The Evo Debate Playbook – Nothing New After All These Years.

[Richard 1]

This is an extension of Fred's excellent advise to Creationists which is pinned in this forum. This one takes a more indepth look at the debate tactics you'll always encounter with Darwinists especially in a message board debate.

 

It is not necessarily original with me, but I have been following this debate for 30 years, and you don't spend 30 years debating evos and not learn the evo debate playbook pretty well because they use it everytime. They are extremely predictable. Every debate I’ve ever had with evos has followed the same format.

 

I would encourage my fellow creationists to read the following post and keep these points in mind when debating evos especially on a message board format. You will readily recognize these patterns over and over again. As day follows night, they inevitably arise after you post anything that challenges the religion of evolution.

 

These are in no particular order except for Ad-hominem which is almost always their first line of defense. As you’ll see, it’s often combined with others, but is almost always first. The others are deployed as needed to keep the challenger off point. If you understand these tactics, they quickly become apparent in a debate and they lose their power. You can quickly cut through them and demand the evo get back on point – not that they will – but it frees you from spinning your wheels responding to these evasions.

 

If you take these away, what’s really left?

 

1. Ad Hominem attacks Ad hominem means “against the man†as opposed to “against the argument,†and is almost always the opening salvo from evos. For instance, practically the first thing said about the Altenberg 16 post by evos was “Susan Mazur is a @#$%#@! Therefore, we dismiss anything she's ever said.†(Also seeEXPELLED No Intelligence Allowed to see how the Darwinists handle dissent even among their own). A variation on this attack is #14 -- “what are your credentials?†“You don’t have the credentials to question evolution therefore we dismiss your question.†In 30 years, I have never nada, not one time, ever, been in a debate where I have not been called some of the following names. The personal attacks flow from evos like water over Niagara, so be prepared for words like “dumb, stupid, illiterate, uneducated, bible thumper, hick, toothless, etc. etc.†but take comfort that these are not answers to your questions – they are simply desperate evasions that seek to disguise the bankruptcy of evolutionary evidence. It is telling that they seem to satisfy evos. “Well I showed him – I called him a dumb @#$%#@.†Yes, you showed me, but what you showed me is not what you think you showed me.

 

2. Goal Post Shifting, Evo says "Tiktaalik!" Creationists says "Tik can't walk on land." Evo says "Creationists don't understand the transitional process or all the different transitionals." “But it was you that held up only one transitional.†Evo responds, “Creationists should understand what I’m saying – it’s not my responsibility to make a cogent argument.†“Huh?â€ÂÂ

 

3. Work Shifting You’ll often see some variation of this: "Post all the evidence for evolution that you think you understand so I can dismiss your understanding and work with a “thumbs down.†What does this remind us of? In the Roman Coliseum, Christians fought the lions and tigers and all Nero had to do was turn his thumb down to kill them. How energy efficient for Evo-Neros! Creationists do all the work and Evo-Neros get to kill them with a simple thumb down. Nice gig if you can get it. Watch out for this one as it will tie you up making post after post to show you understand the evo side. Tell them NO. Let them do the work if they have a point to make. They usually won’t. As we’ve seen, evolution does not promote rigorous science.

 

4. Equivocation or redefining evolution. Here’s how it works. “There's no evidence for "sand to man" evolution.†“Sure there is, look, bacteria can become resistant." "But isn't it still a bacteria?" ""No, it's something else." ‘What is it?†“It’s something else.†“It’s still a bacterium.†“No it’s not -- it’s something new.“ “What is it?†“Something new.†“It’s not a bacterium?†This one goes on ad infinitum. My personal, all time favorite equivocation though is “There's no doubt about evolution because (drum roll please) I can wiggle my ears."::LOL That one always warms my crotchety old heart.

 

5. Multiple Unrelated Responses Evos will spend a lot of energy telling you how wrong your posting style is or asking you to address some other unrelated issue in your post. At the same time, they will combine #5 with #1 which proves that evos can at least multi-task. Refusing to respond to posts that don’t address the topic can save you some time. Unfortunately, they inevitably draw #6.

 

6. Running Away When a creationist spends time to return fire to the left flank, he will almost certainly be accused of “running away†by the evos on the right flank. Turning back to the right flank draws the same criticism from the middle of the line. Turning to the middle…well you get the idea. #6 is closely related to # 7 and #8.

