Help! need help debating an evolutionist!

[Cabal]

I have an ongoing debate with a kid at school about evolution.

He's presenting some pretty good arguments and he's kicking my butt, can anyone help?!

Give up and become an evolutionist, it's much more interesting and less logically tortuous. Being evolutionist and Christian aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[laconicstudent]

1. Tell him there are two choices... yours and his. If you cast any doubt on his, then you win by default.

2. Declare victory!

3. Tell him he will burn in The Lake Of Fire if he doesn't interpret scripture like you do.

Anyone who pulls a stupid stunt like that in high school deserves to get socked in the face, frankly.

4. Tell him that God said so, and You believe it.

Arguments from personal belief are always logically solid.

5. Tell him that you don't come from no monkey.

Straw man and argument from personal incredulity, nice nice.

6. Ask him how everything can come from nothing. Then explain how God created the universe ex nihilo.

Blatant hypocrisy, a double standard. Classic.

7. Ask him who the first man mated with.

A complete off-the-wall red herring that is so blatantly wrong and indicative of utter ignorance of science.

8. Tell him you don't have enough faith to believe in evolution.

Hmmmm... Never seen that one before.

9. Tell him that random changes making an elephant is like a tornado ripping through a junk yard and creating a 747. Be sure to ignore the fact that evolution is not random.

I love this straw man.

10. Ask him if the "Missing Link" has been found yet.

And hopefully he will say yes and remind you of the very recent papers just published last month on Ardipithecus ramidus.


Lol. Nice post Split Rock. You summarized the Creationist repertoire rather nicely, I think.


My favorite one is #3. I confess I've never actually seen someone dumb enough to use that one in person. Using #3 seems like a fairly inventive method of social suicide.

 

[Wedjat]

# 8 is actually a lot more common than you think (try youtube)

 

[Hawk007]

Anyone who pulls a stupid stunt like that in high school deserves to get socked in the face, frankly.



Arguments from personal belief are always logically solid.




Straw man and argument from personal incredulity, nice nice.



Blatant hypocrisy, a double standard. Classic.



A complete off-the-wall red herring that is so blatantly wrong and indicative of utter ignorance of science.



Hmmmm... Never seen that one before.



I love this straw man.




And hopefully he will say yes and remind you of the very recent papers just published last month on Ardipithecus ramidus.


Lol. Nice post Split Rock. You summarized the Creationist repertoire rather nicely, I think.


My favorite one is #3. I confess I've never actually seen someone dumb enough to use that one in person. Using #3 seems like a fairly inventive method of social suicide.

How do they know Ardipithecus ramidus is not just another died out specie? If you look at humans, even they look different around the globe.....the evolutionists will probably dig us up one day millions tears from now and say yes, yes, the Asians lived before us and then man evolved and became other humans that look different, for example the thickness of the skull is different between an African and an European...meanwhile they are all wrong!

To use the straw man idea is getting very lame, why do you not just give an answer...........how does something appear out of nothing? Don't tell me it is a strawman statement, I need you to give me an explanation for it please.....where did the energy come from to cause a big bang?

thx

 

[Cabal]

How do they know Ardipithecus ramidus is not just another died out specie?

....

Um....it is another died out species...that would be why it's been given a different taxonomical name

If you look at humans, even they look different around the globe.....the evolutionists will probably dig us up one day millions tears from now and say yes, yes, the Asians lived before us and then man evolved and became other humans that look different, for example the thickness of the skull is different between an African and an European...

meanwhile they are all wrong!

That's a pretty massive oversimplification. Morphology is one aspect of many when it comes to determining what a fossil is and where it fits into the overall scheme of evolution. Your strawman wouldn't happen, because Asians would be dated as being contemporary with all the other races of humans alive today - not sure how you could tell they were Asian from a skull fragment either, to be honest.

To use the straw man idea is getting very lame, why do you not just give an answer...........how does something appear out of nothing? Don't tell me it is a strawman statement, I need you to give me an explanation for it please.....where did the energy come from to cause a big bang?

You're quite right, this strawman IS very lame.

Firstly, we're talking about evolution. What does the big bang have to do with evolution? The big bang describes the expansion of the universe. Evolution describes the diversification of life. The two are not the same thing and are unrelated.

And it wasn't "nothing" that created the universe either.

 

[metherion]

You know, I must confess that until I looked at who was posting that list, I thought it was serious. *shame* Since those are so common and all.

Also,

To use the straw man idea is getting very lame, why do you not just give an answer...........how does something appear out of nothing? Don't tell me it is a strawman statement, I need you to give me an explanation for it please.....where did the energy come from to cause a big bang?

