How best to argue against creationists

[The Voice of Reason]

Seems to me the website DissentfromDarwin, which is owned and maintained by the Discovery Institute, is once again using dishonest tactics rather than presenting actual facts.

Well that's because you aren't wearing your creationist goggles, silly. Without them, you can actually see the evidence clearly, and make rational judgements on its validity.

You'll never get to Newhope's heaven that way.

 

[painted wolf]

How best to argue against creationists? Here's a tip.

1. Don't make out there is no controversy or conflicting data. Look up "Survival of the fakest" "DecentfromDarwin.org"...and there's heaps more. There are plenty of credible evolutionary supportive scientists that have concerns. They believe it will be sorted one day but attest at the moment there is much controvery. If you only accept the research that supports evolution your scientific stance is no better than a creationist. Denying the controversy and conflicting data does not mean it's not out there...it just makes you guys and gals look silly.

I'm sorry newhope but both of these are just more creationist misinformation designed to dupe the public.
blindly accepting something because it appeals to you does not make the other side look silly.

The "decent from Darwin" thing was purposefully worded to be misleading. Modern evolutionary theory does not rest on Darwin's work alone... after several people found out what the list was actually about they requested their names removed... it is widely regarded as a bit of a joke and as such Project Steve was formed to counter the misinformation of "decent from Darwin".
here are some other more thorough thoughts on the subject: Dissenting from Darwinism : Stranger Fruit
Project Steve | NCSE

Well has been dealt with numerous times he uses the same disproved junk over and over. (including twisting peoples words and outright misrepresenting what they say and example:

Creationists such as Jonathan Wells claim that my criticism of these experiements casts strong doubt on Darwinism. But this characterization is false. ... My call for additional research on the moths has been wrongly characterized by creationists as revealing some fatal flaw in the theory of evolution. ... It is a classic creationist tactic (as exemplified in Wells's book, "Icons of Evolution") to assert that healthy scientific debate is really a sign that evolutionists are either committing fraud or buttressing a crumbling theory.

Afera Kansas

Here are some more critiques of Wells' work.
Icons of Evolution? | NCSE
Jonathan Wells - Icons of Evolution - Review by M. Pigliucci

Yes, there are aspects of evolutionary theory that are still being debated (such as punctuated vs slow emergence of species) ... but there is no scientific debate as to the factual existence of evolution. There is no research to support Intelligent Design or any other aspect of Creationism.
(sorry but opinion pieces do not count as research)

wa:do

ps.. see, this is what happens when I actually take time to dig around (and take care of my son)... I get scooped!

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Nonsense.

Who could possibly scoop the vaunted Painted Wolf in a discussion of evolution?

 

[Danmac]

I wouldn't consider myself dogmatic. Quite the opposite. I was dogmatic a long time ago.

Everyone is dogmatic

You can't proclaim something as absolutely true if there are predictions in it that haven't yet been fullfilled. You could only state honestly that "so far" it has been correct in any statement until now.
I would doubt that when it comes to the bible, but thats another thing.

I kinda did that didn't I?

 

[Danmac]

Now to work on making it a regular habit.

wa:do

:angel2:

 

[Danmac]

An honest liar?
Interesting.

Sincerely dishonest would be a better fit.

 

[Autodidact]

Everyone is dogmatic

, said Danmac dogmatically.

So basically when you are at fault, you just accuse someone of the same fault to make yourself feel better? If everyone were dogmatic, the word would have no meaning.

Here's my current question for you, Danmac (and wouldn't it be refreshing if you had the courtesy to just answer it) are you going to persist in dishonestly claiming that the evidence does not support ToE, after refusing to look at the evidence in question, or are you going to change your lyin' ways and, in future, admit that you refuse to consider the evidence due to your dogmatic, Bible-based opposition to it?

 

[Autodidact]

Sincerely dishonest would be a better fit.

Good to know. And so we all learn the precise value of a conversation with this poster.

Is the term "honest creationist" an oxymoron?

 

[Autodidact]

Danmac: Does your religion permit lying? Or is it a sin?

 

[Danmac]

What we've determined about Danmac's position:

So you now speak for the atheist community?

It's not based on the evidence.

Sure it is. It is the interpretation of said evidence that is in question. Call me a dissenter.

He will maintain it despite the evidence.

You mean in light of the evidence. It is flawed hypotheses that I dispute

It is not subject to change, regardless of the evidence.

Do you have new evidence you would like to present to dispute creationism?

He has not reviewed the evidence.

Monkey bones do not interest me.

He does not want to learn about the evidence.

Not from biased teachers.