 

7. 10 against 1 Evos think a fair fight is 10 evos to 1 creationist. They are correct. Fortunately, one reasonably well read creationist can handle 10 evos without much problem except that it requires lots and lots of responses. Miss one and you’ll be accused of running away or not responding in spite of the fact that you have responded a hundred times in the thread. You can ameliorate this problem by condensing your responses into one longer response. This will not keep you from hearing the whine, “you never responded to meeeeeâ€ÂÂ, and it will also inevitably draw #8.

 

8. Double Standard on Responding Trying to condense responses into one longer posts will often draw the “I can’t be expected to read through that “drek†from evos right after they’ve accused you of not responding. There’s no way around this other than to spend every waking hour posting individual responses, so you’ll have to live with #6,#7 and #8 in every debate because you can’t expect evos to hold to the same standards they have for you. That would make it too easy for you anyway and take all the fun out of it.

 

9. Nit-Picking This is an oldie but goodie for evos. They will always make you spend time playing games with minor typos or spelling/grammar errors and going “ahah! I found a typo – I win!†all the time never addressing the topic. While we should all seek to use proper grammar and spelling, a back and forth message board is hardly the place to play “grammar school marm,†and besides, the standard only applies to creationist posts. Evos never have to worry about mistspelled wurds.

 

10. Circular Reasoning, "How do we know life evolved from non-life? Because we are here!" “Why are we here?†“Because life evolved from non-life.†Evos must have an evolutionary adaptation that allows them to spin around in circles and not get dizzy, but at the same time, dizziness is required to believe evolution. Hmmmn, could this be a case of irreducible complexity?

 

11. Intentionally Missing the Point “There’s disarray in evolutionary thinking – did it happen by Darwinian means or Non-Darwinian means?†“Doesn’t matter – everyone still believes in evolution.†‘But that’s not the point.††What’s the point?†That there’s disarray in evolutionary thinking.†“Doesn’t matter – everyone still believes in evolution.†“Sigh!†“Are there transitionals or are transitionals non-existant as some evos say?“ “Doesn’t matter – everyone still believes in evolution.†“But how do you know if there’s not agreement on transitionals?†“Doesn’t matter – everyone still believes in evolution.†‘Sigh!†“Did it happen gradually or in huge jumps?†“Doesn’t matter – everyone still believes in evolution.†This will go on ad nauseum and flows directly into #12.

 

12. Elasticity or plasticity of evolutionary theory. No matter what, everything fits evolution. “Non-evolutionary stasis?†“It fits – we expect it.†“How can tons of non-evolution in the fossil record fit with evolution?†“It fits – trust me!†“Darwinian/Non-Darwinian?†â€ÂÂBoth fit!†“Was it Gradual or Punctuated Equilibrium?†“Both and both fit!†Evolutionists have never met a problem they couldn’t solve by simply stretching evolutionary theory and saying “it fits.†They don’t understand that standing for everything really means standing for nothing.

 

13. Dismissal by Wave of Hand “Francis Crick says the chance that life made itself is greater than all the atoms in the universe.†“Another irrelevant point by an uneducated creationist hick – nothing here folks. Let’s move along.†Usually deployed early to see if you go away. If you don’t, expect to see numbers 1 though 17.

 

14. Dismissal for Lack of Credentials usually combined with #1 but it always comes up with any serious challenge to Darwinism. “Who are you to question Darwin? You have no credentials.†“Well, what were Darwin’s credentials?†“Doesn’t matter -- this is now that was then.†What’s always fun about this one is that you can always count on seeing #11 right after you see #10. “So you care about credentials?†“What about these PhDs who question Darwinism?â€ÂÂ

 

15. Irrationality “You have no credentials to question Darwin?†Followed closely by “I don’t care about Berlinski’s, Demski’s, Gonzalez’s, Meyers, Behe’s, Remine’s (fill in the blank’s) credentials.†“Huh?†(creationist scratches head) So, why do you question credentials if credentials don’t matter?†“They matter when we say they matter, OK?†“OK, we got it.â€ÂÂ

 

16. Dismissal by Consensus “No serious scientist questions evolution.†“What about all these serious scientists that question evolution?†“Those are not serious scientists.†“‘How come?†“Because they question evolution.†Sigh! “Well if we shouldn’t question the consensus, didn’t Darwin question the consensus?†“Yes, but that was different.†“How?†“Because he was questioning the consensus of a creator and that’s OK, got it?†“Got it!â€ÂÂ

