Why Creationists Are Wrong

Disclaimer: This piece isn't meant to assault the philosophy of those who believe in God or believe that some divine entity took some role in the creation of life at some point. It does however call all those people that argue their points incorrectly and inconsistently bloody idiots.

Sometimes I feel curious and I decide I want to find arguments to challenge the way I see the universe. So I decided I'd try to look at what the leading arguments were against evolution. I was, as you'll find, rather disappointed.

Prime Mover Argument

The arguments goes something like: Evolution doesn't explain how life began. This is true. It is also, of course, not trying to explain it. I completely agree that at some point something possibly completely unlike evolution happened to get the ball rolling. In fact, if someone could prove that a flatulent, alien, clown appeared out of thin air and expelled the first cell in a puff of methane and bad taste, it wouldn't change a thing about evolution.

Evolution is "Hard"

A lot of proponents of creationism like to point out how certain rather unlikely things have to happen for evolution to occur. I'd just like to remind them that though the probability is small, its happening over and over again with millions of organisms all the time and its been happening for billions of years. So, that tiny probability actually becomes something of a likelihood. Apparently the notion that the mechanisms that affect evolution is both highly random and highly probabilistic is hard for some people to swallow.

Living Fossils

My problem with the living fossil argument is essentially that I don't understand it. I'm not even sure it's an argument. A living fossil is an informal term for a species that has no close living relatives and that was only previously known via fossil. Somehow these things apparently disprove evolution.
Proponents of this argument seem to have it in their heads that the existence of a species is proof enough that it is not an ancestor of any existing organisms. I don't know why, but some people apparently have this notion that species of earlier links in the evolutionary chain must be exinct.

Preserved T. Rex Cells

Apparently in the 90's extraordinarily well preserved cells, bone and even collagen were found inside the hip bone of a T. Rex. So I started to think. Maybe the rock formation helped in preserving the bone. Maybe the thickness of the bone helped preserve the cells. I wasn't sure what had happened. Hoping for an explanation, I read on.

According to results from a scanning-electron microscope, the subject looks to only be about a few thousand years old.

I still hadn't really found the meat of the point so I kept going. Eventually the argument gets to this sentence:

Since unfossilized dinosaur bones are being found more commonly, and frozen mammoths with flesh still on the bones are well-known, it has become impossible for evolutionists to deny the discoveries.

Allow me to introduce the author of this piece to one of the modern world's favorite appliances. It's called a refrigerator and its been keeping food cold for over 80 years. But wait! There's more! Cold food stays fresher longer. Just like mammoths I would imagine.

But you know the author has a point. There is some mystery in the unfossilized bone of this dinosaur. The one thign I want to know, though, is how they stuck a few-thousand-year-old hip bone into a 65 million year old T. Rex corpse.