There was some very fun debate started on this subject and I wanted to see what people had to say in reaction to what I feel is a very epic retort, but I'm biased towards myself of course 
Anyway, /read, /discuss!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Remember Science once said the world was flat and that the sun revolved around the Earth.
Precisely, and because science works the way it does, changes and more relevant data override the old.
Whereas with religion, you get this little effect that I like to call "OMFG THAT'S NOT HOW IT WAS ORIGINALLY IN THE BIBLE SO I WILL DENY ALL FACTS TO KEEP BELIEVING THE SAME THING LOLOLOLOLOL"
Ahem.
Same could be said about macroevolution.
Ah, "I believe in micro evolution but not macro evolution". The quintessential argument of any religious patron who wants to sound intelligent enough to support partial scientific claims without giving up his childlike cling to Santa Clause... I mean Jesus.
Micro evolution IS macro evolution. That's what you people don't seem to get. We're not talking about two different things here. It's the same thing, looked at in a different sense of scale.
"BUT WILLIE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF MACRO EVOLUTION LOLOLOLOL"No shit? People looking for a magical direct link that links every minor evolved form of similar animals are what you call RETARDED.
There's no evidence of macro evolution because things evolved in
MICROSCOPICALLY SMALL AMOUNTS over
MILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF YEARS.
A "missing link" does not exist because there was no species that was the exact "puzzle piece" fit between two species. There could be a thousand, a million, different sub-species that existed and were extinct a thousand times over and each one of them a thousand or million of their own sub species, and you think that ONE of the seemingly infinite combinations is going to perfectly match the gap between the first and next successful "end" form? SHIT DON'T WORK LIKE THAT.
A single-cell organism evolves into a multi-cell organism in the fun little primordial pools of life in the first stages of earth. Multi-cell organisms develop into invertebrate life, slightly more complex. Invertebrates develop backbones eventually. Backbones develop into more complex structures eventually leading to a skeletal system. I think we can all agree on this part.
Where people start to freak out is when they hear "then the fishes turned into monkeys and walked on land!".
Well... yeah... if you say it like that, it sounds fucking stupid and makes no sense, and when you hear that, Macro evolution makes no sense. Here's the deal, it doesn't happen that fast. Not even close.
Let's say you have a fish. A current species even, such as the Mudskipper.
Creationism?
These fish have sacks of water that they use to hold water with them so that they can travel across land. Some Mudskippers may travel across land for longer distances, or stay on land longer. These fish will obviously have better developed rear-tail muscles and fin muscles for moving on land, because they have had to do it more-- but muscle mass gained from use doesn't pass down genetically, right? Right.
What DOES happen, though, is that a lack of available water in the environment kills off all of the fish who aren't adept at surviving both on land and in the water-- so much so, in fact, that only the fish that are genetically predisposed to have the best possible chance of surviving in the environment are left. This is called "Natural Selection". If none of the "weak" fish are left, then only the "strong" ones reproduce, passing those genes down and slowly changing the species in the direction of their own genes over time. It's important to note here that "weak" and "strong " don't necessarily imply physical traits-- they imply a weak or strong ability to survive, by any means. Humans are the "strongest" species in terms of succeeding at living and reproducing-- but we're very weak physically. Our mental strength is our "survival strength".
Back to our Mudskippers-- maybe in tens of millions of years, some of the Mudskipper's ancestors will have reverted back to a more "fish-like" form over time (if they environment became more aquatic), while others may have become completely land-dwelling. Both "new species" would be similar to the Mudskipper, yet totally different from each other.
Another great example of this is how a Manatee's fins resemble an Elephant's foot:
Creationism?
Why would a fin have toe nails? Oh, because it evolved from feet.
It doesn't just happen. It happens very slowly. VERY. VERY slowly.
There. Is. No. Missing. Link."BUT WILLIE THEN WHY ARE THESE 'SMART' SCIENTISTS SO BUSY LOOKING FOR A MISSING LINK THEN? LOLOLOLOL"To shut up dumbasses who claim, falsely, that there is necessity for a direct "missing link". It's a wasted effort in hopes that there might be something close enough to show a dumbass what they should already be able to see.
Lack of a direct puzzle-piece link DOES NOT DISPROVE MACRO EVOLUTION.
The existence of Micro evolution proves the existence of Macro evolution BECAUSE THEY ARE THE SAME FUCKING THING.So, here's what you are saying when you say "I believe in Micro, but not Macro":
"I only believe partially in the obvious truths presented to me because I love Jesus and can't accept that he is the tooth fairy."
All of this aside, let's give you the benefit of the doubt and say that somehow, miraculously, everything we know about evolution turns out to be wrong, as DJ suggested by his flat earth comment etc.
It's science, that's the natural course of things. If something is disproved by a better theory / law, then we move on to it. With religion, you don't have that. You just have people putting horse-blinds on because they are afraid of progress. Religion does not follow tangible methods of being proven/disproven. Because of this, it cannot--EVER-- be taught as an acceptable "alternative" to ANY scientific findings. This does not mean that religion cannot exist because of science-- more on that later.
The point, for now, is that whether you are an atheist or a fanatical christian, THERE IS NO PLACE FOR CREATIONISM IN SCHOOLS.
Now I know you probably think so after this post, but
I don't think all religious people are morons.HERE'S A PRO TIP FOR PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN GOD WHO WANT TO ARGUE THIS TOPIC INTELLIGENTLY AND NOT SOUND LIKE A FUCKING MORON:
A disbelief in evolution is not a prerequisite for a belief in Creationism. If you are a religious person, you don't have to stop believing in God to stop being an idiot and ignoring science. You can have a perfectly faith-filled life and still be an intelligent, scientific, human being. I have known many.
You do not have to ignore relevant data to believe in God. Simply re-arrange your belief structure. Memorize this phrase:
"I believe that God created the foundations of life and put into works all of the organisms / mechanisms that cause evolution and the scientific world as we know it to function."
What the fuck is anyone going to say to counter that? NOTHING.
If you ever hear an atheist chastise you for saying that, you can fucking SHIT ALL OVER THEIR FACE AND CALL THEM A DUMBASS. Why? Because they can't prove shit about that. They can argue the rational probability of the existence of a God, or a lack thereof, but ultimately both parties are at a stalemate, and guess what, the religious person doesn't look like a dumbass!
Denying evolution is not a rational means of keeping your faith.It IS possible to be intelligent and religious, people.
