How best to argue against creationists

[Noaidi]

The_Evelyonian has been exposed to an unsafe level of irony and has been shut down to prevent further damage.

Hey, anyone here got a manual for an old Evelyonian? We need to re-boot urgently.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Rather only an insultive banter of people with opinions that have no back up. I also say there will be no proof because it is a theory. Science itself has stated the obvious! Eat your hearts out guys and gals...go for the juggular!

Let me be one of the first to start the insulting banter which you so apparently crave.

Your entire post was as enlightening as I had hoped. I eagerly look forward to your next foray into the world of science.

PS - "jugular" has only one "g". Just like the gray cells in the frontal lobe of a creationist.

I'll leave the scientific explanations to others on this site. They have a ton of knowledge that they are willing to share, and far more patience with self inflicted stupidity than I do.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Hey, anyone here got a manual for an old Evelyonian? We need to re-boot urgently.

Shhhh! Walk quietly, and he may be down for a while.

And for Pete's sake, don't plug anything in!

 

[newhope101]

I've had a brief look at the websites. It is very interesting. This business about 1-4% neanderthall DNA is particularly interesting. I thought humans shared something like 96% DNA with most living creatures anyway, including primates and fish anyway. I research it further. I have always believed that this 96% DNA was the basic building block for life that all living creatures share.

I guess if this is the case then I would hope for a find, say around, 98% DNA match.

Anyway thanks for this. I'll ponder further.

 

[rusra02]

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.

If true, they are still flycatchers. They haven't changed into a new 'kind'. Again, it is simply adaptation within animal kinds.

 

[Noaidi]

I've had a brief look at the websites. It is very interesting. This business about 1-4% neanderthall DNA is particularly interesting.

I thought humans shared something like 96% DNA with most living creatures anyway, including primates and fish anyway.

I research it further. I have always believed that this 96% DNA was the basic building block for life that all living creatures share.

I guess if this is the case then I would hope for a find, say around, 98% DNA match.

Humans have 100% of their DNA in common with other forms of life . Everything uses the same basic genetic code. What you may be referring to is the similarities between the genomes of organisms. Chimp and human genomes are around 98% identical.

 

[Autodidact]

If true, they are still flycatchers. They haven't changed into a new 'kind'. Again, it is simply adaptation within animal kinds.

1. That's not what you asked for. You asked for a new species. This is what we mean when we call YECs like you dishonest.

2. Could you define "kind" please? Thank you.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

1. That's not what you asked for. You asked for a new species. This is what we mean when we call YECs like you dishonest.

2. Could you define "kind" please? Thank you.

Is it just me, or does it look like we keep circling the same block on this ride to the airport?

 

[rusra02]

This poster does not understand what the Theory of Evolution (ToE) says. He has obtained his understanding from the popular media or possibly church, and is at a comic book level. This is the sort of poster who would benefit greatly from learning what ToE actually is.

The problem with this kind of assertion is that it makes no sense. It's literally gibberish. It's like he's saying, "ToE is false because there are no unicorns in my water glass," and you're left kind of going--wha?! You have to explain such basic stuff first.

To the poster: Every species is a species, and every species is in between two other species, living or extinct. Think of all of life as a continuum of species gradually shading from one to another. In this sense, every species, and none, is an "interspecies" or "in the middle."

You state "Think of all of life as a continuum of species gradually shading from one to another." That is utter nonsense, and flys in the face of the fossil record. If species gradually shaded into new species, there should be evidence of this in the fossil record.
Professor of natural science John Moore reported on the results of an extensive study made by the Geological Society of London and the Palaeontological Association of England. “Some 120 scientists, all specialists, prepared 30 chapters in a monumental work of over 800 pages to present the fossil record for plants and animals . . . Each major form or kind of plant and animal is shown to have a separate and distinct history from all the other forms or kinds! Groups of both plants and animals appear suddenly in the fossil record. . . . There is not a trace of a common ancestor, much less a link with any reptile, the supposed progenitor.”—Should Evolution Be Taught?, 1970, pages 9, 14.

 

[Autodidact]

Yes, that's why I say if you really want to engage YECs, what you need is not so much debating skills as persistence. It is discouraging to vanquish some bulloney only to see it re-asserted again. For example, rusra has denied that new species come into existence. When shown that they do, he moved his goalposts to something undefined called a new "kind." Nevertheless, next time we see him post on the subject, I predict he will once again deny the existence of new species, despite having been given a list of them.