He will continue to maintain that the evidence does not exist.

Kinda like your opinion of God.

Does that about sum it up?

Just about

 

[McBell]

So you now speak for the atheist community?

Sure it is. It is the interpretation of said evidence that is in question. Call me a dissenter.

You mean in light of the evidence. It is flawed hypotheses that I dispute

Do you have new evidence you would like to present to dispute creationism?

Monkey bones do not interest me.

Not from biased teachers.

Kinda like your opinion of God.

Just about

:biglaugh:
...evidence to dispute creationism...
:biglaugh:

 

[Danmac]

Danmac: Does your religion permit lying? Or is it a sin?

We are permitted to lie, but we have to put an extra twenty bucks in the offering plate. If we want to lie all the time we can buy a season ticket for a thousand bucks. I am a season ticket holder. The good thing is it's tax deductible.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

Everyone is dogmatic

So you already claimed before.

I kinda did that didn't I?

I consider it childish to play around with words instead of adressing the real issue.
If that is how you discuss things we need not continue.
Your choice.

 

[Peacewise]

We are all stardust if we go back far enough. This entire planet is stardust, hence anything born of this planet is also stardust.

Seems to me that all life on this planet has to be formed from the stuff of the planet, ie the ground for the most part, where else is our matter going to come from?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Everyone is dogmatic

No.

The majority of people are not dogmatic. Certainly not when it comes to the acquisition of knowledge.

 

[Autodidact]

So you now speak for the atheist community?

Sure it is. It is the interpretation of said evidence that is in question. Call me a dissenter.

You mean in light of the evidence. It is flawed hypotheses that I dispute

Do you have new evidence you would like to present to dispute creationism?

Monkey bones do not interest me.

Not from biased teachers.

Kinda like your opinion of God.

Just about

And, most importantly, he is unable to assimilate new information.

 

[Autodidact]

We are permitted to lie, but we have to put an extra twenty bucks in the offering plate. If we want to lie all the time we can buy a season ticket for a thousand bucks. I am a season ticket holder. The good thing is it's tax deductible.

Now that we've definitively established that Danmac is a Great Big Liar-head, it will save us the trouble of refuting any of his assertions. We can just consider them all false as posted. Thanks, Danmac.

 

[Autodidact]

So you now speak for the atheist community?

And here we see for the hundredth time Danmac's utter inability to process any new information. He continues to conflate atheists with people-who-accept-science, despite the obvious fact that the two terms are quite different.

No, Danmac, oh impossible-to-teach, I speak for the posters in this thread, who are able to read and understand your posts.

Sure it is. It is the interpretation of said evidence that is in question. Call me a dissenter.

How can you dissent from something you don't understand?

You mean in light of the evidence. It is flawed hypotheses that I dispute

How would you know, if you refuse to look at it?

Do you have new evidence you would like to present to dispute creationism?

No, I have old evidence, mountains of it, to support ToE. Would you like to learn about it?

Monkey bones do not interest me.

Exactly my point.

Not from biased teachers.

By which you mean, scientists?

Kinda like your opinion of God.

What on earth does this have to do with our discussion? I thought we were talking about science. Is your God opposed to science?

Just about

That's what I figured.

 

[newhope101]

Hey Paintedwolf. RE your comment re macro/micro evolution being about the only issue being debated. Isn't this huge? I looked up the net and found some info pasted below. Isn't macroevolution required for all the dating to meld? It appears that without evidence of macroevolution the TOE doesn't have legs to stand on.

SUMMARY:​

The Scientific Controversy Over Whether
Microevolution Can Account For Macroevolution​

© Center for Science and Culture/Discovery Institute, 1511 Third Avenue, Suite 808, Seattle, WA 98101​

When Charles Darwin published​

The Origin of Species in 1859, it was already
known that existing species can change over time. This is the basis of artificial breeding, which had been practiced for thousands of years. Darwin and his contemporaries were also familiar enough with the fossil record to know that major changes in living things had occurred over geological time. Darwin's theory was that a process analogous to artificial breeding also occurs in nature; he called that process natural selection. Darwin's theory was also that changes in existing species due primarily to natural selection could, if given enough time, produce the major changes we see in the fossil record.
After Darwin, the first phenomenon (changes within an existing species or gene
pool) was named "microevolution." There is abundant evidence that changes can occur within existing species, both domestic and wild, so microevolution is uncontroversial.
The second phenomenon (large-scale changes over geological time) was named
"macroevolution," and Darwin's theory that the processes of the former can account for the latter was controversial right from the start. Many biologists during and after Darwin's lifetime have questioned whether the natural counterpart of domestic breeding could do what domestic breeding has never done -- namely, produce new species, organs, and body plans. In the first few decades of the twentieth century, skepticism over this aspect of evolution was so strong that Darwin's theory went into eclipse. (See Chapter 9of Peter Bowler's Evolution: The History of an Idea, University of California Press, revised edition, 1989).

