How best to argue against creationists

[RedOne77]

Give one proven example of where one species evolved into another.

Here: Study Catches Two Bird Populations As They Split Into Separate Species

We have observed a species of flycatcher (bird) that due to a single point mutation, has begun to split into two separate species. Even though the two types of flycatcher are in the same area, they no longer breed together or even attempt to. The males, which have to compete for mates, don't view the other type as a threat to getting their own mate, yet are extremely hostile towards their own type when they enter their territory. This is speciation; the arise of new species, one changing into another.

 

[tumbleweed41]

The examples you cite are merely variations within a Genesis 'kind' and do not produce new species (or kinds). If you examine the evidence, maize is still maize.
Variety within species is NOT evolution. If evolution were true, you would find millions of transitional forms between species. These missing links remain missing.

Where did you get your degree in Biology? Botany? Microbiology? Biochemistry?


(BTW, every creature alive is a "transitional" form.)

But again, thanks for the shining examples of pseudoscientific nonsense.

 

[rusra02]

Hopefully it is not too late for your to consider a night school course, or three.

I know what you mean. I always end up feeling dirty around this kind of thinking. It would be hilarious if it weren't so tragic.

The knee-jerk response of evolutionists when challenged by the facts is to ridicule the person presenting them. To those not blinded by the evolutionary apologists, I urge you to examine the facts for yourself. Much of what passes for 'evidence' for evolution is nothing but smoke and mirrors. No wonder the evolutionists resort to personal attacks. What else can they do?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Protip: You can't engage in meaningful debate with someone who is immune to facts.

 

[rusra02]

I would just like to thank Rusra for providing an excellent example of the Fundamentalist Creationists who remain willfully ignorant of reality and will promote any falsehood that supports their pseudoscientific dogma and revisionist history.

:clap

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...699-how-creationism-damages-christianity.html

With all due respect, I believe it is the ToE that promotes falsehood, and is a pseudoscientific dogma.

 

[Gunfingers]

We shouldn't be doing it in this thread at all. Stay on target, guys! We're trying to work out how to handle guys like Rusra. We actually handle them in other threads!

 

[YmirGF]

Protip: You can't engage in meaningful debate with someone who is immune to facts.

What is the point, eh? Again, it's not like there is a shred of proof on the side of creationism, no matter how valid they think their silly little points are. It's like arguing with a two year old about the reality of Santa. Best leave 'em alone until they figure it out. Only the dullards will be taken in by creationist "arguments".

 

[rusra02]

We shouldn't be doing it in this thread at all. Stay on target, guys! We're trying to work out how to handle guys like Rusra. We actually handle them in other threads!

I think you're displaying how ToE proponents 'handle' people who disagree with them. They resort to ridicule and insults. That is a pretty standard response. But it doesn't prove anything.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

The knee-jerk response of evolutionists when challenged by the facts is to ridicule the person presenting them. To those not blinded by the evolutionary apologists, I urge you to examine the facts for yourself. Much of what passes for 'evidence' for evolution is nothing but smoke and mirrors. No wonder the evolutionists resort to personal attacks. What else can they do?

Your error is in assuming it's a knee-jerk response. On the contrary, it's a hard-learned response based on years of attempting to engage in meaningful dialogue, based on facts and scientific evidence, with creationists, before eventually realizing that, to creationists, these things are irrelevant.

Making light of creationists' willful ignorance, through derisive and sarcastic humor, is a way to dampen the depressive effects of the realization of the lengths people will go to to rationalize their own ignorance and dishonesty. Sometimes you gotta laugh at the world to keep from crying.

 

[YmirGF]

I think you're displaying how ToE proponents 'handle' people who disagree with them. They resort to ridicule and insults. That is a pretty standard response. But it doesn't prove anything.

Creationists are immune to the facts, but more importantly, do not want to learn the facts - so what else is there?

Are you of the mind that we should actually take your thinking seriously enough TO respond to it?

 

[tumbleweed41]

I think you're displaying how ToE proponents 'handle' people who disagree with them. They resort to ridicule and insults. That is a pretty standard response. But it doesn't prove anything.

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...ism/95456-creationists-heres-your-chance.html

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...6685-theory-evolution-supported-evidence.html

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/evolution-vs-creationism/88277-prove-creationism-id-here.html

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/evolution-vs-creationism/94295-evolution-theory-evidence.html

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/evolution-vs-creationism/93692-facts-relating-evolution.html

Here are the proper threads for your arguments. (Hint, peruse through the posts before repeating the mistakes of others.)

