Deviant Login Shop  Join deviantART for FREE Take the Tour
×

More from deviantART



Details

Submitted on
January 17, 2006
Link
Thumb

Stats

Views
646
Favourites
0
Comments
11
×
:iconnyctopterus: - My other account.
:iconpaleoartists: - Palaeoartists group.
.................................................................................................

My new word Palaeontography has hit a snag - it is preoccupied. Nevertheless, I have decided to highjack the word and broaden it's meaning.

Creationist arguments I don't want to hear anymore

1. Evolution is just a theory, not a fact or a law.
Evolutionary theory is a theory like Quantum theory , and the Theory of Relativity. Theories in science are well corroborated explanations of aspects of nature that involve laws, hypothesis and facts. It would make no sense to talk about "the law of evolution", but nearly all biologists think evolution is a fact. No serious advocates of creationism use this argument, because it is a just a word-game.

2. The second law of thermodynamics.
In closed systems entropy always increases. The earth's ecosystem is not a closed system.

3. a. Recombination and Natural Selection alone can't create new information.
No, but mutation can.
b. Mutations are always harmful.
There is absolutely no evidence backing this up.  Some mutations by chance alone will be beneficial given the always shifting boundary conditions of ecosystems.

4. There are no transitional fossils.
The fossil record is absolutely full of transitional fossils. Anyone doubting this should look at the startling array of theropods and birds. There are thousands of other examples, at macro and micro levels.

.................................................................................................

My work at Paleoartists:

Solos:
[ Deinonychus antirrhopus ] [ Kakuru kujani ] [ Kronosaurus queenslandicus ] [ Leaellynasaura amigrapica ] [ Rhamphorynchus gemmingi ]

Collaborations:
[ Arizonasaurus + TarryAGoat ] [ Daspetosaurus torosus + jslice ] [ Parasaurolophus walkeri + Gondolendian ]

.................................................................................................

Palaeoartists on DA:
Andalgalornis Archosaurian aspidel Beast-of-Chaos briankroesch chasmosaur dustdevil Gondolendian Hairen Hotherym jeffquinn Khaan little-al MattMart Outlier tuomaskoivurinne Qilong Red-Dilopho Sainte-Vincient danieljoelnewman TarryAGoat unlobogris
  • Mood: Mad
Add a Comment:
 
:iconbriankroesch:
briankroesch Jan 18, 2006  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Modern whales have hip bones in their flesh that they do not use because they do not walk. They probably evolved from mammals that did walk. Paleontologists have found a fossil whale called Pakicetus
that has more developed rear legs. Older whales should look more like their ancestors if evolution is correct. Without evolution, we could not understand why whales have hip bones.

It's silly of creationists to deny the fact that evolution is true. One piece of evidence is based on our DNA molecules.
Every single cell in our bodies contains DNA, a special molecule which
literally makes us what we are. Our DNA is almost EXACTLY the same as chimp DNA, and is even closer to DNA obtained from fossils of ancient ancestors of human beings. Evolution is how life in general changes over
time. There is little doubt that life on earth has changed over time. It is
believed that 99% of all the species that have lived on earth, are now
extinct. Scientists measure gene frequencies and protein structures in a group of organisms, and then see how those frequencies and structures change over time. It could only work if evolution is true.
Creationists attack Natural Selection too. They don't even know what it is. Natural selection simply means that some individuals reproduce
more than others, and which leave the most offspring is due to forces at work in nature. Charles Darwin proposed that this process of
natural selection might cause evolution in nature. And that this evolution by
natural selection could have been the major force that made so many species of
organisms. This was a controversial theory then because it was contrary to
what most people believed about how g-d created each species himself. Today,
most all people familiar with the evidence for evolution of life on earth,
accept it as the best explanation for the diversity of life. There are two
large lines of evidence to support this theory. The first is fossils. The
other is HOMOLOGY. All life on earth, according to evolutionary theory,
evolved from common ancestors.

This is just a taste of the proof. It goes far beyond this in evidence.

-Brian
Reply
:iconxbalanque:
Would that these fools could listen to reason and consider a non-literal interpretaion of Genesis.

Xbalanque
Reply
:iconjconway:
Some do eventually. I think the reason is that if you accept a non-literal interpretation of Genesis it opens up the possibility that the rest of the Bible may be somewhat - or even completely - non-literal. That would be quite taxin' on the ol' noggin'.
Reply
:iconxbalanque:
Yeah, but when you think about it following a dogma of Biblical literalism (at least as far as Genesis is concerned) in the face of all the scientific evidence of an old earth and evolution implies that God is lying to us. Now which is the worse blasphemy?

Xbalanque
Reply
:iconjconway:
No sonny, the DEVIL leads us astray.
Reply
:iconxbalanque:
LMAO

Xbalanque
Reply
:iconmattmart:
MattMart Jan 17, 2006  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Preoccupied, huh. I propose Paleontographoides!
Reply
:iconjconway:
Or Eupalaeontography.
Reply
:iconalitheia:
Creationists have a new favorite thing, and that's Intelligent Design. I guess they couldn't against cold, hard facts and evidence, so they had to dream up this bizarre new explanation. I wonder what it would take for them to accept evolution?

Fun journal entry.
Reply
:iconjconway:
Intelligent Design isn't a new explanation - it uses all the same arguments, there's absolutely nothing new in it.

Some creationists can be swayed by argument and evidence. I know two people that were creationists but now argue for evolution.
Reply
Add a Comment: