What evidence is needed to change a creationist

By definition this would be evidence that would be rejected as false by the hardened creationist. Cognitive dissonance will set in and the creationist will either(1) change the subject - common
(2) accuse you of lying - less common, but happens often enough
(3) disappear from the argument (while telling themselves they won -- see NJ & Buzz on the Pattern recognition thread) - also common
(4) move the goal-posts (a variation of (1)) where they try to redefine the argument - also commonWhen it comes to actually confronting the evidence on the other side of their cognitive dissonance wall people become functionally stupid, because they are not able to fit the information into their world view. Not only that, they don't see the wall.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : lixed finkEdited by RAZD, : .

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Would you like to start a new thread on this, just so those of us that actually understand logic and reality can tear it to pieces?Go to Proposed New Topics to post new topics.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : .

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

If (big if) you assume that this dichotomy is valid, then you have what is known as Pascal's Wager, and there is this open thread to discuss it. If you want to discuss it further then you can take it there. It is an argument that assumes that a single belief is exists, which is patently false (thus the conclusion is invalid).To demonstrate the reason why this argument absolutely fails, is that to really believe the argument you must now join, participate, accept, behave as if every single religion and form of faith known on the planet, past and present, is absolutely true. So how's Hinduism working for you? Taoism? Islam? Is the ganja helping? Finished the Eddas? The Tibetan Book of the Dead? Made your sacrifices to Ra and Quetzalcoatl?Or are you going to engage in special pleading as well as begging the question?But the biggest problem with your logic, going back to your previous statement: Is that these are NOT mutually exclusive positions - BOTH can be true, as well as several thousand (6 billion?) variations on a theme ...Now, to address the topic of this thread, to "change a creationist" you need to start before evidence -- you need to teach logic first, the use of reason. How to come to valid conclusions instead of wishful thinking.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : clarityEdited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : .

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Have you ever defined what you think the "big picture" is made up from? If you want to discuss things as a "macro" level you need to start with defining what constitutes macro versus what constitutes micro.See:
MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?
Dogs will be Dogs wil be ???EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Welcome to the fray theLimmitt. There are much easier and better ways to do quotes on this forum than using

(quoted verbiage)

, such as either: [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes: or [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:

---

quotes are easy

---

most people use the shorter 'qs' form for quoting other posts and the longer 'quote' form for quoting articles to substantiate their positions (and in science threads, substantiation is expected while in faith and belief they let you get away with totally unsupported ad hoc assertions ... for a while). Well of course they do. Everyone does. You did notice that I said "people" and not "creationists" didn't you?This reaction to cognitive dissonance applies to all people without regard to belief, bias or education. The only difference is what beliefs individual people hold that are challenged by actual hard facts and evidence of objective reality. You do realize that "PRATT" means "Points Refuted a Thousand Times" and further that the requirements for refutation are to actually demonstrate with actual hard facts and evidence of objective reality ... ie those substantiation issues mentioned earlier ... that the points are wrong or misleading or logical fallacies. A typical one is: You can also refer the person to a "PRATT List" where someone else has already answered the PRATT in question, complete with refutation.This is one example:
Talk Origins, Index to Creationist Claims (see Claim CC150 for the example given above).This is another:
Answers in Genesis, Arguments we think creationists should NOT use (Note that these are PRATTs that creationists think are just too embarrassingly wrong to keep using ... such as the ape question above.)I am not aware of any lists of similar arguments made by evolutionists, and would like to increase my awareness: can you provide me some examples if not a compiled list?I have also found that there is a substantial difference in what constitutes "evidence" for an evolutionist and a creationist, and this leads me to question what you use to validate your concepts, to "ground truth" them.Do you compare them to reality or to some preconception?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : .

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Okay, let's assume for the sake of the argument that this cannot be proven (one way or the other), so we can assume that either it occurred naturally (method unknown) or the universe was created 13.7 billion years ago (method unknown), and thus the issue is not resolved by this test.Got another one?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : .

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

We know for sure that we do not know.What you are engaging in is called the logical fallacy of special pleading -- requiring more from the opposition than you are willing to provide, or alternatively requiring something from the opposition that you feel you are exempt from providing. Seeing as you cannot "know for sure" it is equally impossible for you to provide such proof. Note, "belief for sure" is not the same as "know for sure" - knowledge with such surety is necessarily based on actual evidence of objective reality. ie special pleading again. You can blithely reject all evidence of reality, but want us to concur with your belief based on a lack of evidence.You didn't answer the question (Message 68): As I said before let's step over this one, assume creation for the sake of argument, specifically that god caused what you (with the logical fallacy of argument from incredulity btw) find incredible.Done.Creation is assumed to be a fact for the sake of this argument.This creation is also assumed to match the evidence of objective reality that we do know -- ie that the universe is at least 13.7 billion years old and that the earth is at least 4.55 billion years old and that life on earth is at least 3.5 billion years old.Given this creation as a {set of facts}, then, what is your next test of reality?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : .

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

um, all of them?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : .

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Welcome to the fray Hawkins, Unfortunately for you, nature is completely uninhibited by your ignorance and arrogance.Evolution is very simple: there are two basic processes that are occurring and which can be observed in the real world around you.First we have the process of evolution -- the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation -- this process is a fact, it is observed, and it occurs in every living species.Second we have the process of diversification -- the division of parent populations into non-gene mixing daughter populations that then go on to become different species, accumulating different changes in hereditary traits in their different populations from generation to generation -- this process too is a fact, it is observed, and it occurs in the life around you.The Theory of Evolution can also be simply stated: it is the theory that these two basic processes -- evolution and diversification -- are sufficient to explain all the diversity of life as we know it, from the world around us, from history, from the natural history of fossils and geology, and from the genetic record. Finding those predicted fossils. Those finds are not fairy tales. How do you explain those finds? How do you explain finding Tiktaalik roseae?Then there is the genetic research that shows time and again that the same pattern of hereditary descent from common ancestor populations that is found in the fossil record is also found in the genetic record. And you are very very ignorant or very silly or very deluded, possibly even insane. Evolution does not depend on a single fossil to be studied in the field or in the lab, studies that are being carried out by thousands of scientists in thousands of locations around the world. You might try going to your local university and actually asking a biologist rather than make such inane comments. There is a cure for ignorance ... Kind of hard to bust reality, and lack of knowledge about the topic your are talking about is a rare way to proceed.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : clarity.Edited by RAZD, : .

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Dear Hawkins, Absolutely false. You should learn to validate your opinion before making more silly assertions. Seems you either did not read or did not understand what I said: common ancestry has been observed and validated. It is based on evidence. No, you don't need faith, you need skepticism - skepticism of all knowledge and beliefs, then you can start looking for truth, for what survives, rather than coddle pet beliefs. Stop behaving like an arrogant spoiled child and learn some facts.
There are a couple of good resources you can use, here is one designed for people who don't know squat about evolution (but are willing to learn):Evolution 101 - Understanding EvolutionThe question is: are you willing to learn?Enjoy.ps - as you are new here, some tips:type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes: or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:

---

quotes are easy

---

also check out (help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window.For other formating tips see Posting TipsYou also may want to look at the forum guidelines on debate and how to behave.Edited by RAZD, : psEdited by RAZD, : addedEdited by RAZD, : .

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Welcome to the fray, David 101.Why would you want to? Perhaps because you might be interested in knowing the truth. Such as how science actually operates: In science you start with evidence, not fantasy. You consider all the evidence and then propose a hypothesis that explains the evidence, then you test that hypothesis against further evidence. You are skeptical of the hypothesis and intentionally look for ways to prove it false. Not at all. Theory is never taken to be fact, in ANY science. It is always tested and always tentative, and that is why it is called a theory and not a fact. The way theory works is that you continually ask "if {X} is true, then what happens ... and is that true" One has to wonder if you read what you write -- you just contradicted yourself. And if you really believe this is an argument then you must -- absolutely MUST believe that every single religion known to man is true, because you don't DARE be wrong. Yet you have presented nothing that needs to be rebutted, just some poorly conceived arguments based on bad logic and full of falsehoods. Perhaps you need to stop listening to used car salesmen and look for the truth eh?Let me know when you want to discuss reality eh?Enjoy.ps -- as you are new here, some tips:type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes: or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:

---

quotes are easy

---

also check out (help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window.For other formating tips see Posting TipsEdited by RAZD, : .

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

David101 Evolution is based on fact, evidence of objective reality that is all around you, so close in fact that you touch it every day (or it touches you). A thread about to close (or that has been closed) is on this topic alone -- 300 posts that failed to provide any real comparison of evolution and religion. That's what happens when you come and make a large number of posts based on false information and poor logic. I would suggest that rather than answer all the posts with more off the cuff poorly thought out ad hoc responses, that you read everything and sit down and consider that you have been foolish. With your logical fallacies or with the truth? The real question for you is how do you determine the truth of a concept.Whether the truth surrounds you or not is irrelevant if you would rather believe used car salesmen than people that study the evidence for truth.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : .

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •