-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
Proving that creationism is wrong in less than a minute?
- Thread starter cartesy
- Start date
Don't bother with details like that. They have a way of obscuring those types of arguments that makes you chase them through technical details and it gets you nowhere.
Basically, don't bother defending evolution. You don't have to.
The best way is to simply show them the scope of their argument. If they accept young-earth creationism, then they must also accept that just about every scientist in the world is either engaged in a global conspiracy to cover up evidence for creation, or just not getting it right after centuries of research by independent parties. If they don't stoop to believing that paleontologists are out there secretly destroying fossils of Tyrannosaurs with fossils of bible folk in their bellies to cover up evidence for creation, then they must face the fact that the fossil record at least accommodates an evolutionary model.
Finally, ask them if god wants people to know that evolution is a lie. If Yes, ask why is he letting the lie be so widespread? If God helped people win wars in the bible, why doesn't he help creationists win court cases? It wouldn't be hard at all for god to falsify evolution by creating an elephant with a snake for a trunk and bird wings for ears.
Don't defend Evolution. Just attack the sheer scope of their absurd ideas.
Basically, don't bother defending evolution. You don't have to.
The best way is to simply show them the scope of their argument. If they accept young-earth creationism, then they must also accept that just about every scientist in the world is either engaged in a global conspiracy to cover up evidence for creation, or just not getting it right after centuries of research by independent parties. If they don't stoop to believing that paleontologists are out there secretly destroying fossils of Tyrannosaurs with fossils of bible folk in their bellies to cover up evidence for creation, then they must face the fact that the fossil record at least accommodates an evolutionary model.
Finally, ask them if god wants people to know that evolution is a lie. If Yes, ask why is he letting the lie be so widespread? If God helped people win wars in the bible, why doesn't he help creationists win court cases? It wouldn't be hard at all for god to falsify evolution by creating an elephant with a snake for a trunk and bird wings for ears.
Don't defend Evolution. Just attack the sheer scope of their absurd ideas.
CommonEnlightenment
New Member
Yes, I would agree that I don't think people tend to try to put the whole picture together. Meaning that people tend to fail to see the connections that have been made through all of the sciences and not just one acting independently of the rest. It appears that some people fail to grasp the concept of the interdisciplinary nature of cosmology, geology, chemistry, biology, and physics, anthropology, etc.........
Of course, it's difficult to expect that single individuals be experts in all of the areas mentioned above. As our knowledge base increases so does the idea of a single individual not 'knowing' all......
Of course, it's difficult to expect that single individuals be experts in all of the areas mentioned above. As our knowledge base increases so does the idea of a single individual not 'knowing' all......
First you have to define what kind of creationism. Without that there can't really be an discussion on the topic.
Unfortenately professional apologists have a counter argument, no matter how fallacious, to every "proof". Even the most easily understood counter to a 6000 year creationism, tree rings, has a plausable sounding counter in "tree rings aren't reliably one per year" with some evidence (with thee species that can make two rings per year, and aren't used in dendrochronology because of this).
Unfortenately professional apologists have a counter argument, no matter how fallacious, to every "proof". Even the most easily understood counter to a 6000 year creationism, tree rings, has a plausable sounding counter in "tree rings aren't reliably one per year" with some evidence (with thee species that can make two rings per year, and aren't used in dendrochronology because of this).
he_who_is_nobody
Well-Known Member
cartesy said:
I do it by asking them to define evolution in its biological context. This does two things, 1) exposes their lack of knowledge about evolutionary theory, and 2) allows me to correct a long-standing misconception they have held about evolutionary theory. Anyone that knows the biological definition of evolution also knows that it is a fact. The easiest way to show that creationism is wrong is to show that they actually agree with evolution in the first place.
CommonEnlightenment
New Member
cartesy said:
I generally opt for, "what makes your definition or interpretation of god any more likely than the billions of others presented before."
Then you can describe the importance of taking measurements with instruments (or at least having fossils with rather accurate dating methods behind them) that are semi-repeatable in order to show the probability of something being true, most likely being true, probably being true, could be true, probably not being true, and so forth. Notice that I said importance of and not absolute truth of..... I should add that when discussing things with people that not all of your message will be understood or comprehended with exactness. Unfortunately, that is one of the barriers of 'communication'.
