Debating Creationists: Suggestions and your methods

[richi1173]

Almost all of you are familiar with debating creationists and have found useful pieces of evidence and methods to counter each point posed by these brain washed idiots. Many of you have had pieces of evidence that you have lost and wished that you would have kept and shared with others to help ease the burden of combating creationists.

So, this is the post to do just that. Post here peer-reviewed papers that you have found to best disprove a certain creationist claim , methods of debating that have worked the best for you, facts that disprove creationist claims ect.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think the best method and advice I have to give is TO NOT TALK ABOUT THE BIBLE. A Young or Old Earth Creationist will not jump to being atheists in one debate. Focus on evolution only and disproving stupid claims like "its just a theory" and "its still a bacteria"

For example, if a creationist talks about the Flood in a debate about the Theory of Evolution, say that the flood story has nothing to do with evolution. There will be plenty of time to debunk it later. Debates which are going great can get sidetracked this way and it would only reinforce the feeling that evolution equates to atheism: both with the audience and the creationist.

If a creationist quotes the Bible for support, say that evolution has nothing to do with God or the Bible, no matter how contradicting the verse that they are citing is. Say that many people find the Bible and evolution to be compatible and list specific scientist from different religious backgrounds like:

Kenneth Miller (Catholic)
Pope Benedict XVI (Catholic)
Robert T. Bakker (Pentacostal)
Theodosious Dobzhansky (Orthodox)
Francis Collins (Evangelical Christian)
*Please help expand this list*

 

[Icefire9atla]

I'm pretty sure that Francis Collins supports evolution even though he's a fundamentalist Christian.

 

[richi1173]

I'm pretty sure that Francis Collins supports evolution even though he's a fundamentalist Christian.

added

 

[Squawk]

It's not peer reviewed as such, but I would just suggest searching through posts by Calilasseia http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=9692

His posts tend to consist of lists of peer reviewed articles that contradict the spurious claims of creotards, but he goes much further and highlights the relevant portions of each paper explains just how and why it applies. Hes like a walking summary of peer review.

As for how to debate creo's, I doubt there is one method that works as there are so many differing points of view.

Debating with VFX or Nephi requires patient shooting down of cannard after cannard as they do their own version of the gish gallop, the purpose being to expose the lies to anyone who stumbles accross the "debate". You don't debate people like that with a view to changing their minds, they are already deluded too far.

With someone who has only mild delusion (ie, brought up as a creo but wants another point of view) I personally would settle on one topic of discussion and not veer from it until it was thoroughly explored. Further, I would let the other person lead. For example, let them erect a few cannards, then focus on one. Rather than attacking it, ask for an explanation of why it supports their belief. They ask what they would think if you could show them that their reasoning was in error, and then take them through the real evidence.

Then leave it until they have more questions. Something like that anyway. It's going to take a while to de-delude someone, no point hitting them with 20 topics at once so their brain goes P)(*&PD0980q93wue5 and they quit.

 

[DarwinsOtherTheory]

Depends what kind of creationist, some are willing to listen, then there are the VFX's and ray comforts who would just cover their ears and say lalalalalallalalalalalla

 

[Deleted member 619]

In addition to Squawk's excellent advice (especially concerning Cali's posts; they are something to behold), it can often be that you are on the defensive for a lot of the time. My best advice is to turn it around as quickly as possible and deliver the uncomfortable questions early on. Once on the back foot, you're playing catch-up the whole time. My usual approach is to answer their opening, and finish with the devastating questions, and don't allow evasion, which is their best tactic generally.

It's also important to remember that you are unlikely to change the mind of the person you're debating, and this should not even be a goal. My intent is always on educating the bystanders and fence-sitters, and I often make this point during the discussion (especially when they play the cretinous 'why do you care if you don't believe' card), and to dilute the effects of the various canards, by showing how ridiculous they are.

