Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Debating evolution
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 16 of 91 (310618)
05-09-2006 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by SR71
05-09-2006 6:29 PM


quote:
They may be scientists but they cling to their findings cause they want to refute the creationism.
Most scientists don't about Creationism, if at all.
quote:
They want to make a name for themselves and be famous.
Mostly, they want to be productive, do meaningful work that they care about and get tenure somewhere.
quote:
Some, a verry small few, actualy look to find answers. Those are the ones that end up realizing after comparing the facts that evolution is false.
Like who, exactly? And, how many of these scientists also "just happen" to be fundamentalist Christians before they "realize" the ToE is false?
IOW, if a scientist rejects the ToE is is nearly always on religious, not scientific, grounds.
quote:
Anyone have a question I can ask as a super-stumper for him?
I'd begin by asking to explain what he understands basic concepts of Evolutionary Biology to be.
Most Creationists can't, and then you can ask him why he feels OK about rejecting and criticizing something he doesn't even begin to understand.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by SR71, posted 05-09-2006 6:29 PM SR71 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 17 of 91 (310620)
05-09-2006 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by SR71
05-09-2006 6:29 PM


Ask for a date ... correlation
Anyone have a question I can ask as a super-stumper for him?
Ask him to explain not the age dating problems, but why there is such good correlations between all methods of dating.
See the {Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part III} thread for some background.
Another good source is the {Correlation Among Various Radiometric Ages} thread.
Another is Radiometric Dating, A Christian Perspective, by Dr. Roger C. Wiens
The correlations of age with the annual phenomena (tree rings, lake varves, arctic snowfall) and radiometric dating techniques show that the earth is old old old.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by SR71, posted 05-09-2006 6:29 PM SR71 has not replied

  
SR71
Member (Idle past 6215 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 05-07-2006


Message 18 of 91 (310632)
05-09-2006 11:02 PM


Great helps! I threw in some of this information. I don't know what it is about him, but he really loves to take little bitty things, completely irrelevant... throw them into the debate to get me off track. Then we have pages of discussion that has NOTHING to do with evolution, but more with the percent of scientists that are Theistic.
I am using this as a learning experience.
Thanks again for your help...

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by kuresu, posted 05-09-2006 11:20 PM SR71 has not replied
 Message 22 by NosyNed, posted 05-10-2006 12:00 AM SR71 has not replied
 Message 23 by PaulK, posted 05-10-2006 3:28 AM SR71 has not replied
 Message 24 by RAZD, posted 05-10-2006 7:14 AM SR71 has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2512 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 19 of 91 (310637)
05-09-2006 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by SR71
05-09-2006 11:02 PM


i know the feeling. I'm debating with a friend of mine (who happens to be a math wiz and a quite rational person except for evolution), and everytime I brought up another irrefutable point he changed directions or refused to listen to the argument being presented. Then I found out the true kicker.
It turns out his scientific reasons for rejecting ToE were just a front for his moral rejection--"if we're just animals, what right do we have to have morals. And we have morals". He has yet to respond to the Talk Origins list of speciation or look for any evidence himself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by SR71, posted 05-09-2006 11:02 PM SR71 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-09-2006 11:28 PM kuresu has replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 20 of 91 (310641)
05-09-2006 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by kuresu
05-09-2006 11:20 PM


tell him this.
animals have morals, too.
the morals we have are developed to ensure our own survival.
we don't think twice about pesticides on our crops because they let us eat. even though they kill live. lots of life. we don't think twice about killing animals for food. we don't think twice about killing things that threaten us. we spare the things we see as needing assistance. because they are not a threat. that alone brings our compassion.
ask your friend to find you statistics on how many pastors have been unfaithful to their wives or have been divorced. our sexual mores mean nothing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by kuresu, posted 05-09-2006 11:20 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by kuresu, posted 05-09-2006 11:53 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2512 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 21 of 91 (310645)
05-09-2006 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by macaroniandcheese
05-09-2006 11:28 PM


yeah, he pretty much refuses to look at the evidence presented to him. I might mention that he is also fundamentalist and pentacostal (though what bearing that has I don't know--i just know they pray a lot)
If he admits that animals have morals he is still in a conundrum--how are we special then? So he'll refuse that point. I garuntee it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-09-2006 11:28 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-10-2006 8:21 AM kuresu has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 22 of 91 (310646)
05-10-2006 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by SR71
05-09-2006 11:02 PM