In the 1930s, "neo-Darwinists" proposed that genetic mutations (of which Darwin
was unaware) could solve the problem. Although the vast majority of mutations are
harmful (and thus cannot be favored by natural selection), in rare instances one may
benefit an organism. For example, genetic mutations account for some cases of antibiotic resistance in bacteria; if an organism is in the presence of the antibiotic, such a mutation is beneficial. All known beneficial mutations, however, affect only an organism's biochemistry; Darwinian evolution requires large-scale changes in morphology, or anatomy. Midway through the twentieth century, some Darwinian geneticists suggested that occasional "macromutations" might produce the large-scale morphological changes needed by Darwin's theory. Unfortunately, all known morphological mutations are harmful, and the larger their effects the more harmful they are. Scientific critics of- 2 -macromutations took to calling this the "hopeful monster" hypothesis. (See Chapter 12 of Bowler's book.)​

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Hey Paintedwolf. RE your comment re macro/micro evolution being about the only issue being debated. Isn't this huge? I looked up the net and found some info pasted below. Isn't macroevolution required for all the dating to meld? It appears that without evidence of macroevolution the TOE doesn't have legs to stand on.

SUMMARY:​

The Scientific Controversy Over Whether
Microevolution Can Account For Macroevolution​

© Center for Science and Culture/Discovery Institute, 1511 Third Avenue, Suite 808, Seattle, WA 98101​

Ah, the Discovery institute. Let's have a go at this one.

When Charles Darwin published​

The Origin of Species in 1859, it was already known that existing species can change over time. This is the basis of artificial breeding, which had been practiced for thousands of years. Darwin and his contemporaries were also familiar enough with the fossil record to know that major changes in living things had occurred over geological time. Darwin's theory was that a process analogous to artificial breeding also occurs in nature; he called that process natural selection. Darwin's theory was also that changes in existing species due primarily to natural selection could, if given enough time, produce the major changes we see in the fossil record.
After Darwin, the first phenomenon (changes within an existing species or gene pool) was named "microevolution." There is abundant evidence that changes can occur within existing species, both domestic and wild, so microevolution is uncontroversial.
The second phenomenon (large-scale changes over geological time) was named "macroevolution," and Darwin's theory that the processes of the former can account for the latter was controversial right from the start. Many biologists during and after Darwin's lifetime have questioned whether the natural counterpart of domestic breeding could do what domestic breeding has never done -- namely, produce new species, organs, and body plans. In the first few decades of the twentieth century, skepticism over this aspect of evolution was so strong that Darwin's theory went into eclipse. (See Chapter 9of Peter Bowler's Evolution: The History of an Idea, University of California Press, revised edition, 1989).​

It's worth noting at this point that both "micro" and "macro" evolution are terms almost entirely unused by scientists, because scientists understand that to distinguish between the two is meaningless. Both use the exact same process and occur the exact same way, just over different periods of time.

In the 1930s, "neo-Darwinists" proposed that genetic mutations (of which Darwin was unaware) could solve the problem. Although the vast majority of mutations are
harmful (and thus cannot be favored by natural selection), in rare instances one may benefit an organism.

There's the first big-can o' lies. The vast majority of mutations are neutral, and only a select few are either harmful or beneficial.

For example, genetic mutations account for some cases of antibiotic resistance in bacteria; if an organism is in the presence of the antibiotic, such a mutation is beneficial. All known beneficial mutations, however, affect only an organism's biochemistry; Darwinian evolution requires large-scale changes in morphology, or anatomy.

Second big-can o' lies. A single mutation can and does add up to profound morphological changes, although and it is when mutations, in a particular population, are repeatedly selected over hundreds or thousands of generations that such morphological changes occur in a species.

Midway through the twentieth century, some Darwinian geneticists suggested that occasional "macromutations" might produce the large-scale morphological changes needed by Darwin's theory. Unfortunately, all known morphological mutations are harmful, and the larger their effects the more harmful they are.

Third big-can o' lies. As with mutations in general, some that are morphological are known to be beneficial, detrimental or, largely, neutral. This is just a flat-out lie.

Scientific critics of macromutations took to calling this the "hopeful monster" hypothesis. (See Chapter 12 of Bowler's book.)

Three lies in a very small space. That's pretty good by the Discovery Institute's standards.​