 

17. Bluster “EVOLUTION IS A FACT†“EVOLUTION IS A FACT†“EVOLUTION IS A FACT†“EVOLUTION IS A FACT†“EVOLUTION IS A FACT†“EVOLUTION IS A FACT†“EVOLUTION IS A FACT†“EVOLUTION IS A FACT†“EVOLUTION IS A FACT†“EVOLUTION IS A FACT†“EVOLUTION IS A FACT†“EVOLUTION IS A FACT†“EVOLUTION IS A FACT†“EVOLUTION IS A FACT†“EVOLUTION IS A FACT†“EVOLUTION IS A FACT†“EVOLUTION IS A FACTâ€ÂÂ

 

This is repeated by the evo while wearing ruby slippers, closing their eyes and clicking their heals. Unfortunately, this ends with them back in Kansas and they hate Kansas.

 

So, it you take these away, what’s left? Not much really and this is what creationists have been saying all along. Take comfort! The word is getting out. They can’t withhold information anymore (we can thank Al Gore for inventing the internet). No one ever thought the Soviet Union would crumble and the Berlin Wall would come down, but one day the Soviet Union looked invulnerable and the next day it was essentially gone. The cracks in the dam are not repairable and it’s getting worse everyday. Do some reading and take their playbook and go out and take them on. When the wall comes tumbling down, you’ll have been a part of it.

[ikester7579 20]

Good stuff. Here is some more to add to it.

 

 

The science "god did it" type excuses. It's where they invoke a situation where the laws change just so their claims can work.

 

Example:

 

Q: How do you compress all the matter in the universe into a dot when it break all known laws of physics?

 

A: There were no laws. That is why this could happen.

 

Note: the answer invokes a situation where boundless things can happen (like during God's creation). Problem is with this type of excuse, no laws equals no order. No order equals total chaos. Plus, they would have to explain the order of how each law came to be and why.

 

The self cancelling question:

 

Q: Who created God?

 

Note: This question is self cancelling because through having answered that question another of the same type will arise and repeat itself for infinity.

 

Example: If you found out who or what created God, then you would have to answer where that came from. And it would continue forever. It's the same difference as if old earthers could answer where the matter came from for the Big Bang. After they figured that out, then another question would arise asking: Where did that come from. And this would also continue forever. Which makes the question non-scientific. But is a lame excuse question when they cannot answer the questions already asked of them.

 

We make the rules so we can break the rules. And we also determine who has to abide by them, and who does not:

 

Q: If creation is true, why can it not be tested in a lab?

 

A: If evolution is true, why cannot the millions of years of the claimed "process" not be observed?

 

Note: To answer some questions you have to answer with a question just like it. The answer to the evolution question will always be "time" (time god did it). Basically, given enough time anything can and will happen is what they will try to imply. But, to much time required, so you will never see it. That is breaking the rule where all creationists are required, by them, to produce testable claims. When their main claim (millions of years of evolution) cannot be tested, and happens to be 50% of what the theory actually is. But their claims are always accepted even when not tested. And creationist claims are always rejected for the same exact reason.

 

The stacking if evidence:

 

Q: Why is evolution a true fact?

 

A: It has "mountains" of evidence.

 

Note: the problem with claim of mountains of evidence, is that it's the same type of evidence. New evidence is not often found.

 

Example: It would be like me claiming to have mountains of evidence because there are a billion Bibles in circulation. Problem is, it's the same type of evidence which is not a progression to finding answers. Which is not scientific. Mountains of evidence for evolution equals a bunch of bones from the same group of fossils that are stacked to make this claim. Each fossil only support what the other fossils are. They do not support a progression of finding answers, or solving problems.

[Adam Nagy 50]

Richard,

 

That is great work. It's good to have you back. I wonder what evolutionists think when they read that along with Ikester's CreationWiki articles; "I resemble that remark." I hope at least some read that stuff to stop and think how they themselves were convinced that they were winning debates when they were really being nonsensical. One can pray.

 

Adam

[Richard 1]

Good stuff. Here is some more to add to it.

The science "god did it" type excuses. It's where they invoke a situation where the laws change just so their claims can work.