1. As has been stated, Big Bang = / = evolution.
2. How does something appear out of nothing? It doesn't. But BB theory doesn't say it does. And I'm not sure if quantum fluctuations are considered 'from nothing' but they do happen.
3. It didn't need energy to go bang because IT DIDN"T GO BANG. (emphasis, not yelling). Big Bang was a derogatory nickname given to it. There was no bang.
4. As to where the energy for it came from, not a clue. Perhaps it didn't need any. Perhaps it was a quantum fluctuation (which does all SORTS of weirdness). We don't know for sure. I believe whatever it was, it came from God, but that doesn't get me any closer to what it was. *shrug* But since we know we don't know it, we can look for the answers.

So, the statement 'something from nothing' is a strawman because there wasn't a 'nothing' that 'something' came from.

Metherion

 

[Hawk007]

....

Um....it is another died out species...that would be why it's been given a different taxonomical name



That's a pretty massive oversimplification. Morphology is one aspect of many when it comes to determining what a fossil is and where it fits into the overall scheme of evolution. Your strawman wouldn't happen, because Asians would be dated as being contemporary with all the other races of humans alive today - not sure how you could tell they were Asian from a skull fragment either, to be honest.



You're quite right, this strawman IS very lame.

Firstly, we're talking about evolution. What does the big bang have to do with evolution? The big bang describes the expansion of the universe. Evolution describes the diversification of life. The two are not the same thing and are unrelated.

And it wasn't "nothing" that created the universe either.

So who or what created the universe and set natural laws in place to prevent chaos according to you?

 

[Hawk007]

You know, I must confess that until I looked at who was posting that list, I thought it was serious. *shame* Since those are so common and all.

Also,

1. As has been stated, Big Bang = / = evolution.
2. How does something appear out of nothing? It doesn't. But BB theory doesn't say it does. And I'm not sure if quantum fluctuations are considered 'from nothing' but they do happen.
3. It didn't need energy to go bang because IT DIDN"T GO BANG. (emphasis, not yelling). Big Bang was a derogatory nickname given to it. There was no bang.
4. As to where the energy for it came from, not a clue. Perhaps it didn't need any. Perhaps it was a quantum fluctuation (which does all SORTS of weirdness). We don't know for sure. I believe whatever it was, it came from God, but that doesn't get me any closer to what it was. *shrug* But since we know we don't know it, we can look for the answers.

So, the statement 'something from nothing' is a strawman because there wasn't a 'nothing' that 'something' came from.

Metherion

Why would you suggest there wasn't nothing? With E=mc2 could it be that energy was the source of everything........a very powerful being creating it.....and is it impossible to accept the answers Genesis gives us?

Where does the natural laws come from?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

So who or what created the universe and set natural laws in place to prevent chaos according to you?

Why would you suggest there wasn't nothing? With E=mc2 could it be that energy was the source of everything........a very powerful being creating it.....and is it impossible to accept the answers Genesis gives us?

Where does the natural laws come from?

No one knows. Could be God, could be a natural phenomenon. Could be anything.

But that doesn't change what we do know. We know that life shares a single common ancestor, and that the differences between descendants is due to evolution. The origin of the universe and the natural laws are irrelevant.

 

[Ayersy]

Why would you suggest there wasn't nothing? With E=mc2 could it be that energy was the source of everything........a very powerful being creating it.....and is it impossible to accept the answers Genesis gives us?

Where does the natural laws come from?

Don't know. Doesn't necessarily mean that God did it, though. All it means is that we simply don't know, at least not at the moment.

 

[Hawk007]

Don't know. Doesn't necessarily mean that God did it, though. All it means is that we simply don't know, at least not at the moment.

You don't know , but most Christians know!

 

[Hawk007]

No one knows. Could be God, could be a natural phenomenon. Could be anything.

But that doesn't change what we do know. We know that life shares a single common ancestor, and that the differences between descendants is due to evolution. The origin of the universe and the natural laws are irrelevant.

Do you really believe that evolution will stand the test of time? A theory? Do you think that there are a chance in the next 1000 years that science might say oops, we made a mistake about macro-evolution, because they have observed new data and found a much better system for dating material which is also a lot more specific and efficient......less dependent on unknown circumstances for instance the effect what the weather may had on the subject being dated.

Evolution is to me vulnerable, because when you look to the past science is known for changing their theories, to believe that they now have the truth is scary......

You are welcome to believe evolution, but it looks like that it is pretty much your only option......

All the best!

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Do you really believe that evolution will stand the test of time? A theory?

