Creationism/intelligent Design

[BurnTheOliveTree]

I spend a lot of time on the internet debating creationists and ID proponents... Usually, it takes me hours and hours, and usually I don't move them very much. Is there any debating equivalent of a body slam for evolution, or must I just debunk the same tired arguments Ad Infinitum?

-Alex

[BurnTheOliveTree]

I spend a lot of time on the internet debating creationists and ID proponents... Usually, it takes me hours and hours, and usually I don't move them very much. Is there any debating equivalent of a body slam for evolution, or must I just debunk the same tired arguments Ad Infinitum?

-Alex

[BurnTheOliveTree]

I spend a lot of time on the internet debating creationists and ID proponents... Usually, it takes me hours and hours, and usually I don't move them very much. Is there any debating equivalent of a body slam for evolution, or must I just debunk the same tired arguments Ad Infinitum?

-Alex

[ComradeRed]

Well, they're argument is circular logic "Life is complex, so evolution couldn't have worked. Only God could create complex life, so therefore evolution can't have created complex life." It would be impossible if you don't point out their fallacies.

[ComradeRed]

Well, they're argument is circular logic "Life is complex, so evolution couldn't have worked. Only God could create complex life, so therefore evolution can't have created complex life." It would be impossible if you don't point out their fallacies.

[ComradeRed]

Well, they're argument is circular logic "Life is complex, so evolution couldn't have worked. Only God could create complex life, so therefore evolution can't have created complex life." It would be impossible if you don't point out their fallacies.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Order cannot exist without its opposite of chaos. If chaos exists then something can exist without the need for invoking god.

If you claim that everything is "divinely" ordered, then you are really presupposing your own answer, you are creating as true something that cannot be empirically verifed, you are wasting your time.

If everything can be considered ordered, then can it not be considered chaotic also?

Basically any of the creationist arguments are weak. I don't know about approaches from a biological point of view other than disputing criticisms. Their arguments (the creationists) seem to disregard arguments solely on a scientific line, shows logical inconsistancies and hoping for the best is all I can advise.

Perhaps this would be better in philosophy or religion?

[Hegemonicretribution]

Order cannot exist without its opposite of chaos. If chaos exists then something can exist without the need for invoking god.

If you claim that everything is "divinely" ordered, then you are really presupposing your own answer, you are creating as true something that cannot be empirically verifed, you are wasting your time.

If everything can be considered ordered, then can it not be considered chaotic also?

Basically any of the creationist arguments are weak. I don't know about approaches from a biological point of view other than disputing criticisms. Their arguments (the creationists) seem to disregard arguments solely on a scientific line, shows logical inconsistancies and hoping for the best is all I can advise.

Perhaps this would be better in philosophy or religion?

[Hegemonicretribution]

Order cannot exist without its opposite of chaos. If chaos exists then something can exist without the need for invoking god.

If you claim that everything is "divinely" ordered, then you are really presupposing your own answer, you are creating as true something that cannot be empirically verifed, you are wasting your time.

If everything can be considered ordered, then can it not be considered chaotic also?

Basically any of the creationist arguments are weak. I don't know about approaches from a biological point of view other than disputing criticisms. Their arguments (the creationists) seem to disregard arguments solely on a scientific line, shows logical inconsistancies and hoping for the best is all I can advise.

Perhaps this would be better in philosophy or religion?

[Janus]

Is there any debating equivalent of a body slam for evolution, or must I just debunk the same tired arguments Ad Infinitum?
No, creationists usually reject all evidence for evolution and try to poke holes in the areas of which evolution is a bit uncertain of. So yeah, no groundbreaking discovery has developed yet though creationists might still reject that.

[Janus]

Is there any debating equivalent of a body slam for evolution, or must I just debunk the same tired arguments Ad Infinitum?
No, creationists usually reject all evidence for evolution and try to poke holes in the areas of which evolution is a bit uncertain of. So yeah, no groundbreaking discovery has developed yet though creationists might still reject that.

[Janus]

Is there any debating equivalent of a body slam for evolution, or must I just debunk the same tired arguments Ad Infinitum?
No, creationists usually reject all evidence for evolution and try to poke holes in the areas of which evolution is a bit uncertain of. So yeah, no groundbreaking discovery has developed yet though creationists might still reject that.

[Delta]

Those who believe in creationism and attack evolution care nothing of facts or reason. I wouldn't waste my time debating with them, I think it's the kind of thing that they have to come out of themselves.