 

Example:

 

Q: How do you compress all the matter in the universe into a dot when it break all known laws of physics?

 

A: There were no laws. That is why this could happen.

 

Note: the answer invokes a situation where boundless things can happen. Problem is with this type of excuse, no laws equals no order. No order equals total chaos. Plus, they would have to explain the order of how each law came to be and why.

 

The self cancelling question:

 

Q: Who created God?

 

Note: This question is self cancelling because through having answered that question another of the same type will arise and repeat itself for infinity.

 

Example: If you found out who or what created God, then you would have to answer where that came from. And it would continue forever. It's the same difference as if old earthers could answer where the matter came from for the Big Bang. After they figured that out, then another question would arise asking: Where did that come from. And this would also continue forever. Which makes the question non-scientific. But is a lame excuse question when they cannot answer the questions already asked of them.

 

We make the rules so we can break the rules. And we also determine who has to abide by them, and who does not:

 

Q: If creation is true, why can it not be tested in a lab?

 

A: If evolution is true, why cannot the millions of years of the claimed "process" not be observed?

 

Note: To answer some questions you have to answer with a question just like it. The answer to the evolution question will always be "time" (time god did it). Basically, given enough time anything can and will happen is what they will try to imply. But, to much time required, so you will never see it. That is breaking the rule where all creationists are required, by them, to produce testable claims. When their main claim (millions of years of evolution) cannot be tested, and happens to be 50% of what the theory actually is. But there claims are always accepted even when not tested. And creationist claims are always rejected for the same exact reason.

 

The stacking if evidence:

 

Q: Why is evolution a true fact?

 

A: It has "mountains" of evidence.

 

Note: the problem with claim of mountains of evidence, is that it's the same type of evidence. New evidence is not often found.

 

Example: It would be like me claiming to have mountains of evidence because there are a billion Bibles in circulation. Problem is, it's the same type of evidence which is not a progression to finding answers. Which is not scientific. Mountains of evidence for evolution equals a bunch of bones from the same group of fossils that are stacked to make this claim. Each fossil only support what the other fossils are. They do not support a progression of finding answers, or solving problems.

23360[/snapback]

Thanks those are some good ones. I will incorporate them. I would like to continue to add to this and keep it available, but it mostly springs from my experience on other boards where the inmates run the asylum. Here on EFF, the strict moderation prevents a lot of this, but in reading Fred's debates with evos, you see them. I got a chuckle when reading one debate Fred had with an evo who said he didn't have credentials to question evolution because he was only an Electrical Engineer. I don't remember exactly, but seems the evo was a biologist of some sort.

 

I about fell out when I read that. There's no comparison between an EE and Biology. Most Biologist wouldn't have a chance as an EE because of the math whearas biology is mostly rote memory. I aced all my biology courses with ease (even though I had to regurgitate Darwism on the test) but Business Calculus and Quantitative Methods (Linear and Non Linear Regression Analysis) were just a tad more rigorous, but it was that background that made the impossible statistics for life from non-life really come home to me. Most evos don't understand the statistics. Francis Crick did and that's why he said the chance for the first cell was greater than number of individual atoms in the universe. After realizing the implications, he became a panspermia guy as do many who see the impossibilty of life from non-life.

 

I am often disqualified right off the bat because I don't have a degree in biology. Now that I'm retired, I have considered going back to school and getting a biology degree just to hold it up for evos to see, but I would probably get Expelled because I'm too old and onry to keep my mouth shut when the darwinists propaganda starts .

[Richard 1]

Richard,

 

That is great work. It's good to have you back. I wonder what evolutionists think when they read that along with Ikester's CreationWiki articles; "I resemble that remark." I hope at least some read that stuff to stop and think how they themselves were convinced that they were winning debates when they were really being nonsensical. One can pray.

 

Adam

23365[/snapback]

Thanks Adam. I can tell you exactly what they say. They react with hatred and vitriol that borders on the demonic. Now in all fairness, I don't play nice. I probably should be "nicer" and more "humble," but I'm usually not. While I try not to get into personal exchanges with individual evos, I do mock evolution and often with probably too much sarcasm. And I sometimes let evos drag me into a personal exchange because, after 35 years as a Christian, I'm still working on the "turn the other cheek" stuff

 

The older I've gotten and the more sure I've become of the impossibility of evolution, the less willing I've become to be insulted over it and the more challenging I've become to evos. I sometimes wonder if there's something wrong with me, because I actually like going into the lion's den and taking on the evo gangs, and make no mistake, that's what they are. You can be assured that any challenge to their religion will bring out the fangs and when there's more of them than you and no moderation, they'll definitely gang up, and I truly believe that they share strategies for ganging up on an opponent. All you have to do is read Fred's guest book to see the vitriol.

