How debate with a creationist?

Debate with a creationist is very easy because you only have a few arguments and have been long enough without adding something new. These arguments have been published again and again, and when you talk to a creationist you the loose all of his run. Each is easily refuted, although it is true that never get to change his mind.

We're going to see one by one these arguments, and begin by I like best:

Evolution is a theory, not a fact

This should be understood as that evolution is an unproven hypothesis, like many others, and therefore should not be taught in schools as if something true. Really evolution is a theory and it is also a fact. A fact is something that we see in the world, and one theory is our best explanation for this. In the same way that gravity is certain that things fall, and that the theory of Newtonian gravity tries to explain this fact. The theory of gravity is more or less perfected does not affect the fact that things fall. In fact, the current theory of the elution is still incomplete, but it is thousands of times better than it was in the time of Darwin. Yet the state of our theory of evolution does not affect the observed fact that species evolve over time.

The evolution is controversial. Scientists themselves do not agree on its validity

Creationists are closed in band to the fact that evolutionary biologists have found theories explaining minor aspects of evolution. Discredit evolution by discarding it is like using wheeled cars because manufacturers do not agree on the design of the tread. Practically no scientific doubt today the fact of evolution or the validity of evolutionary theory in its entirety. Creationists often publish lists of scientists who reject evolution claim. These lists are probably true. In the United States most people are creationist in one color or another. But the scientific community has a very different opinion. Most polls show that between 95 and 98% of scientists accept the theory of evolution.

Evolution is not falsifiable, so it is not science

One aspect of science is that you can refute. If we can run a test based on a proposition and that test fails, then we have rejected that proposition. This is the basic operation of science. Something that can not be subjected to a test and be discarded, as the existence of God can not be science. But creationists do not see this side of the argument, only applied to evolution. But evolution can be easily discarded. The evolutionary biologist JBS Haldane became famous joke that had, stating that when a rabbit fossil Precambrian age are, evolution rule.

The evolution is itself a religion

This argument has gained in popularity in recent years, in which creationists have underpinned their positions decorating them with words that sound scientific, such as intelligent design. They try to convince us that their position has scientific basis, and change the tide calling evolution and religion to mock those who worship Darwin as his prophet. This argument is only valid for use in people who know little or no history of Darwin. The religion is based on the fact worship a higher being and divine, and that nothing in evolutionary theory nor is there an evolutionary church.

The evolution can not be observed

Part of what is needed to validate a theory is to try and observe the results. Although there are evolutionary phenomena that can be directly observed as some experiments with fruit flies, most of the things that explains the evolution occurred in periods of millions of years. Obviously, no one has so much patience to watch the evolution. This is true. But here that is misunderstood observation. There are many observations in science in which you have to use the evidence of an event to supplement direct observation of fact. Certain chemical reactions, particle physics, theoretical physics, are examples of fields of science in which we resort to this type of observation. The theory of evolution was originally developed to explain the evidence obtained from observation of the fossil record.

There are fossils of transit

If the ancestor of the modern horse evolved from its predecessor Miohippus Mesohippus, then surely there will be traffic between the two fossil species showing common features, or perhaps an intermediate species. I have taken the example of the horse, because evolutionary branch that is extremely well documented. Creationists claim that there are no such fossils transit, but they exist, and in abundance. To say something, or is intentionally lying, or that do it refuses to be documented. Lay people have only to visit the wikipedia to find numerous fossils of transit.

However, the fossil record is sufficiently massive so that gaps between developmental stages of the species. These absences are used by creationists to proclaim that there are no fossils of transit and that evolutionary theory is a fallacy.

Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics

The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time. In a crude way, this law can be explained with an example. If we put a glass of hot water in one room, the heat energy that glass water will dissipate in the room until the temperature is equalized with the environment, but the energy released is impossible to send her back to the glass.

Creationists argue that if a body had been formed by evolution, this would entail a decrease in entropy. Order from disorder. They claim that this is impossible without divine intervention. But organisms are not isolated systems. To exchange energy with other elements of the environment, the second law of thermodynamics is not relevant. Countless natural and artificial processes produce order from disorder in open systems using energy and foreign matter.

Evolution can not create complex structures with irreducible complexity

This argument was popularized by Michael Behe, a biochemist evangelist, who coined the term irreducible complexity. Take a complex structure as it is an eyeball, and eliminate part of it to simulate a reverse evolution, and see that the structure stops working. As a result, an eyeball can not have evolved by natural selection, since this structure without one of its parts does not work and does not provide any evolutionary advantage. The concept seems to make sense, but is based on a tremendous misconception. The animal world is full of types of structures to enable vision. Some structures are more complex and simpler ones, all with irreducible complexity and all are likely to improve evolutionarily.

It is highly unlikely that complex life forms evolve for change

Is it possible that a tornado pass by a dump and a 747 mountain by chance? The same argument was used for centuries by William Paley, only he used the simile of a pocket watch. Such a device had to be created by someone and not be the result of chance. This statement is the result of ignorance of the extraordinary power of evolution from simple to complex structures. Once generational mutation and natural selection are understood, and how irreducibly complex structures evolve, there is nothing implausible in evolutionary theory. The bottom-up design (from simple to complex) is not only likely, it is inevitable, and almost always produces better designs an intelligent designer could create.

Evolution can not create new information

According to this argument, the new information required to create new species can not originate spontaneously. This information can come only from an intelligent creator. This statement falls soon, because in fact a mutation is a generation of new information. Not all information is good. Most is useless. It is what is called genetic drift. But occasionally, one of these mutations gives a benefit to the organism that has mutated. This benefit is immediately absorbed by the species and evolutionarily spread.

The evolution does not explain some aspects of life and culture

In other words. Evolutionary theory does not explain everything, so it is completely false. Evolutionary biologists are the first to recognize that there are aspects of life that we have yet to understand. That gets us everything we have learned is false. There creationists that refer to things that have nothing to do with the origin of life and specialization, such as the Big Bang, or the age of the Earth, and as the evolutionary theory does not explain these aspects is false. Only theories can explain the observed phenomena that try to explain, but can not be used for a purpose for which they were not designed.