Yes. It has stood the test of time for 150 years, and has only been getting stronger.

Do you think that there are a chance in the next 1000 years that science might say oops, we made a mistake about macro-evolution, because they have observed new data and found a much better system for dating material which is also a lot more specific and efficient......less dependent on unknown circumstances for instance the effect what the weather may had on the subject being dated.

It's certainly possible, though the evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that nothing short of a complete overhaul of biology and physics would disprove it.

It's like asking if the chemical theory of atoms could be disproven. Ostensible yes, it could, but the evidence is so overwhelming that no one seriously doubts the existence of atoms.

Likewise, the evidence for evolution is so strong that it has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

Evolution is to me vulnerable, because when you look to the past science is known for changing their theories, to believe that they now have the truth is scary......

The power of science is that it changes. New data might show that a once-believed theory is actually false. If so, scientists chuck it out without a second thought: what good is a false theory?

But the fact remains that evolution has been accumulating evidence for decades. It has more evidence than pretty much any other theory in science. It's hardly 'vulnerable'.

You are welcome to believe evolution, but it looks like that it is pretty much your only option......

I could believe in Creationism. Or Panspermia. Or I could just say "I don't know".
I believe in evolution because I have looked at the evidence for myself, and I find it meets even the highest standards of proof.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You don't know , but most Christians know!

Most Christians think they know. As far as I can tell, they've just made a guess based on their religious beliefs. That's a far cry from knowledge.

 

[MorkandMindy]

Do you really believe that evolution will stand the test of time? ...

Evolution is to me vulnerable, because when you look to the past science is known for changing their theories, to believe that they now have the truth is scary......
...

I generally consider modern science to have started with Galileo (1564 -1642), so we could go right back then and see how much it has changed from the very start.


Among Galileo's claims:

To have found four moons orbiting Jupiter
- still believed by scientists to be true

That Venus shows phases like those of our moon
- still believed by scientists to be true

That the stars are suns and their brightness varies as a result of being at varying distances.

Gen 1 pwns this one because it reveals that the stars are all fixed in the firmament. But for science to score 2 out of 3 on it's first foray into astronomy is not bad!

- Morklet

 

[pgp_protector]

For those in this thread & not the other one, this was the argument presented to him.

aisy day-
I was told that was the wrong thread for the question, if there is some way to wholesale move the thread, I'll gladly do it.

Mallon-
It is a long, drawn out logic style argument, I'll go through it step by step:

First he said that there are two different types of claims:

faith claims: those which could not be falsified by observation or experiment even in principle.
(i.e. god exists)

-and-

science claims: those which can be falsified by observation or experiment
(i.e. the earth is roughly spherical in shape)

This seemed perfectly rational, so I agreed.

he asked if I would agree that only science claims should be taught in science class. After some hemming and hawwing I agreed.

then the argument went like this:

faith based claims are those that which cannot be falsified.
faith based claims should not be taught in science class.
Creationism / ID can incorporate any evidence by saying "God made it that way"
Therefore creationism / ID cannot be falsified
Therefore creationism / ID should not be taught in science class.

He got me, Where did I go wrong? where's the flaw in his logic that I can't see?

 

[Cabal]

For those in this thread & not the other one, this was the argument presented to him.

I believe the term is pwned

ETA: Goodness, and that was before I read the rest of that thread...

 

[pgp_protector]

I believe the term is pwned

That or Learning Experience.

 

[PhilosophicalBluster]

That or Learning Experience.

A bit of both.

 

[Hawk007]

Yes. It has stood the test of time for 150 years, and has only been getting stronger.


It's certainly possible, though the evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that nothing short of a complete overhaul of biology and physics would disprove it.

It's like asking if the chemical theory of atoms could be disproven. Ostensible yes, it could, but the evidence is so overwhelming that no one seriously doubts the existence of atoms.

Likewise, the evidence for evolution is so strong that it has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt.


The power of science is that it changes. New data might show that a once-believed theory is actually false. If so, scientists chuck it out without a second thought: what good is a false theory?

But the fact remains that evolution has been accumulating evidence for decades. It has more evidence than pretty much any other theory in science. It's hardly 'vulnerable'.


I could believe in Creationism. Or Panspermia. Or I could just say "I don't know".
I believe in evolution because I have looked at the evidence for myself, and I find it meets even the highest standards of proof.

Hi,

The only concern I have is that of macro evolution and that carbon dating is unreliable......Carbon Dating: Why you cant trust it or other radiometric dating methods. creation evolution young earth evidence old earth bible

All the best!