Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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?!
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.
4. Tell him that God said so, and You believe it.
5. Tell him that you don't come from no monkey.
6. Ask him how everything can come from nothing. Then explain how God created the universe ex nihilo.
7. Ask him who the first man mated with.
8. Tell him you don't have enough faith to believe in evolution.
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.
10. Ask him if the "Missing Link" has been found yet.
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?
1. As has been stated, Big Bang = / = evolution.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?
....
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.
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
So who or what created the universe and set natural laws in place to prevent chaos according to you?
No one knows. Could be God, could be a natural phenomenon. Could be anything.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?
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.
Yes. It has stood the test of time for 150 years, and has only been getting stronger.Do you really believe that evolution will stand the test of time? A theory?
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.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.
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?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 could believe in Creationism. Or Panspermia. Or I could just say "I don't know".You are welcome to believe evolution, but it looks like that it is pretty much your only option......
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.You don't know , but most Christians know!
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......
...
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?
For those in this thread & not the other one, this was the argument presented to him.
I believe the term is pwned
A bit of both.That or Learning Experience.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?