I think the only people who have a chance of winning over creationists to seeing that there is Evolution is the scientist (or at least a person well versed in Evolutionary theory) who is one of them… ie a Christian. There are such creatures.
The first thing that will do is disarm them of the ready defence that someone is trying to mock their faith in God. Instead they can reason from the position of a person of faith. Next they have to have charisma, be witty, and make the information they give fun. We are dealing with average folk many of whom will glaze over when talking about the actual science. The person must learn to use the listeners ignorance of science as a weapon, much as their oppents have. Finally they must attack the other persons position as a matter of heresy (In the original religious sense).
First you open the minds to the posibility of Evolution then once open you feed them the facts.
[QUOTE=Hari Seldon]
It’s a mug’s game since they can always say, in answer to a question like, “Why do we have an appendix?” or any of the many imperfections that we have because evolution is by hill-climbing and can only find a local meximum, he will inevitably answer that man cannot know the mind of God.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, I think that’s a bad example. Scientists used to insist that the appendix served no function whatsoever, but many now believe that it functions as part of the immune system. (This is from a secular source, BTW, not a creationist organization.)
Before you get upset, I’m not denying that imperfections DO exist (they most certainly do!), nor am I particularly interested in talking about why they exist. I"m just saying that it’s a bit of outdated science to claim that the appendix serves no function. People still believe that, but that’s because elementary school textbooks are often out of step with modern science.
[QUOTE=Hari Seldon]
Fine and dandy, but they sure claim to know the mind of God on myriad other questions, such as that he forbids birth control. Or married priests. Ok, that is just one sect, but each one believes it has a perfect take on what God wants all over.
[/QUOTE]
Again, to be fair, a more precise statement would be that one cannot COMPLETELY know the mind of God. This does not preclude one from offering any judgment on what God says, especially where the Scriptures are concerned. Many Catholic theologians, for example (if not all) would offer that answer, even though they don’t align themselves with creation science thinking.
[QUOTE=Hari Seldon]
God is supposed to have said, “Thou shalt not kill” or words to that effect. But virtually every war is started with “God on our side”. Or consider Bloody Mary, or the Crusaders.
[/QUOTE]
This is fodder for a whole 'nuther debate, but since somebody is bound to point this out… The actual command is “Thou salt not murder,” and it does not preclude all forms of killing. The Mosaic law does allow for capital punishment and warfare in certain situations, for example. Also, even if we grant the claim that “virtually every war is started with ‘God on our side’,” that would – at best – only imply an inconsistency on the part of people who make that claim. It doesn’t make the commandment itself self-contradictory.
[QUOTE=Sophistry and Illusion]
For the last time, lekatt, you don’t understand science at all. Please acquire an understanding or leave this thread. If you want to acquire an understanding of even a small fraction of the overwhelming evidence for evolution, start here. Unless you can give a convincing and non-ad hoc explanation of atavisms, endogenous retroviruses, molecular vestiges, etc., etc., etc., then you have *no business at all * commenting on the scientific merit of evolution.
[/QUOTE]
Well, I am basing what I say on the video, fossil remains, which would fit into a pickup truck, do not show any evolution of animals. This is only the opinion of those who dug them up. It is assumption, not fact. Then there is the problem of order versus randomness. I have brought this problem up many times also. I particular liked the part where the professor stumbled around saying it was complicated. The video pointed that out beautifully saying scientists think creationists are not intelligent enough to understand the complications. That my friend is one of the oldest cons in history and essentially what you are doing to me in your post.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
(But if you try this, be prepared if he answers a question with a question: “What scientific evidence, if discovered, would falsify the theory of blind, unguided evolution?” There probably is a meaningful answer to that but I’m not sophisticated enough in the field to suggest one.)
[/QUOTE]
That’s the beauty of the 29 Evidences for Macroevolution page. In the context of each piece of evidence, it gives a prediction evolution makes with respect to this piece of evidence, and what would count as falsifying this prediction.
