Need Help! Creationist/Evolution debate

First of all, I apologize for this being my first post. I'm a LONG-time reader of the forums, and only just registered because I'm in need of assistance.I recently (foolishly) decided to answer a devout creationist's question on a local forum, and it's started to get out of hand. I am in no way a skilled debater, and I only have a rudimentary grasp on many of the points I'm trying to make. This creationist insists that every scientist, geologist..etc are all LYING to save face.here is an excerpt from on of his replies:

quote:

---

quote:

---

I have no idea what you are trying to say there. Clarify what you were referring to?

---

​

Only that a fossil is, well, only a fossil. It proves nothing beyond the fact that it existed at a point in time. How long ago, under what conditions it fossilized, how it relates to other fossils is not evident. Scientists that read all that into them, with enraptured oohs and ahhs from the likes of yourselve, are like tea readers. It is part of their professional dogma.

​

Hey! We've found a lizard breast-bone. Hmmmm . . . birds have a similar breast bone - therefore according to my dogma (faith) in evolution, they are related and birds came from lizards. Poppycock

​

sun wrote:

quote:

---

Use some common sense. Please. True, there are "millions of fossils," But when compared to the unimaginable number of billions of organisms who have died in the last several hundred million years, it's a very small fraction.

---

​

How do you know there are "billions" of organisms? And how do you know they existed several hundred million years ago? The correct answer is - you don't. You are reciting dogma from the evos as you choose to sit on their lap as they pull the string. Remember, I was indoctrinated in evo theory until age twenty-fourish. I was a staight "A" student in biology. I even excelled somewhat. I could memorize their doctrines as well as anyone.

​

sun wrote:

quote:

---

When you say things like "the theory is a dead horse" I can't help but cringe. Thousands of extremely intelligent people have dedicated their entire lives to science and the pursuit of knowledge. How arrogant can you be to discount decades upon decade of research and state that all the scientists are lying? That's beyond ridiculous.

---

​

I'm sorry but you sound a tad bit naive. I salute your blind loyalty though. I, for one, didn't just fall off of the turnip truck. Brace yourself - yes - scientists lie . . . for a variety of reasons, Mainly ego. And many of the honest "extemely intelligent people" you site, yes, Ph D's, now challenge the status quo of evo theory because, they are honest and they have come to weigh the evidence against evolution at great cost to their careers sometimes. (another subject)

​

sun wrote:

quote:

---

Evolution has undergone a tremendous amount of testing

---

Bull-chips. How can you test something that supposedly takes eons to occur. Have you thought about that? It has however undergone a great amount of theorizing I'll grant you.

​

Sun wrote:

quote:

---

Do you honestly believe scientists are withholding evidence that supports creation?? Do you realize how huge that would be in the scientific community? Do you realize how rich and famous a scientist would become overnight if he found evidence that 'proved' creationism?

---

​

Yes, to the first question. Again I don't think you realize that biology has based its whole foundational integrity upon the "rightness" of the theory of evolution. They believe they would look like idiots and at this point they would. For suppressing academic research and thought I don't forgive them. They get what they deserve. If it is such a silly notional lark why don't they debate it and demolish it and be done with it? It would then be evident for all to behold.

​

Allow me to correct you on one point. You keep making the association with "young earth creationists" which is associated mainly with christian pastors and educators based upon the biblical record and science. Though it doesn't immediately disqualify their position any more than if they declared the sun hot and the earth round. You need to elevate the level of discussion to professional scientists who advocate an "Intelligent Design" model. It isn't just a slick play on words. You need to do your research. You are arguing against yester-years pros.

---

See? Frustrating, is it not?You can view the entire thread here:
http://rorap.net/...Evolution_Debate_Discuss__about2994.htmlI would GREATLY appreciate anyone willing to register and join the discussion. I feel overwhelmed by stupidity.Edited by SunAlsoRises, : No reason given.

Thank you everyone for your well though-out replies!They will all be very helpful. And @ coyote: Thanks for the link, I actually already have a hard copy of the "Counter-Creationist Handbook" and have Talk Origins bookmarked. But great suggestion!