[Delta]

Those who believe in creationism and attack evolution care nothing of facts or reason. I wouldn't waste my time debating with them, I think it's the kind of thing that they have to come out of themselves.

[Delta]

Those who believe in creationism and attack evolution care nothing of facts or reason. I wouldn't waste my time debating with them, I think it's the kind of thing that they have to come out of themselves.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

The best material to throw at them comes from David Hume's argument against the 'design argument' (from his 'Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion'):

http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/dnr.htm

Properly developed, Hume's arguments are unanswereable; one of the few examples there are of knock-down arguments in the entire history of Philosophy.

Unfortunately, Hume's literary style is very 18th century, and so not as clear as it might be.

But, no form of the 'design argument' survives his attack (even more modern ones based on probability theory, like Richard Swinburn's).

[Speaking for myself, I have great fun with theists by adopting the same strategy I adopt with dialecticians, showing that the word 'God' is meaningless, so their 'faith' is empty.

They are even worse at handling my attacks than DM-fans are (hard to believe, but true), and they both adopt the same tactics in reponse -- they ignore what they do not like, invent stuff, and resort to abuse.

Mystics are all the same it seems.]

But, I think Delta has a point....

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

The best material to throw at them comes from David Hume's argument against the 'design argument' (from his 'Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion'):

http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/dnr.htm

Properly developed, Hume's arguments are unanswereable; one of the few examples there are of knock-down arguments in the entire history of Philosophy.

Unfortunately, Hume's literary style is very 18th century, and so not as clear as it might be.

But, no form of the 'design argument' survives his attack (even more modern ones based on probability theory, like Richard Swinburn's).

[Speaking for myself, I have great fun with theists by adopting the same strategy I adopt with dialecticians, showing that the word 'God' is meaningless, so their 'faith' is empty.

They are even worse at handling my attacks than DM-fans are (hard to believe, but true), and they both adopt the same tactics in reponse -- they ignore what they do not like, invent stuff, and resort to abuse.

Mystics are all the same it seems.]

But, I think Delta has a point....

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

The best material to throw at them comes from David Hume's argument against the 'design argument' (from his 'Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion'):

http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/dnr.htm

Properly developed, Hume's arguments are unanswereable; one of the few examples there are of knock-down arguments in the entire history of Philosophy.

Unfortunately, Hume's literary style is very 18th century, and so not as clear as it might be.

But, no form of the 'design argument' survives his attack (even more modern ones based on probability theory, like Richard Swinburn's).

[Speaking for myself, I have great fun with theists by adopting the same strategy I adopt with dialecticians, showing that the word 'God' is meaningless, so their 'faith' is empty.

They are even worse at handling my attacks than DM-fans are (hard to believe, but true), and they both adopt the same tactics in reponse -- they ignore what they do not like, invent stuff, and resort to abuse.

Mystics are all the same it seems.]

But, I think Delta has a point....

[apathy maybe]

Creationists (and Intelligent Designers) are by nature irrational. It is pointless to argue rationality with them.

But here are a few tips.

1) Evolution is not the same as Darwin's theories. Evolution is accepted by everyone except crazy people. Darwin had a theory about how it worked.

2) If we find a flawed watch in the woods, that means the watch maker was flawed yes? So humans are obviously flawed, this means that the human maker is flawed.
(I actually saw a comic online that had this arguement. If anyone can find it again that would be cool.)

3) If they do not believe in evolution, why do they worry about bird flu (or for that matter any other flu if they have had a shot). Bird flu is only a problem if it evolves to become transmittable between humans.

[apathy maybe]

Creationists (and Intelligent Designers) are by nature irrational. It is pointless to argue rationality with them.

But here are a few tips.

1) Evolution is not the same as Darwin's theories. Evolution is accepted by everyone except crazy people. Darwin had a theory about how it worked.

2) If we find a flawed watch in the woods, that means the watch maker was flawed yes? So humans are obviously flawed, this means that the human maker is flawed.
(I actually saw a comic online that had this arguement. If anyone can find it again that would be cool.)

3) If they do not believe in evolution, why do they worry about bird flu (or for that matter any other flu if they have had a shot). Bird flu is only a problem if it evolves to become transmittable between humans.

[apathy maybe]

Creationists (and Intelligent Designers) are by nature irrational. It is pointless to argue rationality with them.

But here are a few tips.

1) Evolution is not the same as Darwin's theories. Evolution is accepted by everyone except crazy people. Darwin had a theory about how it worked.