[QUOTE=lekatt]
Well, I am basing what I say on the video, fossil remains, which would fit into a pickup truck, do not show any evolution of animals. This is only the opinion of those who dug them up. It is assumption, not fact. Then there is the problem of order versus randomness. I have brought this problem up many times also. I particular liked the part where the professor stumbled around saying it was complicated. The video pointed that out beautifully saying scientists think creationists are not intelligent enough to understand the complications. That my friend is one of the oldest cons in history and essentially what you are doing to me in your post.
[/QUOTE]
Whatever. I’m going to follow **tomndebb’s ** advice. In the words of Johnson, “Sir, I have given you an argument; I am not obliged to give you an understanding.”
[QUOTE=Triskadecamus]
I would ask a question of faith.
“If the Lord told you to love those who believed in things that you do not, could you do it?”
It’s the part that matters. Creationists are not scientists, and most of them are simply people misled by those who use faith as a tool to earthly power.
Tris
[/QUOTE]
A very good question, this creation vs. evolution is not very important in the affairs of men. We need to get more serious about our relationships with one another. I personally don’t think you will get many serious answers.
[QUOTE=Sophistry and Illusion]
Whatever. I’m going to follow **tomndebb’s ** advice. In the words of Johnson, “Sir, I have given you an argument; I am not obliged to give you an understanding.”
[/QUOTE]
It would be impossible to give anyone an understanding. Thanks Tom for the dunking.
“Why do Creationists have it in their logic warped mind that if you show flaws in the understanding of Evolution that constructs a case for Creationism?”
[QUOTE=lekatt]
Well, I am basing what I say on the video, fossil remains, which would fit into a pickup truck, do not show any evolution of animals. This is only the opinion of those who dug them up.
[/QUOTE]
…and the thousands of other people who are equally or more highly trained than the ones who dug them up.
Actually, although I tend to avoid creationists and so haven’t tried this one out yet, I wonder what would happen if you pushed their nose in a Biblical contradiction. So, for example, 1 Samuel says David killed Goliath; 2 Samuel 21:19 says Elhanan killed Goliath.
[QUOTE=jtgain]
I agree. If you are talking about the concept of “God” or even a god, then “logical” questions mean nothing as you are talking about a supernatural being who is all-powerful.
You might as well talk to believers of ghosts as to how it is possibly physically for spirits to rise from the dead and walk through walls.
*I’m not comparing religious belief with belief in ghosts, but it’s the same principle..
[/QUOTE]
Actually, I disagree. Logic must still apply to God or any gods, if we want to be able to say anything about them. The problem isn’t with the system, it’s with the premises; talking to a believer of ghosts about how they can exist can be done logically, but it requires the acceptance (either genuine or theoretical) of the possibility that they could exist.
A supernatural being who is all-powerful could certainly be outside of logic, but if they are we have no way of doing or knowing anything about them, and if they aren’t they must be subject to logic.
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
Actually, I disagree. Logic must still apply to God or any gods, if we want to be able to say anything about them. The problem isn’t with the system, it’s with the premises; talking to a believer of ghosts about how they can exist can be done logically, but it requires the acceptance (either genuine or theoretical) of the possibility that they could exist.
A supernatural being who is all-powerful could certainly be outside of logic, but if they are we have no way of doing or knowing anything about them, and if they aren’t they must be subject to logic.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, God is logical and there is a logical explanation of ghosts. The spiritual “field” is very large and “complicated.”
[QUOTE=Sophistry and Illusion]
Actually, although I tend to avoid creationists and so haven’t tried this one out yet, I wonder what would happen if you pushed their nose in a Biblical contradiction. So, for example, 1 Samuel says David killed Goliath; 2 Samuel 21:19 says Elhanan killed Goliath.
[/QUOTE]
David killed Goliath Jones. Elhanan killed Goliah Jenkins.
[QUOTE=Indistinguishable]
Photographs don’t speak either, but the use of photographic evidence is not generally held to be an injection of mere opinion.
[/QUOTE]
Photographs can be an opinion if one has photoshop. Photos are not the evidence they used to be because of photo manipulation programs.
I’ve often seen several dozen trucks’ worth of fossils in a single museum.
