Debating the stereotypes
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-04-2013, 07:37 AM
Debating the stereotypes
As some of you may know, my father-in-law is a creationist. He also recently (within the last 6-8 months) got a facebook account. Since then, I have received almost every stereotypical creationist attack/comment on any post I make about science or evolution in particular. I don't really mind to be perfectly honest because he is typically not hostile about it, he typically makes himself look foolish, and it gives me some insight into whether people actually believe those things or just say them. In his case, I am tempted to say that is both for some of his statements. So, this thread really is not about debate per se, but instead it is about presenting the stereotypical arguments against science you hear. I'll start.

Where are the fossils of transitional forms?

Science can't explain why the Big Bang exploded. Checkmate (implied*)

You can't explain how the human eye developed.

(When confronted with demonstrably better eyes in nature not belonging to humans) Well then, how does evolution explain what went WRONG with our eyes?



Nearly all that I think we may see in the thread, could be argued against by an education in basic scientific principles, tutorials for some basic examples, and introspective questioning. None of which are likely in any given case Dodgy

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-04-2013, 07:54 AM
RE: Debating the stereotypes
There are transitional forms all over the place, science can explain how the human eye developed. I'll let the more knowledgeable tackle the details of those.

I'll tackle this one:
Science can't explain why the Big Bang exploded. This one is true.

Answer:
Science not knowing everything is not a good reason to believe made up shit.

Go further by demonstrating the absurdity, not of a vaguely defined "some sort of higher being" but of the one your apologist actually believes in.

Nonsense is nonsense, but the history of nonsense is a very important science.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-04-2013, 07:57 AM
RE: Debating the stereotypes
God said it.
I believe it.
That settles it.



You cannot reason with the extremists. No

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Erxomai's post
15-04-2013, 08:02 AM
RE: Debating the stereotypes
(15-04-2013 07:54 AM)Abdul Alhazred Wrote:  There are transitional forms all over the place, science can explain how the human eye developed. I'll let the more knowledgeable tackle the details of those.

I'll tackle this one:
Science can't explain why the Big Bang exploded. This one is true.

Answer:
Science not knowing everything is not a good reason to believe made up shit.

Go further by demonstrating the absurdity, not of a vaguely defined "some sort of higher being" but of the one your apologist actually believes in.

I wasn't really trying to make a thread for people to have to debunk and of the aforementioned claims, but which ones do people hear or which examples are other people seeing.

I am interested because I like to see how other creationists present themselves. Are they all just rehashing answersingenesis.com, or are some of them trying to come up with their own examples and answers?

My father-in-law isn't in general. But his comment about why the human eye vs. the Mantis Shrimp eye, was interesting. His argument acknowledges the flaws in the human eye, while he would still maintain its "perfection."

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-04-2013, 08:04 AM
RE: Debating the stereotypes
I've read those "discussions" with my own eyes and all I can say is - you're one patient guy. Esp. since your hands are kinda tied, as he is your father-in-law. What I don't understand is, why people like this (creationists, etc.) do it and whether they actually think they've stumped your or even managed to make a single valid point. Blink

It would be a bit like me trying to debate Brian Cox about physics. (Which, come to think about it, doesn't sound like such a bad idea Angel )

"E se non passa la tristezza con altri occhi la guarderò."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vera's post
15-04-2013, 08:07 AM
RE: Debating the stereotypes
Here's one, TBD...

It's the "The Doctors Were Wrong So..." argument.


Snippet from recent on-line conversation...
HER:
"the cardiologist are baffled he has lived this long they named him the miracle child and there was another child in the hospital with the same condition who did not make from 2yrs old truly if you only knew I'm not even suppose to be here doctors told my mother in 2003 my brain sustained so much damage they couldn't understand how I survived I know to much about him so no one can make me doubt him

ME:
"What had the 2 year old done wrong? Why wasn't that child saved by your god?"

HER:
"... we never know Gods reason for everything that happens I know one thing just like my son was born with the condition and I couldn't understand why I ate right walked everyday took my prenatal pills as the doctors ordered so why did my son have to endure so much I don't know God's purpose for everything but I know what it taught me it thought me how to love unconditionally,be compassionate cause I had none of those qualitties an my near death experience brought me closer to him humbled me greatly thought me to be thankful,greatful and so many other qualities I lacked for so long"

Part of me thinks... All's well that end's well.


