Destroying common arguments for creationism

• "But (insert animal here) is amazing! Evolution couldn't make that!" Thats what you get from hundreds of millions of generations of evolution. If you cannot conceive it as true, it doesn't mean it's false - it could also mean that you don't understand it! Things like the eye which are common examples have been explained hypothetically by scientists.
• "Where are the transitional fossils?" Everywhere. Archaeopteryx(dinos->birds), Ambulocetus(mammals->whales), and Ardepithecus(apes->men) are all examples. You could try to say "those are apes" or "those are birds" or "those are whales," but birds, mammals, and whales, again, have NO SIGNIFICANT TAXONOMICAL DEFINITION. The scientific definition of of all of them are so that ONE MUTATING GENE could make this bird a non-bird. In other words, these still represent a transition.
• "But all mutations are harmful!" Numerous beneficial genetic mutations have been demonstrated - for example, antibiotic-resistant bacteria, citrate-eating bacteria, and cheese-eating humans. It's not just birth defects - it can also be birth benefits, however rare.
• "Evolution is a theory!" Scientific theories are ideas that are reasonable, based on evidence, and not yet refuted. GET IT RIGHT.
• "Evolution violates the laws of Thermodynamics!" The first law does not apply to evolution - that's why pregnant women have to eat(BTW, why doesn't this apply to God?). The second law doesn't apply to Earth, as it is receiving photons from the sun - LOTS of them, in fact.
• "There's no evidence for macroevolution! There's no evidence for a change in kinds!" The clear question is - what is a kind? Apart from "species," NO DEFINITIONS OF THIS ARE OBJECTIVE. We have seen new fly species come about by mutation in a lab, so yes, we have seen a change in kind.
• "Are you implying that there is no meaning of life?" Sort of. But that doesn't mean we are implying there is no morality! We suggest a purely altruistic sort of morality - in order to ensure the survival of our species, we ought to make sure that people don't suffer or die. We also like to define our own morality - any child, theistic or atheistic, can tell you that the foundation for morality is that that which causes net harm to yourself or others is wrong, and that which net reduces it is good. That isn't in the
• "(insert animal here) is irreducibly complex!" That doesn't matter. Evolution can remove traits, you know.
• "Radiometric dating is inaccurate!" Perhaps that's why it's not just carbon that is used for the dating. In addition, other methods(rings on a tree, light-years away of a visible object) have demonstrated the universe as being more than 6,000 years old.
• "Creation implies a creator!" In a way, however: a) it is arguable whether there can be an infinite regress of causation, b) It doesn't imply an omnipotent, omniscent, omnibenevolent, personal creator that directly created everything as it is now, and if anything, it is a gigantic stretch to do so, and c) Some scientific theories believe in an infinite universe.
• "Anything that contradicts the bible is wrong." Why? Because the bible said so. How can you affirm it as true? "Because anything that contradicts it is wrong." This is circular logic built upon the unprovable assumption of Biblical authority.
• "There's no process to add information to DNA!" Actually, it has been demonstrated that genes can duplicate to form new ones which then freely mutate.
• "Dogs never produce non dogs, etc!" They do, but they never produce animals significantly different from the combined genome of each parent. Instead, they mutate GRADUALLY - over time.