Debating evolution

Ask him to name ten biologists who doubt evolution. Then ask him how many are named Steve (see, Project Steve (click)).

quote:

---

They may be scientists but they cling to their findings cause they want to refute the creationism. They want to make a name for themselves and be famous. 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.

---

Too funny. You can tell him that the vast majority of scientists couldn't give two twigs for creationism. Most working scientists are either blissfully unaware or only vaguely aware of its existence at all. The ones that get involved in the debate - mostly some flavor of biologist, but others as well - do so only because they realize that the underhanded legal maneuverings and pressure on non-scientist (elected) boards of education is a threat to legitimate science education in the US. IOW, if creationism or its gussied-up bastard progeny calling itself Intelligent Design wasn't trying to insert itself where it has no legitimate standing, there isn't a scientist in the country who would pay the least attention to it. They have more important things to do - like answering the questions of Life, the Universe, and Everything.Not. One. Single. Solitary. Scientist. has EVER made his or her name in science by confronting creationism. They make their name on the basis of their scientific studies and discoveries. Creationism-smashing is at best a sideline, and at worst a distraction.Why don't you invite your buddy to come over and play in our sandbox? We have a quite nice selection of practicing biologists, molecular biologists, geneticists, ecologists, (superb) geologists, physicists, cosmologists, and others of that ilk who would love to explain the "facts of life" to an uninformed creationist.

Somebody’s been cribbing Hovind, again. Even AiG doesn’t use some of these any more. Talk Origins has a nice collection of essays refuting most of what your friend posted. No point in reinventing the wheel. Besides, you might find that reading the responses are a good way of learning about some of the basic concepts.1. Shrinking sun2. Sahara desert3. Population4. Magnetic field5. Moon’s gravitationThat should give you enough to go on. I really hope you can convince your friend to come over here to our site. It’d be easier to refute this nonsense without going through “third party” middleman. No offense intended, it just seems an awkward way of going about it - however, we’re more than happy to help you out. Naw, you're not in over your head. You're just confronting the famous "Gish Gallop" for the first time. No worries, my friend.

Here's a link on the salt thingy: linky.Would you please ask him why he's dragging in all those non-evolutionary topics? If he's going to argue evolution is wrong and all, shouldn't he be talking biology (and its myriad subdisciplines) or ecology (and ITS subdisciplines)? And ask him to please stop cribbing from Kent Hovind's website - Hovind's junk are all PRATTs (points refuted a thousand times). They're almost too easy. Your friend needs to get some new material. Wrong, I'm afraid. Hovind alone has over 50 of 'em. The Gish Gallop (named in honor of Duane Gish, one of the true creationist masters at the game) is practically indefatiguable. And all of them are as wrong as the ones you've already presented. Good luck.

You can tell him that that particular discussion is waaaay beyond the scope of conversation. It requires an understanding of complexity theory, dissipative structures, and emergent systems. Then throw this paper, Crtuchfield JP, Gornerup O, 2004, Objects That Make Objects: The Population Dynamics of Structural Complexity, as an example. It's acceptable (or should be) to simply say, "I personally don't know - but here's an example of the kind of work being done on the subject. Maybe you can explain it to me." Or words to that effect.