Creationism

Sometimes, people's ignorance of science almost appalls me. Creationists are a good example. One of their main arguments is, "Evolution is a theory, not a fact; therefore, evolution and creationism should be taught equally." Clearly, they have no idea that a scientific "theory" is as close to "fact" as science ever comes! Also, they think that, by disproving one small part of evolution, the entire theory must be false. In order to become a theory, and not just remain a hypothesis, a hypothesis must be supported by multiple different lines of evidence, all of which individually are very good and all of which correlate with one another. Evolution is such a theory. Showing that, say, the horse series wasn't in the correct order in some science textbooks does not invalidate the whole theory. Anyway, here are my counters to some common creationist arguments:

Evolution relies on mutations to generate variations. What are the chances of positive mutations being made?
First of all, mutations aren't the only things which make variations. Sexual reproduction accounts for much more variation. But still, asexual organisms managed to evolve sexual reproduction; how did they do it? Simple. Each individual was a "new try;" benefical mutations only need to occur one time in a whole population for their effects to be felt. Also, very small mutations could have large effects; for example, accidently relocation the operon for a given gene could completely change its expression, so that its product would be produced in entirely different quantities. There is no fallacy here.

There are no transitional fossils.
Yes there are. Go here to see some examples. Some key ones are Archaeopteryx, the transition between reptiles and birds, not to mention all the skulls showing how three jaw bones in reptiles evolved into three ear bones in mammals. There are more examples where that came from.

Sure, I'll believe in microevolution, but not macroevolution.
Clarification about what microevolution and macroevolution are: Some creationists draw a distinction between what they see as evolution within a "kind" and evolution between "kinds." For example, they might claim that there is one beetle "kind," and so evidence of evolution from one species of beetle to another would be "microevolution." But they go on to claim that evolution between kinds (like from one insect to another) would be "macroevolution," which they think is impossible. Here, I go to show that if microevolution exists, than so does macroevolution.

Microevolution leads to macroevolution. Imagine a population, happily microevolving along, when some event causes them to be separated (either a flood seperates them into two parts, or a few get blown to a offshore island, or something similar). So, now you have two populations, each microevolving in its own direction. What if one microevolves to become larger, and the other to become smaller? After a time, they could no longer breed, and there would be two different species. If microevolution is true, than macroevolution must be as well.

Those are all the questions I can think of now. If you have any more, I will try to answer them, or at least tell you who can.