As for evidence, there is a lot of it. The best examples are ERVs, Chromosome 2, the cichlid fish populations of lakes Victoria and Malawi (for evolution), red-shift, the constancy of light-speed, relativity (for cosmology), the Sun (as an answer to the specious second law of thermodynamics canard). With regard to the latter, it's a good idea to be familiar with the rigorous terms used by scientists with regard to thermodynamic systems, specifically the difference between closed, isolated and open systems. Also the specifics of what the 2LT actually says, and how it relates to the 1LT (It should also be noted that the 2LT is an experimental law, and it a) is not clear that it applies universally, and b) contradicts Newton's laws, specifically the property of time-reversibility (with exceptions in some stochastic systems)

As for the list of scientists who believe in god, this should only ever be used as a counter to a cretinist claim, as any other use ultimately constitutes an appeal to authority, which can never be taken as reliable. Indeed, this can be used equally by the opposition. I think that anybody who has that level of cognitive dissonance should not be relied upon as a source of informationn, unless in counter to a cretinist appeal.

As for the rest, it's simply a matter of recognising immediately a logical fallacy when you see one. I haven't heard a cretinist argument that wasn't riddled with them, along with major misrepresentations of what science actually says about any given aspect of the discussion (I cite again the ridiculous 2LT canards).

 

[Squawk]

Oooh nice post hack, got me doing some thinking actually.


Couple of points I want to raise. First up, an appeal to authority or popularity. IMO we attack this more often than we should, if used in context this is arguably a good thing.

Global warming. How am I to assess whether or not global warming is happening and the scale of human causation. I have a couple of possibilities. I could trawl through all the peer reviewed literature I can find on the subject. Since this would prove impossible I could limit this to those peer reviewed documents that serve as a summary of a given number of other documents.

The problem with this approach is that to be able to properly understand the papers and their conclusions I would have to educate myself to a level close to the top in climate science.

The alternative is to seek a consensus opinion amongst those that are likely to know most about a given subject, in the case of gloabal warming that would be climate scientists.

The question then becomes, who can I trust? To establish who to trust I must assess which people are likely to be most informed on a given subject. On a subject such as global warming with its many facets it is unreasonable to use one persons opinion as fact. Instead I choose to use the majority opinion of climate scientists.

And of course, I must accept that this opinion may be wrong. If we state that 98% of climate scientists believe that A. Global warming is happening and B. It is caused by human activity, that still leaves 2% that disagree. For the sake of argument, lets say that those 2% have no ulterior motive and are proposing some other hypothesis.

Essentially I have to make a guess, a choice, between the two, but the guess is informed. I cannot know all the evidence that has been uncovered so I rely on the experts working with the data to understand it. I do this because I have ample evidence of the success of peer review and the scientific method, just look around to see its success.

I then assess the probabilities and, in the case of global warming, I note that the majority of experts are siding with global warming happening and being man made. Given that I have inferior knowledge, the best chance I have of being correct is to follow the majority opinion of those who are most likely to know. 98% is a significant majority and so I can follow their opinion with confidence.

In this case and appeal to authority and to popularity is not only justified, in my opinion, but is infact the only logical course of action.



Contrast this with the views of those same scientists outside their field of interest. Lets suggest that 80% of climate scientists believe a deity exists. Previously I trusted this groups majority opinion, should I continue to do so.

Of course the answer is no. In the case of a deity these people are not forming a belief based on peer review and evidence in the manner previously described. I cannot look to the accomplishments the type of reasoning they have used to arrive at the conclusion of a deity existing because there are none. That mindset hasn't achieved anything. As such their consensus can be rejected.

The appeal to popularity is not so much a fallacy but rather a method of assessing the value of a given claim. To be able to assess whether a given consensus should be believed does not depend on having knowledge of the issue in question but rather having knowledge of the process by which a given consensus has been arrived at. If the method of data gathering and assessment meets your required standards then an appeal to popularity is not only valid but is the only rational course.

If they do not then it can be discarded.

 

[FCAAP_Dan]

I agree. focus on your audience and not on your opponent.