 

What's great about having the list of evo responses is that you can simple respond by saying "a classic example of #11." This drives them apoplectic because they realize you've turned the tables on them. Now, you don't have to spend time explaining why their response was a non-response because it's already defined. They now have to spend the time and energy to explain why what they just said was not "Intentionally Missing the Point," or "Goal Post Shifting" or "Dismissal By Hand Wave." You have to resist the urge to explain it for them or to get into a "no it wasn't;" "yes it was," exchange. Those are very common with them but totally unproductive.

 

As I shared with Fred and with you guys in some of my first posts back over here, a couple of years ago, I found myself burned out over the never ending fight. I was almost addicted to the battle and was spending way too much time posting challenges and then defending them endlessly to the kinds of stuff in this OP, so I decided to back off and went a while before deciding to climb back into the ring. I love EFF, because it's a place I can come and have a conversation without being attacked relentlessly.

[Adam Nagy 50]

Richard,

 

I really enjoy the insights here. I'm getting ready to pull my own creation seminar together with the blessing of my Pastor. My last several months of engaging in debate forums has been priceless. Pray for me, please.

 

It may seem like it's futile work but we should prayerfully approach each post with the understanding that there will be several eyes on it. Actually, I often approach posts with a higher sensitivity to the Christians that will be reading it verses the evolutionist or atheist that I'm speaking with at the moment.

 

Adam

[Richard 1]

Richard,

 

I really enjoy the insights here. I'm getting ready to pull my own creation seminar together with the blessing of my Pastor. My last several months of engaging in debate forums has been priceless. Pray for me, please.

 

It may seem like it's futile work but we should prayerfully approach each post with the understanding that there will be several eyes on it. Actually, I often approach posts with a higher sensitivity to the Christians that will be reading it verses the evolutionist or atheist that I'm speaking with at the moment.

 

Adam

23388[/snapback]

I will pray for you and your seminar, Adam. I have considered such a thing but have never put it together. Kudos to you. I believe if the church were more active in this area, we would make more of an impact in the world.

 

I take the opportunity when it arises, to talk with friends and and relatives who still feel they must bow to Darwin "because science has proven it." Unfortunately, when I'm posting I'm probably not as sensitive to the spiritual implications as I should be. It's good to be reminded that "we wrestle not against flesh and blood."

[jason777 1]

Great thread guys.

 

I've seen #14 played for all it's worth.If your not an evolutionists then your not a scientists and if you quote someone like Steven J. Gould about stasis in the fossil record then your quoting out of contexct.I think it's absurd that stasis in the fossil record only exists if it applies to evolution,which is the complete opposite of what evolution predicts.

[ikester7579 20]

Thanks those are some good ones. I will incorporate them. I would like to continue to add to this and keep it available, but it mostly springs from my experience on other boards where the inmates run the asylum. Here on EFF, the strict moderation prevents a lot of this, but in reading Fred's debates with evos, you see them. I got a chuckle when reading one debate Fred had with an evo who said he didn't have credentials to question evolution because he was only an Electrical Engineer. I don't remember exactly, but seems the evo was a biologist of some sort.

 

I about fell out when I read that. There's no comparison between an EE and Biology. Most Biologist wouldn't have a chance as an EE because of the math whearas biology is mostly rote memory. I aced all my biology courses with ease (even though I had to regurgitate Darwism on the test) but Business Calculus and Quantitative Methods (Linear and Non Linear Regression Analysis) were just a tad more rigorous, but it was that background that made the impossible statistics for life from non-life really come home to me. Most evos don't understand the statistics. Francis Crick did and that's why he said the chance for the first cell was greater than number of individual atoms in the universe. After realizing the implications, he became a panspermia guy as do many who see the impossibilty of life from non-life.      

 

I am often disqualified right off the bat because I don't have a degree in biology. Now that I'm retired, I have considered going back to school and getting a biology degree just to hold it up for evos to see, but I would probably get Expelled because I'm too old and onry to keep my mouth shut when the darwinists propaganda starts .

