Why scientists shouldn't debate creationists

[Atomist]

Ideally that would be high school science.

unfortunately they censor hs science that contradicts their mythology such that evolution isn't even really taught. Then you have churches spreading propaganda and strawman that very few people have a strong grasp of evolution.

 

[evolved yet?]

unfortunately they censor hs science that contradicts their mythology such that evolution isn't even really taught. Then you have churches spreading propaganda and strawman that very few people have a strong grasp of evolution.

Frubals:clap.

 

[rusra02]

Behe notoriously made a fool of himself at the Dover trial and forfeited whatever credibility he might have had on the subject -- which wasn't much. His argument never did amount to more than irreducible complexity, anyway.


What compelling arguments do they present in their respective fields?

Evolutionists compelling argument loop:

Begin:
1. Claim that all reputable scientists believe evolution (in other words, lie)
2. If a scientist says: I'm a scientist and I believe in Creation:
- discredit them and mock them as disreputable (see movie Expelled for ideas)
end-if
3. Refuse to speak to anyone who is not a reputable scientist
4. Loop to 1.

 

[DeitySlayer]

Evolutionists compelling argument loop:

Begin:
1. Claim that all reputable scientists believe evolution (in other words, lie)
2. If a scientist says: I'm a scientist and I believe in Creation:
- discredit them and mock them as disreputable (see movie Expelled for ideas)
end-if
3. Refuse to speak to anyone who is not a reputable scientist
4. Loop to 1.

Slight correction:

Evolution's compelling argument loop:

Point out protein functional redundancy, DNA functional redundancy, transposons, redundant pseudogenes, endogenous retroviruses, anatomical parahomology, molecular parahomology, anatomical convergence, molecular convergence, anatomical suboptimal function, molecular suboptimal function, nested hierachies, convergences of independent phylogenies, vestigial structures, past and present biogeography and the ***load of transitional forms.

Sit back and wait for Creationists to utterly fail to refute any of this.

Evolution proved.

 

[evolved yet?]

Evolutionists compelling argument loop:

Begin:
1. Claim that all reputable scientists believe evolution (in other words, lie)
2. If a scientist says: I'm a scientist and I believe in Creation:
- discredit them and mock them as disreputable (see movie Expelled for ideas)
end-if
3. Refuse to speak to anyone who is not a reputable scientist
4. Loop to 1.

1. All reputable scientists accept evolution is possible.
2. Behe is a credible scientist but his work on ID is not:
- Expelled for ideas was rebutted by djarm67 in a 16 part series look it up on youtube.
3. We do debate people who are not scientists like Duane Gish( Dumb), Ken Ham( Dumber) ,and Hovind( Dumbest).
4. Loop to 1.

 

[evolved yet?]

Still no positive evidence...

 

[DeitySlayer]

Duane Gish( Dumb), Ken Ham( Dumber) ,and Hovind( Dumbest).

You forgot Ray Comfort. Here's a classic example of his ineptitude.

"With the help of God, I cast the spirit of rebellion from him, then asked a friend, who had come in to see what the noise was about, to get John a drink of water. When John came back to himself, I asked him what he had been in­volved in that got him into such a state. It turned out that he had been listening to occult-based heavy metal music and drinking blood. He and his girlfriend, under the influence of mar­ijuana, would get a cup of blood from the local butcher and drink it in a satanic rite."

Observation: John had a violent fit
Facts: John was drinking unprocessed blood and smoking weed
Conclusion: He was possessed by demons

This would be hilarious if it weren't so sad.

 

[rusra02]

Slight correction:

Evolution's compelling argument loop:

Point out protein functional redundancy, DNA functional redundancy, transposons, redundant pseudogenes, endogenous retroviruses, anatomical parahomology, molecular parahomology, anatomical convergence, molecular convergence, anatomical suboptimal function, molecular suboptimal function, nested hierachies, convergences of independent phylogenies, vestigial structures, past and present biogeography and the ***load of transitional forms.

Sit back and wait for Creationists to utterly fail to refute any of this.

Evolution proved.

Uh, there's a lotta big words up there in your post. However, the ideas behind those big words don't prove Evolution. Googling each of these will present websites that do, in fact, refute the arguments upon which each 'proof' is based.

Evolution NOT proved (just because you say it is)

 

[evolved yet?]

You forgot Ray Comfort. Here's a classic example of his ineptitude.

Better then Hovind.

 

[evolved yet?]

Uh, there's a lotta big words up there in your post. However, the ideas behind those big words don't prove Evolution. Googling each of these will present websites that do, in fact, refute the arguments upon which each 'proof' is based.

Evolution NOT proved (just because you say it is)

We never stated that we say it therefore it is true, the evidence has still to be refuted and you have still to provide any support for your position other then attacking ours.

 

[evolved yet?]

Uh, there's a lotta big words up there in your post.

Big Words, the creationist night mare!

 

[Gunfingers]

Uh, there's a lotta big words up there in your post. However, the ideas behind those big words don't prove Evolution. Googling each of these will present websites that do, in fact, refute the arguments upon which each 'proof' is based.

Evolution NOT proved (just because you say it is)

Here you will see rusra02 employing one of my favorite debate tactics of creationists, and indeed of all conspiracy theorists. The old "The evidence is there, just look and you'll find it!" He obviously can't admit that he's unable to find any evidence himself, so he figures if you can't prove the evidence isn't there we'll simply have to assume it is and accept him as right.

By the by, i have a 12" penis. Don't believe me? There's plenty of websites that prove it, just google it and you'll find them!

 

[The Neo Nerd]

3. Refuse to speak to anyone who is not a reputable scientist

Not entirely true.

However it would be nice if the creationist had a basic understanding of the topic.

That's not too much to ask, is it?

-Q

 

[DeitySlayer]

Rusra, I openly challenge you to a debate on the evidence for biological evolution. Up for it?

 

[evolved yet?]

Wow still no positive evidence!

 

[Meow Mix]

Wait... there are still people who deny common descent?

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Wait... there are still people who deny common descent?

There are still people who don't know about common descent.

They still keep trotting out the "evolving from monkeys" schtick.

-Q

 

[Meow Mix]

There are still people who don't know about common descent.

They still keep trotting out the "evolving from monkeys" schtick.

-Q

And here I was in the early 90's thinking that by the time I hit 30 I'd be flying to work in a hovercar...

But we still have stuff like WEATHER?

And scientific illiteracy? Bah! Humbug!

 

[Revoltingest]

And here I was in the early 90's thinking that by the time I hit 30 I'd be flying to work in a hovercar...

But we still have stuff like WEATHER?

And scientific illiteracy? Bah! Humbug!

Yeah, & where are those anatomically correct funbots who will say things like, "Why, yes!
You're absolutely correct." & "Yes, master!" & "I've a hankering to give someone a foot massage."?

 

[The Neo Nerd]

my funbot would never say hankering