What's hilarious is that rusra actually believes that speciation is happening constantly and rapidly, at a rate never observed in nature. But his objections are really just rote reflex reactions, not actually logical objections.

But, as I say, as long as he emerges still believing his mythology, then in his book he's "won."

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Hey, anyone here got a manual for an old Evelyonian? We need to re-boot urgently.

Old? I'll have you know that I happen to be a top-of-the-line Evelyonian.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Old? I'll have you know that I happen to be a top-of-the-line Evelyonian.

... much like that TRS-80 computer I have in my basement.

 

[Autodidact]

You state "Think of all of life as a continuum of species gradually shading from one to another." That is utter nonsense,

No, it's reality.

and flys in the face of the fossil record.

No, it doesn't.

If species gradually shaded into new species, there should be evidence of this in the fossil record.

There is.
Do you think all the world's paleontologists are idiots?

Professor of natural science John Moore reported on the results of an extensive study made by the Geological Society of London and the Palaeontological Association of England. “Some 120 scientists, all specialists, prepared 30 chapters in a monumental work of over 800 pages to present the fossil record for plants and animals . . . Each major form or kind of plant and animal is shown to have a separate and distinct history from all the other forms or kinds! Groups of both plants and animals appear suddenly in the fossil record. . . . There is not a trace of a common ancestor, much less a link with any reptile, the supposed progenitor.”—Should Evolution Be Taught?, 1970, pages 9, 14.

This is another excellent example from rusra of an important YEC "tactic" one must grow used to combatting, the quote mine. I don't even know what he's referring to, and I'll go out on a limb and predict it will turn out to be a quote mine, which is of course a species of lie.

rusra: Are you referring to Biologist John Alexander Moore? Where was this piece published? Can you help us find the original writing?

Can anyone unpack this potential quote mine for me?

 

[The_Evelyonian]

... much like that TRS-80 computer I have in my basement.

No, that thing is like Alienware compared to me....

 

[Noaidi]

Old? I'll have you know that I happen to be a top-of-the-line Evelyonian.

Ha! Sorry about that. Hope your drives didn't get wiped completely clean.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Ha! Sorry about that. Hope your drives didn't get wiped completely clean.

yeah...I'm not even gonna touch that one.

 

[Autodidact]

Ah, I think rusra is not quote-mining, just repeating some creationist drivel by non-scientist creationist John N. Moore. rusra: Tell us about the important scientific work of John N. Moore. Where did he get his degree(s), and in what? What scientific work has he published? Or is he just another creationist liar and hack?

 

[RedOne77]

If true, they are still flycatchers. They haven't changed into a new 'kind'. Again, it is simply adaptation within animal kinds.

You asked for "one proven example of where one species evolved into another."

The definition of species is a population that doesn't/can't breed outside the population. The flycatchers used to breed together, now they don't, hence speciation. I gave you what you asked for, now your moving the goal post (a logical fallacy) and say that they need to change "kind". Kind is not a scientific word, can you define it so we can use it in science?

 

[McBell]

So where's the proof big guy..seeing as you you feel you have all the smart answers.

Whose Kent Hovind? Is he someone with alot of opinions but not much else!

He is someone who spouts a bunch of lies and non-sense in hopes that others will blindly accept his bull ****.
In fact, if you were to put "hello, my name is Kent Hovind" at the beginning of your post, it would look like his 'what's it called'.

 

[Peacewise]

Denial reinforces denial. Deny the denier and it's just more denial.

Seems to me that a useful strategy when presenting this argument is to find where the opposition agrees with you, i.e. does creationism agree with evolution at any point? Move forward from there having built the bridge between the two.

Ad hominem, poison the well, aggression and ridicule DO NOT build bridges.
I mean come on look at the thread title.
"how best to argue against creationists" - the starting point is to be against them, the starting point is a foundation that is by its very nature is an automatic "against them".

Seriously if anyone thinks that they can bring enlightenment to another by being against them, as a starting point, they simply do not understand and will instead reinforce a lack of enlightenment in that other.

I do not wonder how or why the thread has been derailed so easily.