I just had to update with where this conversation has been going... I've tried and tried to get him to present some sort of argument, but he keeps throwing quotes from "respected PhDs" who disagree with evolution. Then he attempts to make it look like I'm the one who won't debate!Damned if I do, damned if a don't with this guy. He's a loon.Read on:
______________________________________________________Creationist Guy:

quote:

---

Sun before we pursue he said, she said, they said we need to establish a foundation from which agreeable thought proceeds. There is no need for branches when there is no trunk. So, I'll ask you again, will you bring yourself to agree that the theory of evolution is as much, or maybe even moreso founded upon faith in as of yet unproven conjection as it is upon emperical scientific evidences. I am not stating anything that Darwinists of the highest order don't already freely admit, and I can site many more references to the effect. If you don't agree with that statement then there won't be much if any intellectual integrity to build a fruitful discussion upon. I don't wish to argue for the sake of arguing. Also we will need to set some ground rules such as producing not just long held passionate beliefs but their notated research and sources. Precedence may work in jurisprudence it has no recourse in science.

---

see? He's saying there's no point in even debating unless I admit he's right before we even begin!______________________________________________________SunAlsoRises:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Creationist Guy
So, I'll ask you again, will you bring yourself to agree that the theory of evolution is as much, or maybe even moreso founded upon faith in as of yet unproven conjection as it is upon emperical scientific evidences.

---

​

Science is based on empirical evidence. Evolution is based on observations and a great amount of evidence. When evidence is found to contradict previous conclusions, these conclusions are abandoned and new predictions based on the new evidence are made. This is a 'seeing-is-believing' method, which is the direct opposite of "faith."

​

So no, the theory of evolution is not founded upon faith by any means.

​

quote:

---

Creationist Guy
I am not stating anything that Darwinists of the highest order don't already freely admit, and I can site many more references to the effect.

---

​

First of all, if you're going to moan and complain about people associating ID with creationism(something I still insist is correct) then turn around and refer to scientists as 'Darwinists,' a term coined by creationists without basis and not used by anyone in the scientific community, you sir are a hypocrite.

​

Second, No matter how many scientists you can cite voicing doubts about the integrity of the theory, it means absolutely nothing. "The printed word is not a weighty authority." In science, the ultimate authority is the evidence itself. Many scientists do doubt some aspects of evolution, especially recent hypothesis about it. This is because all good scientists are skeptical, about evolution and everything else. Scientists must remain open to the possibility, however remote, that evidence will someday arise that raises serious questions about current hypothesis. This is the scientific method. Creationists seize every instance of healthy skepticism they find to imply that evolution as a whole is highly questionable. They fail to realize that the fact that evolution has withstood many years of such healthy skepticism actually strengthens the theory.

​

quote:

---

Creationist Guy
If you don't agree with that statement then there won't be much if any intellectual integrity to build a fruitful discussion upon. I don't wish to argue for the sake of arguing.

---

​

Right back at you. If you plan on continuing to insist that all scientists are liars, and that every bit of evidence that would be used in an intellectual debate is falsified or biased, then let me know now. I don't want to waste my time with someone who believes in that type of conspiracy theory anymore then I want to spend weeks debating someone who steadfastly believes the moon-landing was faked. It's a waste of time, and noone likes banging their head against a brick wall.

​

I'm willing to shift 180 degrees on this subject, just as any scientist would be as well, if evidence can be shown to point in a different direction. You claim to know of this evidence, and I'm interested to see it. But I'm not here to "Yuh-huh! Nuh-uh! Yuh-huh! Nuh-uh! Yuh-huh! Nuh-uh! Yuh-huh! Nuh-uh! Yuh-huh! Nuh-uh!" endlessly over whether scientists are liars. So if you want to have a discussion, you must be just as willing to admit you are wrong as I am should the evidence show it.

​

quote:

---

Creationist Guy:
Also we will need to set some ground rules such as producing not just long held passionate beliefs but their notated research and sources. Precedence may work in jurisprudence it has no recourse in science.

---

​

I agree. Evidence is science's best friend. Long-held passionate beliefs should be left to religion.

​

I would also like to add a condition, in this discussion, let's take ONE topic at a time. One-liner after one-liner isn't accomplishing anything (I'm just as guilty as you) and every miniscule subject we've discussed has enough material related to it to fill entire books, it should be given space to be properly argued.