2) If we find a flawed watch in the woods, that means the watch maker was flawed yes? So humans are obviously flawed, this means that the human maker is flawed.
(I actually saw a comic online that had this arguement. If anyone can find it again that would be cool.)

3) If they do not believe in evolution, why do they worry about bird flu (or for that matter any other flu if they have had a shot). Bird flu is only a problem if it evolves to become transmittable between humans.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Apathy, the flawed watch example is clearly a simplified version of one of Hume's arguments.

And creationsists will not, I fear, be too bothered by your bird flu argument (a hugely over-hyped media event -- one of little real substance) -- they do not worry about it, anyway, and that is because they have faith in 'god'.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Apathy, the flawed watch example is clearly a simplified version of one of Hume's arguments.

And creationsists will not, I fear, be too bothered by your bird flu argument (a hugely over-hyped media event -- one of little real substance) -- they do not worry about it, anyway, and that is because they have faith in 'god'.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Apathy, the flawed watch example is clearly a simplified version of one of Hume's arguments.

And creationsists will not, I fear, be too bothered by your bird flu argument (a hugely over-hyped media event -- one of little real substance) -- they do not worry about it, anyway, and that is because they have faith in 'god'.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 23 2006, 08:31 AM
Apathy, the flawed watch example is clearly a simplified version of one of Hume's arguments.

And creationsists will not, I fear, be too bothered by your bird flu argument (a hugely over-hyped media event -- one of little real substance) -- they do not worry about it, anyway, and that is because they have faith in 'god'.
But apathy's point is still valid - in order to become transmissable to humans, the bird flu organism will have to evolve*.

*The creationist may try to paint it as an example of "micro-evolution", but don't be fooled by this strawman - evolution is evolution, and if microbes can evolve immunities against antibiotics in a few short years imagine what can happen to populations of species over millions of years!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 23 2006, 08:31 AM
Apathy, the flawed watch example is clearly a simplified version of one of Hume's arguments.

And creationsists will not, I fear, be too bothered by your bird flu argument (a hugely over-hyped media event -- one of little real substance) -- they do not worry about it, anyway, and that is because they have faith in 'god'.
But apathy's point is still valid - in order to become transmissable to humans, the bird flu organism will have to evolve*.

*The creationist may try to paint it as an example of "micro-evolution", but don't be fooled by this strawman - evolution is evolution, and if microbes can evolve immunities against antibiotics in a few short years imagine what can happen to populations of species over millions of years!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 23 2006, 08:31 AM
Apathy, the flawed watch example is clearly a simplified version of one of Hume's arguments.

And creationsists will not, I fear, be too bothered by your bird flu argument (a hugely over-hyped media event -- one of little real substance) -- they do not worry about it, anyway, and that is because they have faith in 'god'.
But apathy's point is still valid - in order to become transmissable to humans, the bird flu organism will have to evolve*.

*The creationist may try to paint it as an example of "micro-evolution", but don't be fooled by this strawman - evolution is evolution, and if microbes can evolve immunities against antibiotics in a few short years imagine what can happen to populations of species over millions of years!

[chimx]

direct them to the vatican. popes have been pro-evolution for a while and have expressed that intelligent design is utter crap-o-la

[chimx]

direct them to the vatican. popes have been pro-evolution for a while and have expressed that intelligent design is utter crap-o-la

[chimx]

direct them to the vatican. popes have been pro-evolution for a while and have expressed that intelligent design is utter crap-o-la

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Noxion: That depends on what you mean by 'evolve'; creationists do not deny change.

They do not even deny speciation, they just say that the original 'kinds' of Genesis cannot be broached.

Since that word is conveniently vague, the bird flu example will be water of a chicken's back to them.

[The way they handle objections should be familiar to you, N: they respond to them rather like DM-fans have responded to your own excellent objections to dialectics.]

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Noxion: That depends on what you mean by 'evolve'; creationists do not deny change.

They do not even deny speciation, they just say that the original 'kinds' of Genesis cannot be broached.

Since that word is conveniently vague, the bird flu example will be water of a chicken's back to them.

[The way they handle objections should be familiar to you, N: they respond to them rather like DM-fans have responded to your own excellent objections to dialectics.]

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Noxion: That depends on what you mean by 'evolve'; creationists do not deny change.

They do not even deny speciation, they just say that the original 'kinds' of Genesis cannot be broached.

