A debate with some creationist friends

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Welll, frankly, if you are really interested in defending evolution, my suggestion to you is to find out as much as you can about Creationism and balance that with an understanding of Evolutionism. You need to understand what it is your are debating about. Simply knowing about the logic with regard to Evolutionism is not going to provide you with a means to question Creationism. My guess is that you already know far more about Evolutionism particularly if you attended public institutions. This is where mediocrisy has its foothold. So my advice to you is fully understand the "enemy" or you will simply fail to tilt the scales in your favor...

Of course the more you learn about creation science the more contradictions you find. In fact you may find that you can Debunk Creation Science with Creation Science.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Welll, frankly, if you are really interested in defending evolution, my suggestion to you is to find out as much as you can about Creationism and balance that with an understanding of Evolutionism. You need to understand what it is your are debating about. Simply knowing about the logic with regard to Evolutionism is not going to provide you with a means to question Creationism. My guess is that you already know far more about Evolutionism particularly if you attended public institutions. This is where mediocrisy has its foothold. So my advice to you is fully understand the "enemy" or you will simply fail to tilt the scales in your favor...

i would not be the least bit surprised if the most vocal evolutionists on this board have read more creationist literature than most if not all the creationists posting here.

i for one have read most of the important works in the field of creationism since 1977 when i first read the Genesis Flood. It is nice that it is not a scientific field and you really can keep up with the literature. I would not even think of claiming that i've read even the tip of the proverbial iceberg on just the popularized works explaining the TofE.

 

[Greenvalv]

Sorry dude, evolution is flawed to the core; here's a video that really destroys evolution's foundations... Click me

Yes, yes, he may drone on in the beginning but it gets good near the end...

 

[Aron-Ra]

Sorry dude, evolution is flawed to the core; here's a video that really destroys evolution's foundations... Click me

Wow! I counted five lies in the first five seconds!

 

[Baggins]

Sorry dude, evolution is flawed to the core; here's a video that really destroys evolution's foundations... Click me

Has it got Donald Duck in it? I like Donald Duck

 

[Paulos23]

Sorry dude, evolution is flawed to the core; here's a video that really destroys evolution's foundations... Click me

I would not call Kent Hovind a good source of information, even other creationists disagree with him.

Unforcently I can't look at the video right now, I am at work. But you should really look up more about 'Dr. Dino' before you start linking his stuff. I will look at the video later.

 

[Baggins]

Wow! I counted five lies in the first five seconds!

1 lie/sec is that a new creationist record?

What were they, I haven't got time to watch it.

 

[Parmenio]

I would have to assert that a HS teacher isn't the most qualified to lecture on this. Let's ask a cell biologist what he thinks shall we? http://youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

 

[Aron-Ra]

1 lie/sec is that a new creationist record?

What were they, I haven't got time to watch it.

I'm at work too, and unable to open that again. But it was an introduction to the qualifications of Kent "Dr. Dino" (AKA never gonna see daylight again) Hovind.

 

[michabo]

Sorry dude, evolution is flawed to the core; here's a video that really destroys evolution's foundations... Click me

Assuming there are lies in the textbooks (I don't agree, but hey, let's assume), so what? Doesn't mean evolution is wrong, just textbooks are crap. If we find math texts that are crap, do we say math is wrong?

Maybe you do, I don't know. But it is a terrible conclusion.

 

[Elduran]

Ahhh, Hovind-ites. What won't you try to say?

 

[MrGoodBytes]

"I like science. I really really like science"

Kent "Mathematics is a religion" Hovind

 

[Tomk80]

1) This one seems quite ridiculous though I'm not quite sure how to tell him he's wrong. One of the guys said he didn't get how apes aren't extinct if humans evolved from them by natural selection. I tried to explain how if the apes were split up and put in different environments then they would evolve differently eventually producing different species. He countered this by saying that apes are very territorrial and always stick together so they'd never split to evolve differently or travel far enough to encounter different enviroments.

but I need to know the best way to counter this and any facts about apes actually splitting up would be great.

I'm just picking this one out, because this seems like a very strange argument to me and here is why. If the above were true, how come chimpanzees (for example) form neighbouring families, instead of one big family? I just don't see the logic of the argument. If they do split up in families (and they do), what prevents these families from drifting apart. This might just be by forming several neighbouring colonies, of which some middle colonies subsequently get eliminated.
So first you have colony A
A
Then several members split of and form neighbouring colonies:
B1 A B2

Then this happens a few more times.

G1 E1 D1 C1 B1 A B2 C2 D2 E2 G2

Then by some accident the middle colonies are eradicated or forced to move:

G1 E1 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... E2 G2

I just don't see the argument he's making, so maybe you could come back with a response.

 

[Parmenio]

1) This one seems quite ridiculous though I'm not quite sure how to tell him he's wrong. One of the guys said he didn't get how apes aren't extinct if humans evolved from them by natural selection. I tried to explain how if the apes were split up and put in different environments then they would evolve differently eventually producing different species. He countered this by saying that apes are very territorrial and always stick together so they'd never split to evolve differently or travel far enough to encounter different enviroments. but I need to know the best way to counter this and any facts about apes actually splitting up would be great.

This really begins with a misunderstanding of the assertion that evolution makes. The assertion is that humans and apes share a common ancestor, that is all. That not too long ago in the evolutionary pathway humans and apes were not two separate species but one, and then as time went on, there was a split between the two's evolutionary pathways and that brings you to today!

 

[Edx]

Im surprised that he had this discussion at all. I mean, this is the UK. Its not that most of us are atheists, we just dont care.

 

[Tomk80]

Im surprised that he had this discussion at all. I mean, this is the UK. Its not that most of us are atheists, we just dont care.

That depends on the people you hang out with. In the Netherlands most people don't care either. But the more fundamentalist christian culture in the Netherlands (we have a bible belt too, though admittedly quite a bit smaller then in the US) does care. And when you come into contact with them and have an interest in biology, sooner or later the argument is going to prop up. Also, don't underestimate the efforts organisations such as AIG are putting into gaining a foothold in Europe (especially the UK) at this time.

 

[Aron-Ra]

This really begins with a misunderstanding of the assertion that evolution makes. The assertion is that humans and apes share a common ancestor, that is all. That not too long ago in the evolutionary pathway humans and apes were not two separate species but one, and then as time went on, there was a split between the two's evolutionary pathways and that brings you to today!

There are, and have been, many many species of apes, of which humans account for as many as three, although it could be more.

 

[Hydra009]

This really begins with a misunderstanding of the assertion that evolution makes. The assertion is that humans and apes share a common ancestor, that is all. That not too long ago in the evolutionary pathway humans and apes were not two separate species but one, and then as time went on, there was a split between the two's evolutionary pathways and that brings you to today!

But "apes" is not a species. I see what you're saying, that evolution predicts that humans share a common ancestor with other apes, but the terms aren't used very well.

The colloquial definition for "ape" is a non-human primate, but the scientific definition is different. The term, ape, refers to two taxonomic families - great apes and lesser apes. Humans, being in the great ape family, are definitely apes.