If person A is thinking of something else, could be described as a hidden message, then that person will most likely add their 'bias' to what is being discussed. I think this is generally how information can be 'wrongly' linked to some form of message. Like when a 'creationist' will take a good scientific explanation of something, the Earth being incinerated from a gamma ray burst, and automatically attribute that event to something that their 'god' accomplished. What I just described is a form of the "WE DON'T KNOW, THEREFORE GOD DID IT" exercise that is often the result of this type of discussion. Personally, I think we would be better off if more people could state the first part of my capitalized text (like the half before the comma) and instead of stating the second half with such conviction say something like "WE ARE LOOKING INTO IT" instead. This is the root of the science vs. theism debate IMHO.
I hope that made sense and good luck with your debate.
Oh yeah, I forgot to add one small point. If they present the bible to you when trying to use that for an answer for my first quoted statement then simply present the Koran to them and repeat the statement. That type critical thinking can go on for Millenia and essentially has been. Then simply explain to them that the process you are using to analyze their argument is a form of the scientific method and if they can't grasp that, it simply might be a better idea to walk away, if not for your own sanity.
CosmicJoghurt
New Member
1.- Explain to me how science works. (if failed, go to step 6)
2.- Do you see the scientific method as a viable method of discovering information about the universe? (if not, go to step 6)
3.- Explain what a scientific theory is (if failed, go to step 6)
4.- Do you realize that the consensus among scientists is that evolution is a fact, and the ToENS is, as is in the name, a theory, by the standards of science? (if not, go to step 6)
5.- Are you aware that the universe is about 14.7 billion years old and that Earth is about 4.5 billion years old? (if not, go to step 6)
6.- Do your research.
A bit longer than a minute, but I will guarantee you that no creationist will manage this properly.
Also, I don't see this as the only way to do this. I mean, I choose not to fight creationism itself, but rather compare creationists' thoughts against with truths of science, if that makes any sense.
*post not proof-checked. I'm tired and sleepy*
2.- Do you see the scientific method as a viable method of discovering information about the universe? (if not, go to step 6)
3.- Explain what a scientific theory is (if failed, go to step 6)
4.- Do you realize that the consensus among scientists is that evolution is a fact, and the ToENS is, as is in the name, a theory, by the standards of science? (if not, go to step 6)
5.- Are you aware that the universe is about 14.7 billion years old and that Earth is about 4.5 billion years old? (if not, go to step 6)
6.- Do your research.
A bit longer than a minute, but I will guarantee you that no creationist will manage this properly.
Also, I don't see this as the only way to do this. I mean, I choose not to fight creationism itself, but rather compare creationists' thoughts against with truths of science, if that makes any sense.
*post not proof-checked. I'm tired and sleepy*
Dragan Glas
Well-Known Member
Greetings,
This reminds me of one of my earliest discussions on LoR with Gnug regarding the drawback of how atheists tend to approach creationists and fundamentalists - treating all believers as if they're "fundies", and whether to use "honey" or "vinegar".
If I may make a few observations...
Never speak from Science - Creationists won't hear you.
They'll either ignore, dismiss or (wilfully) misunderstand what you're saying.
Even those who may try to listen will do so out of a garbled understanding of Science - the sort of nonsense ranging from that taught by Hovind through to Behe/Dembski.
You will then - as pointed out by RedYellow earlier - end up arguing over, and defending, Science - and never get beyond that.
Which begs the question - how do you approach the topic?
In order to prove Creationism wrong, you need to do so through the individual believer's "holy book" - Bible, Qu'ran, Torah, Bhagavad Gita, etc.
This way, you are talking solely about the basis for their belief - the relevant creation story - and can focus on it and its weakenesses.
Science never comes into it.
Having clarified that, dealing with Creationists will mean that you have to know their holy book as well, if not better, than themselves - along with its historical development (not always necessary - but it certainly helps).
And, needless to say, proving their position wrong will take more than a minute.
Those who take a literal approach to their holy books are the easiest with which to deal - their rigid intepretation leaves them no room for manoeuvre.
As an example, here's my answer to Christian YECs (mainly US Protestants) who claim that the Earth is only 6000 years old and/or was created in 4004 BC:
=================
You believe that based on the six days of creation and "a day is a thousand years (to God)", right?
Do you know which verse that is...? 2 Peter 3:8:
There are only two possible states: "Is" and "Is not".
"Is as" is a old way of saying "is like".
For example, consider identical twins, Alice and Betty.
We can say that, "Alice is like Betty, Betty like Alice" - or to use the Biblical phraseology - "Alice is as Betty, Betty as Alice".