An excellent exercise
I don't know what it is about him, but he really loves to take little bitty things, completely irrelevant... throw them into the debate to get me off track. Then we have pages of discussion that has NOTHING to do with evolution, but more with the percent of scientists that are Theistic.
You are not likely to convince him. However, take the whole thing as an excellent (if very, very challenging) exercise in holding on to the actual topic and keeping focussed. Do not (hard as it is) let yourself be dragged off topic.
For example: the moral issue. You may suggest that is a philosophical (or very difficult question in some other area) and that it would be very interesting to come back to it. However, that has nothing to do with the facts of geology, physics, chemistry and biology. You might suggest he stick to those things first and then, if needed come back to the philosophical implications.
If he is really hopeless then you will find that he will NOT stick it out. The reason is either that he isn't capable of handling the intellectual challenge or he is but can see, vaguely, where it is all heading and doesn't want to go there. If he follows you carefully and you stick to the topic he ends up having to undergo a gut-wrenching change in world view (but you should note strongly NOT a loss of faith) or worse? arrive at a conclusion that is god deceives in some infathomable way.
Others here who have been through it all might be able to give you more insight.
Meanwhile, use if as a mental exercise for yourself. How well can you resist the red herrings?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by SR71, posted 05-09-2006 11:02 PM SR71 has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 23 of 91 (310660)
05-10-2006 3:28 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by SR71
05-09-2006 11:02 PM


Standard creationist behaviour...
quote:
I don't know what it is about him, but he really loves to take little bitty things, completely irrelevant... throw them into the debate to get me off track. Then we have pages of discussion that has NOTHING to do with evolution, but more with the percent of scientists that are Theistic.
This is absolutely normal. Creationists are not interested in rational examination of the evidence. What they want to do is to defend their preconcieved ideas and they will put up any objection - no matter how ill-conisdered it might be - rather than accept that they are wrong on any point that might be important to them..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by SR71, posted 05-09-2006 11:02 PM SR71 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 24 of 91 (310676)
05-10-2006 7:14 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by SR71
05-09-2006 11:02 PM


I don't know what it is about him, but he really loves to take little bitty things, completely irrelevant... throw them into the debate to get me off track.
They're not irrelevant to him. I used to think the same about these things, but what he is really arguing is that his religious view is right and {whatever other} is wrong.
As noted you need to keep him on a single topic at a time -- let him pick one if he agrees to stay to it.
Also don't let him get away with just making assertions -- you need the facts. Anyone can make assertions.
And watch out for the "Gish Gallop" ...
This message has been edited by RAZD, 05*10*2006 07:15 AM

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by SR71, posted 05-09-2006 11:02 PM SR71 has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 25 of 91 (310687)
05-10-2006 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by kuresu
05-09-2006 11:53 PM


you should invite him on. we'll have lots of fun.
there's nothing wrong with being a christian. as long as you're sane about it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by kuresu, posted 05-09-2006 11:53 PM kuresu has not replied

  
SR71
Member (Idle past 6215 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 05-07-2006


Message 26 of 91 (310708)
05-10-2006 9:54 AM


I need to be able to tell him how we evolved from a single-celled organism.
quote:
My arguement on the single celled organism was on topic and deserved an explanation. You need to explain to me how materials formed together in the perfect shape with perfect materials, and to just start moving as one as a living object.
My argeument on how can a single celled organism evolve into multiple cellular orginisms which have a completely different make up then the original cell. If this is even possible that would not be a gradual process but a quick jump concidering you are doubling the size of the object.
What I've said is that they didn't just evolve into the perfect animal... and in fact, the original creatures are not around because they were imperfect.

