The Argument From Here's A Thing I Heard On Some Podcast
(via Matt Stopera/BuzzFeed)
BuzzFeed's Matt Stopera apparently put himself through the ordeal of sitting through the Bill Nye and Ken Ham's debate at the Creation Museum last night. If you watched it live or read Johnny's account of it, then you know that he deserves some kind of a medal. Instead, what he got were 22 photos of "self-identifying creationists" delivering messages or questions to people who believe in evolution.
Many of them ended up being rather common creationist talking points, like the one above. And, like the one above, they mostly have pretty simple answers. So, to answer that guy with the self-satisfied gurn: No, it does not. The second law of thermodynamics states that objects within a closed system tend to get more disordered over time. The Earth, however, is not a "closed system." It is constantly being fed new energy from the Sun. You can read a more complex explanation here.
The Argument From Sunsets Are Pretty (via)
If the question is How do sunsets occur? then the answer is very simple: As the Earth rotates on its axis, any given point on the globe will eventually lose sight of the Sun as it becomes obscured by the rest of the planet. As that happens, its light is filtered through a wider swath of atmosphere, which causes a greater number of light particles to bounce off atmospheric molecules and therefore changes the hue of the sky. If the question is Why are sunsets so beautiful? then the answer is even more simple: Our species evolved to find the aesthetic beauty in them.
The Argument From I Have No Idea How Evolution Works (via)
There is absolutely no reason why this question should exist in the world anymore. It has been answered so many times that, unlike monkeys, it should have gone extinct decades ago. Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans and monkeys evolved from the same monkey-like ancestor somewhere between 5 and 7 millions of years ago. (And, by the way, this guy probably means "apes" when he says "monkeys." But it really doesn't matter, because technically speaking, we're all still monkeys.)
The Argument From Aww, Isn't Everything Nice? (via)
This is most commonly known as the Watchmaker argument. So, like, if you were walking down a beach and you found a complex object like a watch in the sand, you'd assume that a person made it, right? Like the universe, or life. It's so complex, God must have created it. However, if there is a God, there's no way of telling whether or not he made the universe or life, because we've never seen anything like that made before. We know that watches are made by watchmakers because we've seen watchmakers make watches. Or we've seen close enough analogs, at any rate. We've never seen anyone make universes or life systems, so we have nothing off of which to base that assumption. More information on this here.
The Argument From Life Is Too Depressing To Consider
The Possibility That None Of This Means Anything (via)
Me personally? I'm here for the sandwiches. Though, I understand other people have slightly more noble goals.
(by Dennis DiClaudio)