In saying this, we are also saying something else: "Alice is not Betty, Betty not Alice".
And so it is with 2 Peter 3:8:
A day is not a thousand years to God, and a thousand years not a day.
Do you see?
+
But there's an even more fundamental problem with using 2 Peter 3:8 to justify a 6000 year-old Earth.
Everything we experience around us exists in three dimensions - we, and everything else, occupies space.
Humans, animals, trees, plants, planets, stars and galaxies occupy space.
And everything that occupies space changes over time - we're born as babies, we grow to maturity and diminsih into old age and death, as does all life. Even mountains are eroded over time. Stars are born and die, in novae and supernovae.
Yet space and time didn't always exist - they came into being.
If everything came into being due to a Creator, then this Being must - by definition - pre-exist everything; including space and time.
Thus the Creator must be spaceless and timeless.
To compare units of time (days, millenia) as they apply to God is meaningless.
God is timeless.
It cannot be God speaking in this verse - that would mean that God would be bearing false witness, which a perfect being cannot do.
Also, being omniscient, God would know that it would mislead souls.
Who is more likely to make this mistake - God or man?
Man.
Clearly, this verse is the author's attempt to explain to another human that God does not experience time as do humans.
However, even in this he's wrong - God doesn't experience time at all.
+
Bearing this in mind, what does this mean for the Genesis account of the alleged six days of Creation followed by a day of rest?
As God is timeless, there can be no "days" for God - of any length, whether hours or aeons.
This is the tribal Jews' view of God - that God (Yahweh) is just like them: any good Jew works six xays and rests on the seventh.
==================
Notes:
This is the bones of my proof - there's a lot more regarding the reason for this false doctrine (Ussher) and also some "vinegar", where I show that a six thousand year history is impossible (if the "day = thousand years" holds true, then the earliest date for the creation of Adam would be AD 997 (the year for the start of "day 6") - rendering history - not to mention the default year of Jesus' birth - meaningless).
The first part of this argument decouples 2 Peter 3:8 from the Genesis account - thus removing the main reason for a 6000 year-old Earth/Cosmos.
For those who might view this as a trick, the second part clearly shows that there's an even more fundamental problem with using this verse to justify YEC.
Having proven that God is space-less and timeless, in part two, the third part beggars the "six days" of creation.
Indeed, the second part disproves any holy book which applies time to God.
Kindest regards,
James
This reminds me of one of my earliest discussions on LoR with Gnug regarding the drawback of how atheists tend to approach creationists and fundamentalists - treating all believers as if they're "fundies", and whether to use "honey" or "vinegar".
If I may make a few observations...
Never speak from Science - Creationists won't hear you.
They'll either ignore, dismiss or (wilfully) misunderstand what you're saying.
Even those who may try to listen will do so out of a garbled understanding of Science - the sort of nonsense ranging from that taught by Hovind through to Behe/Dembski.
You will then - as pointed out by RedYellow earlier - end up arguing over, and defending, Science - and never get beyond that.
Which begs the question - how do you approach the topic?
In order to prove Creationism wrong, you need to do so through the individual believer's "holy book" - Bible, Qu'ran, Torah, Bhagavad Gita, etc.
This way, you are talking solely about the basis for their belief - the relevant creation story - and can focus on it and its weakenesses.
Science never comes into it.
Having clarified that, dealing with Creationists will mean that you have to know their holy book as well, if not better, than themselves - along with its historical development (not always necessary - but it certainly helps).
And, needless to say, proving their position wrong will take more than a minute.
Those who take a literal approach to their holy books are the easiest with which to deal - their rigid intepretation leaves them no room for manoeuvre.
As an example, here's my answer to Christian YECs (mainly US Protestants) who claim that the Earth is only 6000 years old and/or was created in 4004 BC:
=================
You believe that based on the six days of creation and "a day is a thousand years (to God)", right?
Do you know which verse that is...? 2 Peter 3:8:
Not "Is" - "Is as".
There are only two possible states: "Is" and "Is not".
"Is as" is a old way of saying "is like".
For example, consider identical twins, Alice and Betty.
We can say that, "Alice is like Betty, Betty like Alice" - or to use the Biblical phraseology - "Alice is as Betty, Betty as Alice".
In saying this, we are also saying something else: "Alice is not Betty, Betty not Alice".
And so it is with 2 Peter 3:8:
A day is not a thousand years to God, and a thousand years not a day.