Since that word is conveniently vague, the bird flu example will be water of a chicken's back to them.

[The way they handle objections should be familiar to you, N: they respond to them rather like DM-fans have responded to your own excellent objections to dialectics.]

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Noxion: That depends on what you mean by 'evolve'; creationists do not deny change.

Well when I talk about evolution I mean it in the same way that evolutionary scientists use it. Any other meaning is irrelevant. If you're honest anyway.


They do not even deny speciation, they just say that the original 'kinds' of Genesis cannot be broached.

Even then they're wrong. Archeopteryx (http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC214_1.html) is an example of a transitional fossil. And they're finding more and more transitional fossils. It must really suck to be a "god of the gaps"! :lol:


Since that word is conveniently vague, the bird flu example will be water of a chicken's back to them.

I suppose I give creationists too much credit. It has been a while since I engaged one, I'm getting rusty.


[The way they handle objections should be familiar to you, N: they respond to them rather like DM-fans have responded to your own excellent objections to dialectics.]

Ah yes, the infamous Wall of Ignorance.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Noxion: That depends on what you mean by 'evolve'; creationists do not deny change.

Well when I talk about evolution I mean it in the same way that evolutionary scientists use it. Any other meaning is irrelevant. If you're honest anyway.


They do not even deny speciation, they just say that the original 'kinds' of Genesis cannot be broached.

Even then they're wrong. Archeopteryx (http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC214_1.html) is an example of a transitional fossil. And they're finding more and more transitional fossils. It must really suck to be a "god of the gaps"! :lol:


Since that word is conveniently vague, the bird flu example will be water of a chicken's back to them.

I suppose I give creationists too much credit. It has been a while since I engaged one, I'm getting rusty.


[The way they handle objections should be familiar to you, N: they respond to them rather like DM-fans have responded to your own excellent objections to dialectics.]

Ah yes, the infamous Wall of Ignorance.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Noxion: That depends on what you mean by 'evolve'; creationists do not deny change.

Well when I talk about evolution I mean it in the same way that evolutionary scientists use it. Any other meaning is irrelevant. If you're honest anyway.


They do not even deny speciation, they just say that the original 'kinds' of Genesis cannot be broached.

Even then they're wrong. Archeopteryx (http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC214_1.html) is an example of a transitional fossil. And they're finding more and more transitional fossils. It must really suck to be a "god of the gaps"! :lol:


Since that word is conveniently vague, the bird flu example will be water of a chicken's back to them.

I suppose I give creationists too much credit. It has been a while since I engaged one, I'm getting rusty.


[The way they handle objections should be familiar to you, N: they respond to them rather like DM-fans have responded to your own excellent objections to dialectics.]

Ah yes, the infamous Wall of Ignorance.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Noxion:


Well when I talk about evolution I mean it in the same way that evolutionary scientists use it. Any other meaning is irrelevant. If you're honest anyway.

I am not trying to criticise you, or defend the creationsist, but if you go into a debate with them, they know that there are 101 different defintions of evolution (and speciation), and they exploit that. So using a weak example is not too clever.

Now the example given here (about bird flu) is about change, not speciation (unless I missed something); so that it why it is an irrelevance to them.


Even then they're wrong. Archeopteryx is an example of a transitional fossil. And they're finding more and more transitional fossils. It must really suck to be a "god of the gaps"!

Well, you should know that they question the genuineness of this fossil. But I do not, and indeed it is a good example to use -- so why use the bird flu example???

That I cannot figure..... :unsure:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Noxion:


Well when I talk about evolution I mean it in the same way that evolutionary scientists use it. Any other meaning is irrelevant. If you're honest anyway.

I am not trying to criticise you, or defend the creationsist, but if you go into a debate with them, they know that there are 101 different defintions of evolution (and speciation), and they exploit that. So using a weak example is not too clever.

Now the example given here (about bird flu) is about change, not speciation (unless I missed something); so that it why it is an irrelevance to them.


Even then they're wrong. Archeopteryx is an example of a transitional fossil. And they're finding more and more transitional fossils. It must really suck to be a "god of the gaps"!

Well, you should know that they question the genuineness of this fossil. But I do not, and indeed it is a good example to use -- so why use the bird flu example???

That I cannot figure..... :unsure:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Noxion:


Well when I talk about evolution I mean it in the same way that evolutionary scientists use it. Any other meaning is irrelevant. If you're honest anyway.