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by nator, posted 05-10-2006 5:46 PM SR71 has not replied
 Message 29 by crashfrog, posted 05-10-2006 6:10 PM SR71 has not replied
 Message 30 by RAZD, posted 05-10-2006 7:02 PM SR71 has not replied

  
Funkaloyd
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 91 (310735)
05-10-2006 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by SR71
05-09-2006 6:07 PM


Plan of attack
As an overall strategy, try asking him how Noah managed to fit 1,000,000+ species and food for them all into a small boat. The standard fundamentalist response is that only a few animals went on the Ark, and those then evolved over several thousand years into the many species around the world today.
If he uses that response, then he has pretty much accepted mutation and natural selection - the core of the Theory of Evolution. The debate then is not whether evolution is possible, but whether it has caused massive changes over just a few thousand years, or billions of years. He's already admitted that the former scenario is ridiculous.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by SR71, posted 05-09-2006 6:07 PM SR71 has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 28 of 91 (310814)
05-10-2006 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by SR71
05-10-2006 9:54 AM


quote:
I need to be able to tell him how we evolved from a single-celled organism.
Tell him that Evolutionary Cell Biology is not something that can be grasped in a couple of minutes. Many people spend their entire working lives studying cellular evolution.
If he really wants to understand, he's going to have to put in some real effort to learn and understand some actual science.
I still think you should press him to explain to you what his understanding of the basic principles of the ToE are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by SR71, posted 05-10-2006 9:54 AM SR71 has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 29 of 91 (310823)
05-10-2006 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by SR71
05-10-2006 9:54 AM


There's only two fundamentally different types of cells, and examples of single-celled organisms can be found in both types.
Prokaryotes have cells with no membrane-bound organelles. Basically, all the chemical metabolism of the cell happens out in the cytoplasm. All the genetic stuff, all the digestion, all the respiration, all that stuff happens all mixed up inside the cell, or along the cell membrane. These cells, however, can use proteins to form closed microcompartments to seperate a region inside themselves from the chemical environment of the cytoplasm.
Eukaryotes have membrane-bound organelles, like the nucleus, or Golgi bodies, or endoplasmic reticulum, that have specified functions. The mircocompartments of prokaryotic cells are a kind of evolutionary precursor to these structures. Eukaryotic cells also include various endosymbiotes like mitochondria and cholorplasts that handle various metabolic functions in exchange for shelter within the cell. These endosymbiotes have long since lost the ability to do anything but function metabolically but they still possess their own DNA, including vestigal sequences for the functions they no longer need to do.
The transition to multicellularity from a unicellular eukaryote is almost trivial, considering that a unicellular eukaryote is really a composite of several organisms already - itself, and the endosymbiotic mitochondria or cholorplasts. In the natural world we see a continuous range of organisms from basic unicellular organisms like the paramecium, to colonies of identical cells working together, even to organisms like sponges that are basically colonies of three or four different types of clonal cells.
Of course, that's not much different what a multi-cellular organism like you or I are - a colony of thousands of different types of cells, all clones of each other, working together but specialized for different functions, including reproduction.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by SR71, posted 05-10-2006 9:54 AM SR71 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 30 of 91 (310847)
05-10-2006 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by SR71
05-10-2006 9:54 AM


I need to be able to tell him how we evolved from a single-celled organism.
This has been observed:
King Lab - UC Berkeley
For the experiments reported here, steady-state unicellular C. vulgaris continuous cultures were inoculated with the predator Ochromonas vallescia, a phagotrophic Flagellated protist (`Flagellate'). Within less than 100 generations of the prey, a multicellular Chlorella growth form became dominant in the culture (subsequently repeated in other cultures). The prey Chlorella first formed globose clusters of tens to hundreds of cells. After about 10-20 generations in the presence of the phagotroph, eight-celled colonies predominated. These colonies retained the eight-celled form indefinitely in continuous culture and when plated onto agar. These self-replicating, stable colonies were virtually immune to predation by the Flagellate, but small enough that each Chlorella cell was exposed directly to the nutrient medium.
Ask him how, if this has been observed today, it could not have happened in the past - is there some mechanism that would prevent similar behavior in other single cell organisms?
{abe}Ask him if colony species like corals are multicellular or single cell animals -- is there a benefit to being in a group rather than being individuals?{/abe}
quote:
... in the perfect shape with perfect materials,...
What I've said is that they didn't just evolve into the perfect animal...
Have him define "perfect" in this usage and then demonstrate that any organism has ever fit his definition.
The problem he will have is that "perfect" is a value judgement, and all that evolution operates on is {survival of the fittest at the moment}, it doesn't make value judgements.
This message has been edited by RAZD, 05*10*2006 07:05 PM

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by SR71, posted 05-10-2006 9:54 AM SR71 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024