---

______________________________________________________

quote:

---

Creationist Guy:

​

sunalsorises wrote:

quote:

---

So no, the theory of evolution is not founded upon faith by any means

---

​

That's funny in the introduction to a 1971 edition of The Origin of the Species by noted Brittish biologist L. Harrison Matthews: He wrote.

quote:

---

"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory - is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither up to the present, has been able to prove."

---

​

How do you reconcile your lack of scientific credentials to rival such a statement from your own 'camp' with credentials?

​

Sun wrote:

quote:

---

Second, No matter how many scientists you can cite voicing doubts about the integrity of the theory, it means absolutely nothing.

---

​

No? this is just one obscure organization's scientific 'Dissent from Darwinism's' list. The signers are from around the world. And it grows daily. It does mean something.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php

​

Sun wrote:

quote:

---

If you plan on continuing to insist that all scientists are liars

---

​

What planet do you live on? I never said that.

​

Sun wrote:

quote:

---

Evolution is based on observations and a great amount of evidence

---

​

Malarky - produce it. Do not produce reams of extrapolated 'theory'. There is fantastic stories aplenty of what they believe happened but empirical evidences are thin if non-existent. You stated " In science, the ultimate authority is the evidence itself. " I would add to that the lack there of also. This is the crisis of evolution's theory.

Sun wrote:

quote:

---

First of all, if you're going to moan and complain about people associating ID with creationism(something I still insist is correct)

---

​

Francis Collins, Junk DNA, God, and Evolution | Discovery Institute They are totally different in their methodology. To say an apple and an orange are the same because they are both fruits would not be far from your logic.

Sun wrote:

quote:

---

let's take ONE topic at a time

---

​

Finally, I agree. Let's start again with your disingenuous proclamation "the theory of evolution is not founded upon faith by any means. " You will, first and foremost, have to be intellectually honest in conferring the admitions of your own Darwinist apologists no matter how unsettling it may be.

---

______________________________________________________SunAlsoRises:

quote:

---

So I suppose this means you don't have anything of substance to debate, since you find it impossible to post anything other than opinion and quotes from "discovery."

​

Call me when you want to talk science, chief.

---

______________________________________________________Creationist Guy

quote:

---

That's it, run and take refuge from the facts. And for the record, the quotes were not from "discovery" if that has any bearing. The facts are the facts no matter who publishes them. That should be a simple enough concept even for . . . a "descendent of an ape". HaHaHaHa - I guess if "unapproved" sources published 2+2=4 then in your twisted logic it would be a totally erroneous unacceptable mathematical statement.
I think those who have tuned in have heard enough to know your defense that evolution is in no way in doubt among the scientific community, and that it doesn't involve a leap and committment of faith, is dissingenous at best and at its worst, deliberate obfuscation. Maybe we will live to discuss the facts another time. Although, it won't be much longer before this discussion will be moot as ID enters the class rooms and stimulates vibrant scientific discussions as to the exquisite mind behind the design theory of creation and how we can study, in part, the mind of the grand "Designer". Awesome. The 'how' and 'when' we may never know, but it doesn't mean we have to stop trying. Later

---

Are creationists always this impossible!? Seriously! How can he not hear his own arguments?

Ok guys. Thanks for all the tips so far, here's the last reply I received in the thread:Creationist Guy

quote:

---

I believe I gave you an easy one in the previous post. I specified the evidence for the evolution of bacterium. Simple enough since evolution is a "fact" backed by loads of emperical evidences I'm sure. Not theorectical likelihoods. If you want me to go into design theory it will get involved. I was trying to make it easy for you since you are probably gushing with emperically undisputed evidence. Here I am, my hands are down, give it your best shot. Bacteria, "simple" bacteria. That specific enough? We won't even ask for your evidence for how inorganic matter suddenly springs to living organism. I'm sorry, is there an inbetween stage? If there was I'm sure you've got the evidence to back that up too. That would be much to trivial I'm sure so I won't ask.

---

_________________________________________________________Ok, so I'm doing a little research for my reply which I'll type up later tonight, before I do, does anyone who knows more than I want to mention anything I should include in my reply?