumptions that 'Answers in Genesis' love to do, and I expect the same attitude from the source being as they've already voiced their displeasure at blind ignorance. I don't agree with their point that the unobservable past cannot be explained through human understanding, as then how can you explain anything? They seem to be pretty confident that the inverse argument is true even when by their own admission it's impossible to know for a fact since the unobservable past cannot be determined. Stating that a higher power was responsible is simply based on belief, and of course we know how much 'Answers in Genesis' hate it when people blindly determine facts. The sources used are even worse and just there to cut and stick bible verses in between scientific theories and quotes by people who are barely qualified to even be called scientists, but then what did we expect from an article that quotes directly from The Bible.

To actually respond to any of the arguments on this list you have to concede that any scientific theory is based on assumptions, so by simply dismissing a theory on that basis is simply rejecting scientific methods full stop. The theory of evolution is an example of this, and despite what you claim is a study that has no observational proof, there are many cases both in the lab and in nature that show the process is visible over a period of time. As a biology student I have actually undertaken that lab experiment sourced above, and in just a short four hour period I was able to evolve E.Coli into a resistant strain. As far as I'm concerned that's damn more direct, first hand, and observational proof than creationism has ever provided. The second argument is even worse and revolves around calling famous scientists of the past uneducated. Famous scientists I may add who are no longer living. Intelligence and scientific perspective are both relative and so change over time, meaning your comparison of scientific attitudes in different periods is both inaccurate and hypothetical. We're not living in the 19th century anymore and therefore the point that Isaac Newton wouldn't have believed in evolution today is hypothetical nonsense that you have no way of knowing. That's a bit like calling Archimedes an idiot for not knowing the now commonly accepted fact that there's a planet in our solar system called Uranus. Education is a pretty good indicator of the validity of a person's knowledge of a subject, hence why you source qualified scientists. And let me tell you, evolution is one of the most commonly accepted scientific theories out there.

The article continues with this denial of scientific progress. In this particular scenario 'On the Origin of Species' and The Bible are simply two sides of the same coin. Before The Bible was published creationism wasn't a big deal, so it's actually quite ironic to bring up a point about how attitudes change in accordance with revolutionary works. Scientists at the time of Darwin had no way to prove evolution that modern technology now allows us to, but does that suddenly mean evolution couldn't have happened? I still don't understand why evolutionists can't use this argument. The only point being made in this argument is that evolutionists can't be right because the author has a differing opinion. Bit of a hypocritical stance really isn't it?

The next argument is even more stupid. I wasn't aware that studies in physics and biology were instantly comparable, and in my funny little world I always thought that the scientific methods used were the only comparable part. Gravity for example is a constant and therefore isn't a random process, which explains why it can be proven instantaneously. In reality that experiment you explain with the pencil would not prove gravity exists, rather that a force is exerting itself on the pencil, attracting it towards the centre of the Earth. To then make the childish comparison of that experiment to an amoeba instantly turning into a goat is idiotic. Not only are the chances of that amoeba turning into a goat minute, because as explained previously evolution is a random process, but even if all criteria were met that process would take hundreds of millions of years with many transitional species in between. This stupid argument forgets that evolution is not a forward thinking process and instead falsifies a whole theory based on a singular piece of evidence, taking an entire process out of context. You may as well have jumped to conclusions by falsifying the theory of gravity because pencils float in space, therefore proving that gravity can't exist.

Firstly you can easily observe that the Earth is round by using a sundial or observing the path of a ship on the horizon, so that point about The Bible proving that fact is just nonsense. The quotations used from The Bible are also just so vague. It's clear that quoting from a work of literature shouldn't be taken literally, especially when it's used as a source for scientific evidence. But, yeah right it's the evolutionists who are the ones with the assumption based beliefs. The second explanation is even more bizarre. Basic numeracy has nothing to do with the validity of scientific theories, which for the record cannot be found in any sort of framework from The Bible no matter how many quotes you try and desperately squeeze for alternative meanings. We get no explanation of the relatedness of species or how 'lines of descent' are explained between fossils from any holy book. I wouldn't expect that explanation from a source such as The Bible, because as previously stated it's not something that should be taken literally, and the points made are allegorical instead of primary evidence.

I hope evolutionists don't claim that natural selection and evolution are the same thing, as natural selection is a component leading to the change in allele frequency over a period of time. However the explanation from 'Answers in Genesis' is just as bad as those that mix up two scientific principles. It is correct in claiming that natural selection, which by the way isn't necessarily observable, cannot cause speciation, since that is determined by reproductive barriers, but then it fails to actually explain what natural selection is in the first place, or what the consequences are. This article jumps to the conclusion that evolutionists believe that natural selection causes an instantaneous change in morphology of organisms over a single generation, when in reality this is caused by mutations that are then subsequently selected for. This line of argument sure as hell doesn't disprove the process of evolution, and the claim that The Bible is supporting of natural selection is encroaching on the controversial world of eugenics.

Argument eight is again banging on about assumptions. The Bible and creationism are of course not assumptions if you were to believe this source, and so entirely more valid arguments in every single way despite any reasoning. This argument is also atypical of all the points I've previously raised on here as it continues with vague waffle that isn't backed up by any evidence. Do they have any right to even claim that a common designer fits in with the evidence of common descent better without providing any counter evidence? I'm sure 'Puff the Magic Dragon' fits the evidence that he is the creator instead of evolution occurring, but that doesn't make his existence any more valid. Is intelligent design really the more logical conclusion when taking into consideration the diversity of life on the planet? Take the penis for example; the morphology of a penis is different in just about every single organism, but why would something with the same function be made differently every single time if it served the same function? It's just entirely illogical.

Oh not these fucking assumption again. IF YOU TRY AND DISPROVE EVERY ARGUMENT BASED ON THE FACT IT'S CONSIDERED AN ASSUMPTION THEN YOU WOULDN'T HAVE ANY SCIENTIFIC THEORIES FULL STOP. As for the second point, well that's just idiocy. It is correct in saying there are trade-offs between the rate of mutations and the rate of evolution, with the majority of mutations being deleterious, but that is exactly the purpose of natural selection. Earlier this article banged on about about how natural selection being part of the biblical worldview, yet here you simply dismiss its very conventions. Stop contradicting yourself, and stop making vague assumptions with zero evidence.

The final two points suffer from exactly the same flaws as every other one on this list, yet it's us evolutionists that should apparently stop using the same arguments all the time. None of the points on here have been disproved with any evidence, with the only source being The Bible; a work of literature. Leave science for scientists to determine, and not for spiritual individuals to just aimlessly guess.