 

[TheBecoming]

When engaged in dialogue with fundamentalists of any flavor one must remember that these people are not interested in expanding their understanding. They want one of two things: to sway you to their side of the argument, usually through pseudoscience backed by eternal damnation, or to discredit their opponent's arguments with personal attacks, subjective "experiences" and arguments that cannot be verified.

Again, these people are not interested in learning. They are recruiters at best and, more often that not hateful fear-mongers (looking at you WBC).

Do not feed the trolls.

 

[Autodidact]

The examples you cite are merely variations within a Genesis 'kind' and do not produce new species (or kinds). If you examine the evidence, maize is still maize.
Variety within species is NOT evolution. If evolution were true, you would find millions of transitional forms between species. These missing links remain missing.

Yes, a very good example. rusra asks for instances of speciation, which he denies takes place. tumbleweed gives him several examples. He then moves his goalposts. (*note: This will not prevent him from claiming in future that there is no such thing.) Now he is asking for a new "kind," a thing that has never been defined and has no definition.

Interestingly, he seems to be conflating the two, which is odd, since we do observe speciation.

Oh, and of course there are millions of transitional forms between species. When we provide those, he'll move the goalposts on that.

This reveals one of the difficulties of arguing with YEC's--fundamental dishonesty.

 

[Autodidact]

The knee-jerk response of evolutionists when challenged by the facts is to ridicule the person presenting them. To those not blinded by the evolutionary apologists, I urge you to examine the facts for yourself. Much of what passes for 'evidence' for evolution is nothing but smoke and mirrors. No wonder the evolutionists resort to personal attacks. What else can they do?

Well, we have a thread going right now to discuss that evidence. Perhaps you'd like to join it so we can discuss that?

 

[RedOne77]

Since you obviously do not accept the teachings of Christ as factual and true, I wonder that you call yourself a Christian. But since there are several thousands of conflicting religions who wear the label Christian, I shouldn't wonder.

It's not that I disagree, I just have a different interpretation on the text; something that has been a very long tradition in Judeo-Christian culture, especially Judaism.

The Bible reveals why such teachings as evolution are popular. It says: “There will be a period of time when they will not put up with the healthful teaching, but, in accord with their own desires, they will accumulate teachers for themselves to have their ears tickled; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, whereas they will be turned aside to false stories.” (2 Timothy 4:3, 4)

That verse was actually my sig for a while. I tend to view it in the opposite terms you do, as in creationists follow their itching ears and follow those who will have them deny the evidence and prop up their ego and pride, diminishing their humbleness and humility. But that doesn't apply to all creationists, just some, in particular many who 'debate' the issue for extended periods of time.

Although evolution is usually presented in scientific terms, it is really a religious doctrine. It teaches a philosophy of life and an attitude toward God. Its beliefs are subtly attractive to mankind’s selfish, independent spirit.

Evolution is simply a scientific theory, it states what happens in nature, that is all. Strictly as a scientific explanation, it says nothing of how we should live our lives, if there is a God or not, nor is it a philosophy on any level. You could turn it into a philosophy, but once you do that you go beyond that which is science. Even Dawkins believes that to take evolution and turn it into a philosophy is a grave mistake and should not be done. According to him, we should learn all that we can about evolution so that we can rise above the harsh environment and make living possible and enjoyable for everyone.

But even if we take the most evil philosophy we could conjure with evolution, it doesn't dilute the facts. Just because we can attach something unpleasant to it, or that something is unpleasant, doesn't mean that it is not true.

Many who believe in evolution say that they also believe in God. However, they feel free to think of God as one who does not intervene in man’s affairs, and who will not judge people. It is a creed that tickles people’s ears.

Then they are wrong. About 45% of natural scientists believe in a God who answers prayer, hardly a deist God is seen here, rather a theist God, one who does intervene and quite regularly too. There is nothing stopping people from believing in a theistic God and evolution.

Teachers of evolution are often motivated, not by the facts, but by “their own desires”—perhaps a desire to be accepted by a scientific community in which evolution is orthodox doctrine. There is much evidence that a scientist or teacher who openly believes in creation is likely to be ridiculed, marginalized, and otherwise punished by the orthodox evolutionary priesthood. (See movie Expelled, for example).

