|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Debating evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Most scientists don't about Creationism, if at all.
quote: Mostly, they want to be productive, do meaningful work that they care about and get tenure somewhere.
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
SR71 Member (Idle past 6245 days) Posts: 38 Joined: |
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...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2542 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3956 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2542 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: 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..
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3956 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
SR71 Member (Idle past 6245 days) Posts: 38 Joined: |
I need to be able to tell him how we evolved from a single-celled organism.
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Funkaloyd Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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: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 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024