 

[MRaverz]

I've found that if you try and reason with Creationists, it's too easy for them to just claim that God did it.

It's much more productive to get them to question why they believe what they do, it's makes them realise that it's not so steadfast as they lead themselves to believe. Just ask them about where their views come from and see what happens.

Common responses are being brought up with a certain view, or having 'personal experiences' such as prayer or 'feelings'. The first is obvious indoctrination, the second is flawed reason and this is where you can apply reason to the issue.
Quoting the prayer experiments is good, as well as the obvious questions like 'why is there evil in the world?' or 'why would god appear to you, but not to me?'.

 

[ladiesman391]

I'm having a PM "discussion" with an OEC, refer my topic: http://forums.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=1526

 

[Jared Jammer]

My suggestions:

Be honest and respectful.
Don't be a Liar For Darwin.
Don't pretend like the origin of life has no bearing on your world view.
Don't pretend that the fossil record supports any gradualist-based hypothesis.
Don't pretend that slight variations in the size and shape of a finch's beak can be extrapolated to explain the breathtakingly brilliant nano-machinery located within all living organisms. That's not rational thinking and it most certainly is not science.
Don't try and keep science stuck in the Victorian era when brilliant minds like Stephen C. Meyer are linking biology with information theory.

There are many, many more but I'll stop there for now.

 

[Squawk]

My suggestions:
Be honest and respectful.

Always am

Don't be a Liar For Darwin.

Not sure what one of those is, but I never lie when discussing evidence.

Don't pretend like the origin of life has no bearing on your world view.

The only bearing it has on my world view is awe at the beauty of nature, how amazing that life as we know it can form over 3 billion years from a beginning best described by organic chemistry.

Don't pretend that the fossil record supports any gradualist-based hypothesis.

What is a gradualist-based hypothesis? Evolution is not linear if that is what you mean, never claimed that it was. Have a look for punctuated equilibrium.

Don't pretend that slight variations in the size and shape of a finch's beak can be extrapolated to explain the breathtakingly brilliant nano-machinery located within all living organisms. That's not rational thinking and it most certainly is not science.

You havn't read Darwins work, have you... You think evolutionary biologists are all philosophers, that all knowledge is based on this single observation? Tell me, how familiar are you with genetics? More to the point, how familiar are you with the scientific method?

Don't try and keep science stuck in the Victorian era when brilliant minds like Stephen C. Meyer are linking biology with information theory.

Lol, brilliant mind, a liar for jesus? Nothing like a biased source is there...
Information theory is of coures applicable to biology, creationists specialising in either misunderstanding how or lying about how. All fun to expose. Care to erect a few hypothesis for us to shoot down for you?

There are many, many more but I'll stop there for now.

Probably a good thing, a closed mouth gathers no foot.

 

[UNFFwildcard]

Here's some more theistic evolutionists you can cite, scientists and theologians combined. Some of these guys are also pretty active in the debate. For example, John Haught was a theologian who testified right beside Ken Miller in one school board trial.



You can also add Freeman Dyson & Michael Heller to that list.

 

[ladiesman391]

My suggestions:

Be honest and respectful.
Don't be a Liar For Darwin.
Don't pretend like the origin of life has no bearing on your world view.
Don't pretend that the fossil record supports any gradualist-based hypothesis.
Don't pretend that slight variations in the size and shape of a finch's beak can be extrapolated to explain the breathtakingly brilliant nano-machinery located within all living organisms. That's not rational thinking and it most certainly is not science.
Don't try and keep science stuck in the Victorian era when brilliant minds like Stephen C. Meyer are linking biology with information theory.

There are many, many more but I'll stop there for now.

My suggestions for debating atheists:

Don't troll on a site that promotes reason.
There are many more but i'll stop there for now.

 

[IrBubble]

My suggestions:

Be honest and respectful.

It's hard to be honest towards a creationist while being respectful towards them. Besides, I personally have a problem with people telling me I'm a bad person because of my faith of lack thereof.