Maybe their desire is to teach something that has had profound influences in understanding the world around us, much the same as any chemist would teach stoichiometry, or physicist would teach Newtonian mechanics, or Relativity. Evolution has done much to help us in the medical field, many know about viruses and vaccines, but few know that the doctors who understand evolution feel that they can better treat and diagnose patients. And now there is a calling within the medical field to better train doctors in evolution because it is becoming more and more central to their practice.

As to the ridicule, any scientists who goes against the norm without the facts to back them up is ridiculed, not just in evolution. If they decided to go against gravity without any evidence they too would be ridiculed likewise. The movie Expelled is disgusting, Ben Stein has no knowledge of evolution and has many misconceptions. In the movie he does blatant unethical things, like showing Dawkins putting on makeup while excluding himself - it sends the dishonest message of how scientists have a superiority complex, even if it is only subliminal. He talks about Nazis, but either doesn't know, or didn't bother to include, that Hitler actually put Darwin's book on the banned list. By law, in Nazi Germany, you couldn't have or read a copy of Darwin's Origin of Species.

​

As to James Usher's chronology, I will allow the Bible to speak for itself. Obviously Mr. Usher was wrong, since the Bible says God created the earth at some point in the past called the Beginning, and Mr. Usher's chronology presupposes the days of Genesis were 24 hours long, an erroneous conclusion.

Then you don't take the Bible literally? In Genesis, the word for day is "yom". While it can be translated as "an undetermined period of time", using Biblical exegesis and hermeneutics confirms that the word "yom" in Genesis 1 is supposed to be translated as a single, 24 hour, day. This is clearly seen as Genesis talks about a single morning and night in-between each "yom" or "day". To take the Bible literally, requires that each day in Genesis is 24 hours long, and it happened ruffly 6 thousand years ago. The day-age idea is founded on very poor theology, and today is based on Christian geologists (from the 17th century I think) realizing that the Earth was a bit older than a few thousand years, and that there was no global flood.

 

[Autodidact]

With all due respect, I believe it is the ToE that promotes falsehood, and is a pseudoscientific dogma.

Yes, I'm sure you know better than the world's biologists.

 

[YmirGF]

This reveals one of the difficulties of arguing with YEC's--fundamental dishonesty.

And that is what is unseemly about dealing with the self-righteous, religiously motivated, "thinker" - discovering they are dishonest and not willing to admit it. Things might be different if they actually made some good points instead of promoting difficulties they have discovered in their weak understanding of evolution - a condition they seem very reluctant to remedy.

 

[Autodidact]

Actually, I have a new theory about what (many of) their motivation is. I don't think they're trying to persuade anyone of anything. They believe their eternal salvation depends on believing YEC. (sucks to be them, since it's false.) So their goal is to listen to the arguments for ToE and resist them. If they succeed in not being persuaded, they have preserved their eternal soul, which is their goal. So they don't have to persuade anyone of anything to "win." For them, not losing is winning, accomplishing their goal of not being persuaded. This explains why they are resistant to facts, logic, and argument.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

How best to argue against creationists

By staying quiet and letting them speak. Works every time...

 

[newhope101]

Hi there. Just found the site and joined. How interesting! My 2 cents worth is this. The bible states that a day to God could be a thousand years. I believe that the days of creation are just periods of time and that's a bible based belief. So how old the earth is is not in any way a problem for me and neither is 'big bang theory'. The scientific theory of a void planet, then animals, then man agrees with the bible writings. As for creation. The theory of evolution is just that a theory. It is a theory because there is no proof as yet. Scientists believed for a while they had found some 'cromagnon' man or something but it was found to be fraudulent. Dinosaurs, which pre date man, is not a theory as there is proof. I remain amazed that science has dug up all sorts of bones, DNA and fossils that pre date mankind. Yet they have never found a creature that is in the middle genetically. Natural selection and species advancement is not contrary to bible teachings. Science has never found any interspecies of any kind. When science has forced the mating it produces sterile offspring. If one bases ones beliefs on scientific fact. The fact that midway primates have not ever been found is evidence on the side of creation. Why has man found all sorts of bones and DNA that pre date man and yet nothing in between. Curious! Could Adam and Eve be mutant freakes that got together and started mankind? Was mankind about where Adam and Eve were taken and put in the garden of Eden and given favouratism in starting the line of chosen people?
The bible is a guide for mankinds spirituality. It's pupose is not to answer questions about everything. After all it says there will be a reurrection of the righteous and unrighteous anyway. If there was proof either way it would not be a matter of faith.