Do you see?
+
But there's an even more fundamental problem with using 2 Peter 3:8 to justify a 6000 year-old Earth.
Everything we experience around us exists in three dimensions - we, and everything else, occupies space.
Humans, animals, trees, plants, planets, stars and galaxies occupy space.
And everything that occupies space changes over time - we're born as babies, we grow to maturity and diminsih into old age and death, as does all life. Even mountains are eroded over time. Stars are born and die, in novae and supernovae.
Yet space and time didn't always exist - they came into being.
If everything came into being due to a Creator, then this Being must - by definition - pre-exist everything; including space and time.
Thus the Creator must be spaceless and timeless.
To compare units of time (days, millenia) as they apply to God is meaningless.
God is timeless.
It cannot be God speaking in this verse - that would mean that God would be bearing false witness, which a perfect being cannot do.
Also, being omniscient, God would know that it would mislead souls.
Who is more likely to make this mistake - God or man?
Man.
Clearly, this verse is the author's attempt to explain to another human that God does not experience time as do humans.
However, even in this he's wrong - God doesn't experience time at all.
+
Bearing this in mind, what does this mean for the Genesis account of the alleged six days of Creation followed by a day of rest?
As God is timeless, there can be no "days" for God - of any length, whether hours or aeons.
This is the tribal Jews' view of God - that God (Yahweh) is just like them: any good Jew works six xays and rests on the seventh.
==================
Notes:
This is the bones of my proof - there's a lot more regarding the reason for this false doctrine (Ussher) and also some "vinegar", where I show that a six thousand year history is impossible (if the "day = thousand years" holds true, then the earliest date for the creation of Adam would be AD 997 (the year for the start of "day 6") - rendering history - not to mention the default year of Jesus' birth - meaningless).
The first part of this argument decouples 2 Peter 3:8 from the Genesis account - thus removing the main reason for a 6000 year-old Earth/Cosmos.
For those who might view this as a trick, the second part clearly shows that there's an even more fundamental problem with using this verse to justify YEC.
Having proven that God is space-less and timeless, in part two, the third part beggars the "six days" of creation.
Indeed, the second part disproves any holy book which applies time to God.
Kindest regards,
James
Rumraket
Active Member
When presented with inconvenient facts like the diagram in the op, creationists will usually respond with some variation of the "common design"-argument. Which is that they'll claim that one should expect the designer to re-use his designs in different body-plans.
What I've never heard a response for, however, is the specific hierarchical arrangement of the retroviral insertions. The last one I asked delved into some obscure argument about how the argument assumes evolution was true.
Creationists also love chance arguments with unfathomable numbers. Ask them to calculate the odds that all the nucleotides in the retroviral insertions should arrange themselves in that phylogenetic tree pattern. Did the designer WANT to imply an evolutionary history here?
They simply don't have an answer for it.
What I've never heard a response for, however, is the specific hierarchical arrangement of the retroviral insertions. The last one I asked delved into some obscure argument about how the argument assumes evolution was true.
Creationists also love chance arguments with unfathomable numbers. Ask them to calculate the odds that all the nucleotides in the retroviral insertions should arrange themselves in that phylogenetic tree pattern. Did the designer WANT to imply an evolutionary history here?
They simply don't have an answer for it.
Rumraket
Active Member
A good point. They will always try to have it both ways. Both by insisting that the natural laws had to be created and fine tuned for life, only later to insist those same natural laws can't give rise to life or evolution, and that direct intervention by their god is suddenly required.RedYellow said:
Here's Hitchens on this point: 2:50 into the video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnoH95tITic&t=2m50s
)O( Hytegia )O(
New Member
Step 1: Science
-If Response is nothing relative scientifically (which, by all means, it most likely isn't) then proceed to step 2.
Step 2: Replace every instance of the word "God" with "Pixies" and "Miracles" with "Magic" - then ask them how the underlying logical pattern is different to differentiate one from another.
-If response is incoherent, proceed.
Step 3: The wise man speaking wisdom is like casting Pearls before swine.
-If Response is nothing relative scientifically (which, by all means, it most likely isn't) then proceed to step 2.
Step 2: Replace every instance of the word "God" with "Pixies" and "Miracles" with "Magic" - then ask them how the underlying logical pattern is different to differentiate one from another.
-If response is incoherent, proceed.
Step 3: The wise man speaking wisdom is like casting Pearls before swine.