Don't be a Liar For Darwin.

Why would anyone lie to help a dead man, whom they've never met?

Don't pretend like the origin of life has no bearing on your world view.

Are your trying for a false dichotomy here? Even if our knowlage of the origin of life is totally wrong, that is not evidence of a god.

Don't pretend that the fossil record supports any gradualist-based hypothesis.

That's like saying "don't pretend that the four 90* angles and the four even-lengthed lines support the claim that the 2d geometrical form is a square".

Don't pretend that slight variations in the size and shape of a finch's beak can be extrapolated to explain the breathtakingly brilliant nano-machinery located within all living organisms. That's not rational thinking and it most certainly is not science.

It probably can't, and it's not science, the mounds of evidence of speciation, such as the inability for the said finches to interbreed with any finches but their close neighbours however, is science, and it's not pretentious.

Don't try and keep science stuck in the Victorian era when brilliant minds like Stephen C. Meyer are linking biology with information theory.

What Stephen C. Meyers is trying to do is the equivalent of trying to glue your carkeys in to the lock. Even if it does work, it won't help you go forward after you get in to the car. And saying that somebody is trying to keep the carindustry in the 20th centaury by not allowing some idiot to glue the keys into the lock is the equivalent of what you just said.

There are many, many more but I'll stop there for now.

Like what? Admitting the bible is probably the most accurate source of information of all times? Come on, all you did was attempt to make atheists look dishonest when they clearly are not.

 

[Marcus]

Why would anyone lie to help a dead man, whom they've never met?

Why not ask a creationist that question? OK, most claim to have a "personal relationship" with Jesus, but only the most deluded will claim to have actually met him.

 

[Anonymous]

Usually I enter into online discussions as a learning experience rather than to champion a cause. I've found the following methods useful in keeping people engaged in debates over creationism.

First suggestion, restrict your arguments to your opponent's statements. An assertion is either supported by evidence or it's not regardless of the religious or political affiliations of the person making the assertion. Many people use this tactic when defending their sources but forget it when addressing their opponents. For example, it is a common fallacy that atheism is a faith-based position. The observation that it is a common Creationist fallacy is irrelevant.

Next suggestion follows from the first, ridicule has no place in an honest debate. Your opinion of your opponent and his/her claims are irrelevant to the debate. Be passionate about the points you are making, but stop short of ridiculing your opponent's arguments i.e. laughable Creationist arguments.

Upon reflection, these first two are basically refrain from making ad hominem attacks.

Be wary of terms that are undefined, that have changing definitions, or that have multiple definitions. Best defense is to have your opponent acknowledge and stick to a given definition. Don't debate what your opponent won't define.

And finally, there are no absolutes. At least I'm pretty sure there are no absolutes. Don't use them to defend ideas and be wary of opponents who use them to attack ideas.

 

[MarkAntony]

Be honest and respectful.

Coming from the guy who made the "Atheists are ugly" video, thats comedy gold.

 

[Aught3]

^I thought that post was a spoof, is he serious?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I've never seen a hard-core creationist who was interested in or capable of having an honest debate. The people who they have influenced probably mean well, but they are generally incapable of understanding that they are parroting lies.

Sometimes, mockery is the best medicine... but start by mocking something that the creationist also mocks. 9/11 conspiracies work pretty well, as an example. You mock the lack of evidence, the hearsay from "eyewitnesses" that doesn't match the videotape, the fact that the claims of the conspiracy nutters don't match any reality or evidence, the massive scope of the conspiracy needed to pull off the scam, the utter nonsense of the supposed scam itself, and on and on. Once you've come to an agreement on all of those things, turn it around to evolution and creationism. They agree that massive worldwide conspiracies are nonsense, so do they think biologists are part of a worldwide conspiracy? If you can show them that someone who they trust is quote-mining, doesn't that destroy their credibility?

Or, you can just stomp on their foot and poke them in the eye. Whatever works for you.