She is American, hence the poor grammar and spelling.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
15-04-2013, 08:07 AM
RE: Debating the stereotypes
(15-04-2013 08:04 AM)Vera Wrote:  I've read those "discussions" with my own eyes and all I can say is - you're one patient guy. Esp. since your hands are kinda tied, as he is your father-in-law. What I don't understand is, why people like this (creationists, etc.) do it and whether they actually think they've stumped your or even managed to make a single valid point. Blink

It would be a bit like me trying to debate Brian Cox about physics. (Which, come to think about it, doesn't sound like such a bad idea Angel )

I try to remove emotion from any debate I get into. He is no different in that respect. The frustrating bit is trying to draw the line so that he understands that it is not his responsibility (in the future) to "educate" my son. I want to make sure that he is aware of my objections and counters, so that when my son is old enough to ask and be asked questions, he will have to pause first.

I don't know if I am accomplishing that or not...but whatever Dodgy

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
15-04-2013, 08:08 AM
RE: Debating the stereotypes
(15-04-2013 08:07 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Here's one, TBD...

It's the "The Doctors Were Wrong So..." argument.


Snippet from recent on-line conversation...
HER:
"the cardiologist are baffled he has lived this long they named him the miracle child and there was another child in the hospital with the same condition who did not make from 2yrs old truly if you only knew I'm not even suppose to be here doctors told my mother in 2003 my brain sustained so much damage they couldn't understand how I survived I know to much about him so no one can make me doubt him

ME:
"What had the 2 year old done wrong? Why wasn't that child saved by your god?"

HER:
"... we never know Gods reason for everything that happens I know one thing just like my son was born with the condition and I couldn't understand why I ate right walked everyday took my prenatal pills as the doctors ordered so why did my son have to endure so much I don't know God's purpose for everything but I know what it taught me it thought me how to love unconditionally,be compassionate cause I had none of those qualitties an my near death experience brought me closer to him humbled me greatly thought me to be thankful,greatful and so many other qualities I lacked for so long"

Part of me thinks... All's well that end's well.


She is American, hence the poor grammar and spelling.

I have seen people post things similar to this. While the ones I posted are frustrating, the arguments about how God healed some, and killed others, is just mind-numbingly frustrating!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Angry

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-04-2013, 08:36 AM
RE: Debating the stereotypes
(15-04-2013 07:37 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  As some of you may know, my father-in-law is a creationist.
Sincere condolences, mine believes in chemtrails.

(15-04-2013 07:37 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  [b]Where are the fossils of transitional forms?
Strictly speaking, all forms that have descendants are transitional. But instead of this smartass answer you better show your dad this lecture by Aron Ra, it shows a nicely documented transitional fossil line of turtle evolution.




(15-04-2013 07:37 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Science can't explain why the Big Bang exploded. Checkmate (implied*)
Science can explain that Big Bang was not an explosion, it was an inflation through expansion of the space itself, which continues to this day and is accelerating, thanks to something science calls dark energy.

(15-04-2013 07:37 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  You can't explain how the human eye developed.
Why not? It evolved like any other eye. Eyes evolved independently in many separate species in various degrees, often much better than human. All you need is to realize that a cell sensitive to light is useful for survival and so the evolution begins to select for it and in a few million years, there's the eye. The only wonder is, why is human eye so idiotically built. The retina is reverse, so the image is reverse too (the brain has to turn it back) and the reverse retina is prone to tearing off, plus the nerve conduit causes a blind spot in the eye.

(15-04-2013 07:37 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  (When confronted with demonstrably better eyes in nature not belonging to humans) Well then, how does evolution explain what went WRONG with our eyes?
Anything could happen. Evolution does not aim for perfection, mainly for sexual maturity so that genes are passed forward. If something bad happens, if something makes us more vulnerable but not too much, it may actually help to select out the weaker individuals out of genetic pool.
For example, many animals have a penis bone. Many apes have a tiny penis, just a few cm and is very sensitive. So it's not easy to injure, never gets soft and gets off quickly, like a machinegun. Good? Bad. Human dong is basically a big, unsupported sponge for blood, rather insensitive so it takes next to forever to get off. Do you realize what happens if there's a guy who has cardio-vascular problems, slightest hormonal problems or something? He won't get it up and the prehistoric ladies would laugh him out of the tribe. Such a flamboyant appendage serves a similar purpose as peacock's tail.
I have no idea how such a mechanism could work with retina in the eye, but hey, who studies retina on the internet?


(15-04-2013 07:37 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Nearly all that I think we may see in the thread, could be argued against by an education in basic scientific principles, tutorials for some basic examples, and introspective questioning. None of which are likely in any given case Dodgy
I think posting non-offensive, sober videos from people like QualiaSoup is a good idea. He has series of great videos on both evolution and critical thinking.
http://www.youtube.com/user/QualiaSoup

Let your dad watch them in private, don't push him, but insist that the videos contain answers and if he wishes to explain some details, you'd be happy to help him out afterwards.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Luminon's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: