Debate with a creationist help

[rescue341]

Hey all

 

So I was in one of my classes for my electrical engineering degree and I was talking with another student about creationism in the classroom. He had another veiw on it then me but we had a good discussion about why we thought different. During this the professor burst into the conversation and says he knows evolution is wrong because god tells him it is. In heingsight I dont think I should have let the conversation shift from one one education to one of religion but unfortunately I did and I dont think I did a very good job of defending science. The majority of the class made sure to let me know afterwards they were no monkeys and repeatedly offered me a banana.(not the best day of my college career) I attached the link to the last few mins of the debate. I hadn't thought to record it until several mins in. I was hoping some of yall may listen to it and give me some advice on how I could have done better. I don't know if it's directly related to our new president or not but it seems i'm ending up in positions tring to defend science more lately. Just last week I had a student argue with mw stating global warming was a lie of the government after they peer-reviewed my english paper on climate change.

 

Thank you

 

 

[Raider5678]

Hey all

 

So I was in one of my classes for my electrical engineering degree and I was talking with another student about creationism in the classroom. He had another veiw on it then me but we had a good discussion about why we thought different. During this the professor burst into the conversation and says he knows evolution is wrong because god tells him it is. In heingsight I dont think I should have let the conversation shift from one one education to one of religion but unfortunately I did and I dont think I did a very good job of defending science. The majority of the class made sure to let me know afterwards they were no monkeys and repeatedly offered me a banana.(not the best day of my college career) I attached the link to the last few mins of the debate. I hadn't thought to record it until several mins in. I was hoping some of yall may listen to it and give me some advice on how I could have done better. I don't know if it's directly related to our new president or not but it seems i'm ending up in positions tring to defend science more lately. Just last week I had a student argue with mw stating global warming was a lie of the government after they peer-reviewed my english paper on climate change.

 

Thank you

 

 

 

"Science flies you to the moon, Religion flies you into buildings"

I disagree there.

I happen to love space and rockets and flying.

And I'm religious.

 

 

And, considering Trump got elected, I'm sure a lot of Americans openly disagreed with climate change to begin with(Guess we'll have to fix it on our own) I don't think they just suddenly appeared because of the president. It is possible that they have become more open about it.

And, trying to defend evolution against religion is hard. From our view point, we have arguments that simply can't be argued against because you can't disprove God. And I admit, some of it is circular logic and runs into itself. I honestly don't see why evolution can't be real, but I don't believe we evolved from apes. I believe more that we were created, but things can still evolve.

And, honestly, I can't really help you argue against your professor. Just know that he's older and more experienced, and considering he's in college probably has a lot of practice arguing about evolution. It's an argument I don't really see you winning, regardless if you're right or not.

 

Just remember everyone has a right to their opinion as long as it isn't directly hurting others. Him not believing in evolution and other students agreeing with him is their choice. It's also your choice to believe in it. Just try to respect that, and avoid arguing about it because the argument won't change either of your minds. Religion keeps them rooted in their position, and your belief in science gives you a base and reason to keep rooted in your belief.

 

But should you decide to argue, good for you. At least you're standing up for what you believe. Good luck mate.

[DrP]

QUOTE Raider.." Trying to defend evolution against religion is hard"..

 

No it isn't really. I used to have the opposite problem as a Christian. In fact it's impossible to counter it when you look at the kind of evidence the laryngeal nerve in a giraffes neck provides.

 

 

Regarding the kind of taunting with bananas about monkies - Maybe the response should be to educate them that we did not evolves from monkeys, but we share a common ancestor. If that still doesn't work you could just try the same line of argument they are using and ridicule them back about their backward beliefs and superstitions (although I doubt that will make you popular, lol).

[Memammal]

Uhmm Raider5678, you need to learn to differentiate between beliefs and scientific knowledge. Like here:

I honestly don't see why evolution can't be real, but I don't believe we evolved from apes. I believe more that we were created, but things can still evolve.

For the record, the origin of our species is established scientific knowledge with loads of evidence to support it.

Edited March 30, 2017 by Memammal

[Raider5678]

Uhmm Raider5678, you need to learn to differentiate between beliefs and scientific knowledge. Like here:

For the record, the origin of our species is established scientific knowledge with loads of evidence to support it.

Well when you can show me the millions and billions of fossils slowly evolving into human form, I'll believe you.

As for taking 3 fossils, and saying their jawbones look the same so they must have evolved from each other is in my opinion(note I said opinion. As I said, just let it go. Neither of us arguing is going to do anything. So don't hijack the thread.) less believable then saying they are 3 different species and God made them.

We believe what we want to believe. I choose to believe in God you choose to believe otherwise.

I don't want to argue about that, and arguing about that would be getting off topic.

So lets agree to disagree and move on before we start a discussion.

QUOTE Raider.." Trying to defend evolution against religion is hard"..

 

No it isn't really. I used to have the opposite problem as a Christian. In fact it's impossible to counter it when you look at the kind of evidence the laryngeal nerve in a giraffes neck provides.

I was more referring to them being hard headed stubborn cave men rather then it being hard to argue scientifically.

 

"This research provided from this completely reliable, and when I say reliable I mean the most reliable, we have the best reliable sources out there, researched by the best scientists, and we have the best scientists, absolutely THE BEST, say that evolution is impossible. And they are right. And I mean the rightest, there is no one more right then them. Except me of course."

Try arguing against that.

Anything you say is just countered with.

"No, you see, that's where your wrong because that's where it no longer lines up with exactly what I want to believe."

 

Do you see what I meant now?

 

 

And seriously? -3 rep points?

For what? What did I do wrong there?

Edited March 30, 2017 by Raider5678

[Memammal]

Seeing that you are a Christian, why don't you educate yourself by reading the BioLogos website. Re the origins of our species, you can start here:

 

Evolution Basics: From Primate to Human, Part 1

 

There is no need to avoid the truth.

[DrP]

The truth will set you free. ;-)

[Raider5678]

Seeing that you are a Christian, why don't you educate yourself

Are you disagreeing with me saying that people have different opinions because I'm a christian or are you disagreeing with what I said that it's going to be hard to argue with a professor about evolution if he has a lot of the kids supporting him on it?

What exactly are you disagreeing on me with? I did not say evolution was wrong. At all. I said I didn't believe in it. Maybe I'm wrong. But then all that means is I'm wrong and you're right. I was trying to give the OP the advice that arguing with a creationist, and a professor at that, is going to be difficult because it won't change their view even an inch.

I am not preaching against evolution.

I'm just saying debating with creationists can be difficult.

 

 

And does the OP have anything to say?

Edited March 30, 2017 by Raider5678

[Memammal]

One should never have to argue about facts.

[DrKrettin]

 

And seriously? -3 rep points?

For what? What did I do wrong there?

 

One of those was from me. This is a science forum, but your post showed such a lack of logic and was such a poor response to the OP that I didn't think it belonged here. You seem unable to separate the issue of existence of a god with the issue of creationism. Not all Christians are insane enough to think the world was created just a few thousand years ago. And if a professor teaching engineering thinks that is the case, in direct conflict with masses of scientific evidence to the contrary, then there is something wrong.

[iNow]

I did not say evolution was wrong. At all. I said I didn't believe in it. Maybe I'm wrong.

You are, or at the very least you're ignoring and dismissing reality in favor of protecting your beliefs.

 

We believe what we want to believe. <snip> I don't want to argue about that

See above.

[Raider5678]

 

One of those was from me. This is a science forum, but your post showed such a lack of logic and was such a poor response to the OP that I didn't think it belonged here. You seem unable to separate the issue of existence of a god with the issue of creationism. Not all Christians are insane enough to think the world was created just a few thousand years ago. And if a professor teaching engineering thinks that is the case, in direct conflict with masses of scientific evidence to the contrary, then there is something wrong.

There is something wrong with it. No disagreement there.

But what I was saying is that I doubt the OP can change the professors mind. Do you? And on top of that, what is the point of arguing a pointless argument if you know it will go nowhere? Besides getting on the bad side of the professor, the person who is crazy enough to deny evolution and controls your grade, what will come of it?

That's what my post is arguing about. Not about god. Not about creationism. Not about evolution.

You gave me a negative rep because of a side point I had said. Not because of the overall point of it.

I honestly think it's logical to not argue a pointless argument with someone in a position of power.

Now arguing it on science forums is different, because there aren't actually any negative consequences of it.

 

So I ask you.