I am not trying to criticise you, or defend the creationsist, but if you go into a debate with them, they know that there are 101 different defintions of evolution (and speciation), and they exploit that. So using a weak example is not too clever.

Now the example given here (about bird flu) is about change, not speciation (unless I missed something); so that it why it is an irrelevance to them.


Even then they're wrong. Archeopteryx is an example of a transitional fossil. And they're finding more and more transitional fossils. It must really suck to be a "god of the gaps"!

Well, you should know that they question the genuineness of this fossil. But I do not, and indeed it is a good example to use -- so why use the bird flu example???

That I cannot figure..... :unsure:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I am not trying to criticise you, or defend the creationsist, but if you go into a debate with them, they know that there are 101 different defintions of evolution (and speciation), and they exploit that. So using a weak example is not too clever.

Sorry, poor wording on my part. Perhaps it would have been better to say "If one is honest anyway"


Now the example given here (about bird flu) is about change, not speciation (unless I missed something); so that it why it is an irrelevance to them.

True. But it is evolution in action, regardless of what the creationists say.


Well, you should know that they question the genuineness of this fossil. But I do not, and indeed it is a good example to use -- so why use the bird flu example???

You're right, bird flu is a bad example. I should remember that most people are not as rational as we are, according to a Gallup Poll (http://creationtheory.org/Introduction/) (Admittedly taken in 2001 but I see no reason for it to have changed significantly) 45% of Americans believe we were created in 6 days :wacko:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I am not trying to criticise you, or defend the creationsist, but if you go into a debate with them, they know that there are 101 different defintions of evolution (and speciation), and they exploit that. So using a weak example is not too clever.

Sorry, poor wording on my part. Perhaps it would have been better to say "If one is honest anyway"


Now the example given here (about bird flu) is about change, not speciation (unless I missed something); so that it why it is an irrelevance to them.

True. But it is evolution in action, regardless of what the creationists say.


Well, you should know that they question the genuineness of this fossil. But I do not, and indeed it is a good example to use -- so why use the bird flu example???

You're right, bird flu is a bad example. I should remember that most people are not as rational as we are, according to a Gallup Poll (http://creationtheory.org/Introduction/) (Admittedly taken in 2001 but I see no reason for it to have changed significantly) 45% of Americans believe we were created in 6 days :wacko:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I am not trying to criticise you, or defend the creationsist, but if you go into a debate with them, they know that there are 101 different defintions of evolution (and speciation), and they exploit that. So using a weak example is not too clever.

Sorry, poor wording on my part. Perhaps it would have been better to say "If one is honest anyway"


Now the example given here (about bird flu) is about change, not speciation (unless I missed something); so that it why it is an irrelevance to them.

True. But it is evolution in action, regardless of what the creationists say.


Well, you should know that they question the genuineness of this fossil. But I do not, and indeed it is a good example to use -- so why use the bird flu example???

You're right, bird flu is a bad example. I should remember that most people are not as rational as we are, according to a Gallup Poll (http://creationtheory.org/Introduction/) (Admittedly taken in 2001 but I see no reason for it to have changed significantly) 45% of Americans believe we were created in 6 days :wacko:

[RevMARKSman]

45% of Americans believe we were created in 6 days

That means that they believe the world was created AFTER what anthropologists recognize as the Agricultural Revolution. It's scary. :unsure:

[RevMARKSman]

45% of Americans believe we were created in 6 days

That means that they believe the world was created AFTER what anthropologists recognize as the Agricultural Revolution. It's scary. :unsure:

[RevMARKSman]

45% of Americans believe we were created in 6 days

That means that they believe the world was created AFTER what anthropologists recognize as the Agricultural Revolution. It's scary. :unsure:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Noxion:


But it is evolution in action, regardless of what the creationists say.

How could I doubt it? But using it would be like hitting dialecticians with a few spelling mistakes.

MonicaT:


It's scary

Too right, but a clear expression of the depth of alientation in the USA right now.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Noxion:


But it is evolution in action, regardless of what the creationists say.

How could I doubt it? But using it would be like hitting dialecticians with a few spelling mistakes.

MonicaT:


It's scary

Too right, but a clear expression of the depth of alientation in the USA right now.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Noxion:


But it is evolution in action, regardless of what the creationists say.

How could I doubt it? But using it would be like hitting dialecticians with a few spelling mistakes.

MonicaT:


It's scary

Too right, but a clear expression of the depth of alientation in the USA right now.