Do you think he's going to get a lot of good done by arguing with the professor?

If you say "yes" then fine. I guess I deserved it. But if you say "no" then that was unfair.

 

And what exactly did I lack in logic? Where did my logic go wrong?

You are, or at the very least you're ignoring and dismissing reality in favor of protecting your beliefs.

 

See above.

Fine. Sure. I'm ignoring reality.

But it doesn't stop me from going about my day, and it's not the point of this discussion.

Please stop telling me I'm wrong.

Edited March 30, 2017 by Raider5678

[iNow]

If you don't even try, you KNOW you will not convince anyone. If you do try, even if the potential to change minds is low, that potential still exists.

.

 

Please stop telling me I'm wrong.

Stop making comments that ignore reality and this will be much simpler for me to achieve.

[Raider5678]

Stop making comments that ignore reality and this will be much simpler for me to achieve.

This must be hard for you to understand.

Let's NOT hijack the thread to tell me how wrong I am and instead respond to the OP.

 

Isn't that the rules?

[Argent]

And on top of that, what is the point of arguing a pointless argument if you know it will go nowhere? Besides getting on the bad side of the professor, the person who is crazy enough to deny evolution and controls your grade, what will come of it?

The aim is not to convince the professor, but to cast doubt in the minds of those inclined to believe him.

 

There is also the rather important matter of integrity. If we stand to one side and allow the spread of nonsense, some of it dangerous, we are as guilty as the perpetrators.

 

Edit: I listened to about forty five seconds of the recording and had to pause in order to resist vomiting. Rescue341, you have my sincere sympathy. Dealing with chronic stupidity is an arduous and often unrewarded task. When I can get a better audio running I'll seek to offer you some suggestions for more powerful or ordered arguments.

Edited March 30, 2017 by Argent

[dimreepr]

Hey all

 

So I was in one of my classes for my electrical engineering degree and I was talking with another student about creationism in the classroom. He had another veiw on it then me but we had a good discussion about why we thought different. During this the professor burst into the conversation and says he knows evolution is wrong because god tells him it is. In heingsight I dont think I should have let the conversation shift from one one education to one of religion but unfortunately I did and I dont think I did a very good job of defending science. The majority of the class made sure to let me know afterwards they were no monkeys and repeatedly offered me a banana.(not the best day of my college career) I attached the link to the last few mins of the debate. I hadn't thought to record it until several mins in. I was hoping some of yall may listen to it and give me some advice on how I could have done better. I don't know if it's directly related to our new president or not but it seems i'm ending up in positions tring to defend science more lately. Just last week I had a student argue with mw stating global warming was a lie of the government after they peer-reviewed my english paper on climate change.

 

Thank you

 

 

Ask him the following:

 

If evolution stopped then how does he explain the fruit fly, used in scientific research, that demonstrates evolution in action?

 

http://www.genescient.com/research/why-fruit-flies/

 

 

Or why overuse of antibiotics cause such things as MRSA?

This must be hard for you to understand.

Let's NOT hijack the thread to tell me how wrong I am and instead respond to the OP.

 

Isn't that the rules?

 

Don't forget, the OP is asking for support of his argument not his professor.

Edited March 30, 2017 by dimreepr

[iNow]

Also, ask the professor if he's willing to take last years flu vaccine instead of this years. If not, why not?

(ignoring the obvious evasion of "oh, I don't get flu shots" which ignores the central point)

[mp][/mp]

This must be hard for you to understand.

No, not at all. You're hardly the first and (to my chagrin) won't be the last.

[Raider5678]

Also, ask the professor if he's willing to take last years flu vaccine instead of this years. If not, why not?

(ignoring the obvious evasion of "oh, I don't get flu shots" which ignores the central point)

That's actually a really good idea.

[CharonY]

One could ask the inverse question. How is it possible that a gene pool stops changing. What parameters would need to exist to have evolution not occurring? And are these conditions satisfied for any given population.

[Memammal]

@rescue341

 

The site that I referenced earlier is a very good source of basic information pertaining to evolution, plus it is Christian-friendly. The site is biologos.org. Have a look at their series of articles entitled Evolution Basics. Another excellent (secular) site is TalkOrigins. They deal with all the evidence for evolution, most, if not all the anti-evolution claims as well as the origin of our universe & planet.

 

Having recently debated with proponents of ID and even geocentrism, I know that it can get pretty tricky. Stick to the facts and admit where there are still gaps in our knowledge. Evolution deniers are quick to jump to the origin of life/abiogenesis in order to discredit evolution. Remember that the origin of life has nothing to do with common descent/evolution. In general (and w.r.t. abiogenesis) it is easier to admit that we still don't know everything, but that there are some pretty promising idea's that are being researched (even BioLogos takes this route). The status of evolution as a well-established scientific theory is an important tool. The scientific method provides for anyone who has sufficient evidence to disprove or to question a scientific theory to do so and to provide a better explanation for the natural phenomena associated with said theory. So far evolution has stood the test of time, in fact it has only gone from strength to strength.

Oh and this is highly recommended: Your Inner Fish, A Chapter-By-Chapter Review (or the book/TV series).

[DrKrettin]

 

Having recently debated with proponents of ID and even geocentrism, I know that it can get pretty tricky. Stick to the facts and admit where there are still gaps in our knowledge. Evolution deniers are quick to jump to the origin of life/abiogenesis in order to discredit evolution. Remember that the origin of life has nothing to do with common descent/evolution. In general (and w.r.t. abiogenesis) it is easier to admit that we still don't know everything, but that there are some pretty promising idea's that are being researched (even BioLogos takes this route). The status of evolution as a well-established scientific theory is an important tool. The scientific method provides for anyone who has sufficient evidence to disprove or to question a scientific theory to do so and to provide a better explanation for the natural phenomena associated with said theory. So far evolution has stood the test of time, in fact it has only gone from strength to strength.

 

 

Excellent advice. Perhaps I can add that what creationists do is to invent the term "evolutionist" in order to give the impression that they are rival belief systems and by inference can have equal validity. This is either deceitful or ignorant - there is no such thing an as evolutionist - people don't "believe in" evolution, it is a scientific theory which does a very good job of explaining what we observe and what we know of the past. I mean, just how can a professor of mechanics deny the validity of dating methods in archaeology? How can creationists deny the evidence for the age of the earth? Creationists just deny a mountain of solid scientific evidence and refer to the bible. How stupid it that?

[Bender]

Just remember everyone has a right to their opinion as long as it isn't directly hurting others. Him not believing in evolution and other students agreeing with him is their choice. It's also your choice to believe in it. Just try to respect that, and avoid arguing about it because the argument won't change either of your minds. Religion keeps them rooted in their position, and your belief in science gives you a base and reason to keep rooted in your belief.

It is not a matter of believing or not believing; it is not a matter of opinion; it is a matter of accepting scientific fact or rejecting it. So for starters: never say to a creationist that you "believe in evolution".

 

You can find a long list with answers to all the claims made by creationists here.

[Itoero]

When debating a young earth creationist you might want to point to the biochemical similarity between animals and plants. (and humans)

Plants use for example catalase to deal with H2O2...so do animals and humans...you can easily experimentally show this.

Mix human blood with H2O2 and mix cutup plants with H2O2....you will then see the same reaction.

It shows that we are related to plants.

[Phi for All]

One could ask the inverse question. How is it possible that a gene pool stops changing. What parameters would need to exist to have evolution not occurring? And are these conditions satisfied for any given population.

 

I'm intrigued by this approach. At the very least it has the benefit that it isn't covered by a lot of willfully ignorant, oft-refuted, copy/paste creationist arguments.

 

@Raider5678, if you continue in science, you'll learn that theories like evolution are so heavily evidenced that arguments against them as a whole are hopelessly outmatched by the sheer volume of predictions fulfilled by the theory's robust explanatory capabilities. It's not a question of belief (the way you use the word) at all. Evolution is a fact, and the way it behaves is explained by the theory. Like climate change, there is far too much evidence corroborated by far too many disciplines for science to be wrong about it by any meaningful degree.

[CharonY]

 

I'm intrigued by this approach. At the very least it has the benefit that it isn't covered by a lot of willfully ignorant, oft-refuted, copy/paste creationist arguments.

 

 

 

That would be a bit surprising as it pretty much alludes to the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium as a null. My guess is that a default fallback would be to say that microevolution occurs but not macroevolution, while conveniently forgetting that mechanistically there are no differences.