23382[/snapback]

Because if you believe in God and creation with no evolution, you would have your degrees automatically void in the eyes of "any" evolutionist. As every evolutionist will tell you: Creation scientist are not really scientist. So with that tag, all the degrees in the world won't help.

 

In the evolution world, degrees equal respect. When would a evolutionist feel the need to respect anyone who disagreed with them? Be a cold day in hell before that would happen. In fact get an evolutionist to name just ten creationist they would respect because they have degrees. Most would have trouble thinking of one.

 

Science, is fundamentally, a game with one over riding and defining rule:

 

Let's see how far, and to what extent we can explain the behavior of the physical and material universe in terms of purely physical and material causes without "EVER" invoking the supernatural. [involving God] in the explanation constitutes a form of intellectual cheating. A chess player is perfectly capable of smashing his opponents king on the floor during a tournament, but this does not make him a champion because the rules were not followed. Evolution is not promoted because of overwhelming evidence in it's favor, nor is creation rejected for lack of evidence. The biblical creation model is simply ignored because scientists are trained to ignore this possibility. They would be accused of "cheating" if they did accept the evidence for creation.

 

Richard Dickerson  (Biochemist-evolutionist) Member of National Academy of science . February 1, a closer look at the evidence.

[ikester7579 20]

Richard,

 

I really enjoy the insights here. I'm getting ready to pull my own creation seminar together with the blessing of my Pastor. My last several months of engaging in debate forums has been priceless. Pray for me, please.

 

It may seem like it's futile work but we should prayerfully approach each post with the understanding that there will be several eyes on it. Actually, I often approach posts with a higher sensitivity to the Christians that will be reading it verses the evolutionist or atheist that I'm speaking with at the moment.

 

Adam

23388[/snapback]

Will Judy be there?

[Adam Nagy 50]

Will Judy be there?

23629[/snapback]

I think she's done with us for now but I always pray for her.

[Master Buffalax 0]

The debater instinct in me kicks into gear whenever I see an itemized list of my opponent's complaints. Let's just go down the line:

 

#1 - Ad hominem attacks are tragic wastes of time, but pinning the majority of them on evolutionists would be unfair. I've seen evolutionists call creationists morons, and I've seen the latter call the former closed-minded bigots. It's a product of heated, polarizing debate more than of any particular viewpoint. Maybe the Evolution Fairytale community sees more evolutionist trolls than most owing to its dedicated and disproportionately large creationist base? That would certainly explain why you see so many ad hominem tactics from evolutionists here.

 

#2 - Your example of "goal post shifting" makes me wince. The process usually goes more like this: "Tiktaalik!" "Tiktaalik can't walk on land." "<Insert maybe a dozen other 'transitional' fossils from various species>" "None of those prove evolutionary descent; they can all be explained perfectly well as slightly different, separately created species." "But they do fit remarkably well into the framework predicted by evolution." "But that doesn't PROVE evolution." "What do you want, a continuous distribution of fossils leading from one species to another?" "Yes." "But you know how delicate the fossil-forming process is; there SHOULDN'T be that many transitionals." "You're the one who brought up transitionals in the first place."

It's not goal-post shifting so much as evos starting on what they think is a convincing line of argument and then being repeatedly astounded by a creationist's ability to be unconvinced by their favorite evidence.

 

#3 - Evos like to tell creationists to post what they know about evolution not because they're trying to be slimy debaters, but because many (not all) creationists are incredibly ignorant of basic evolutionary theory. Arguments like "evolution and creation are both just educated guesses" or "the second law of thermodynamics says information can't be created, so species can't appear out of randomness" are objectively wrong, and they keep popping up no matter how many times evos put them down. "List what you know and I'll refute what's wrong" can be abused, but it's a legitimate tactic to squelch these arguments from ignorance before they start.

 

#4 - This one is... actually, yeah. Evos equivocate a lot, and I really wish they wouldn't. Bacteria-to-bacteria is not macroevolution, although it is one of many confirming factors that POINT to macroevolution.

 

#5-#8 - See #1, mostly. When you have to deal with an issues as complex and multifaceted as evolution, everyone will be jumping in with all sorts of viewpoints on all sorts of issues while trying to respond to everyone else. Things are bound to get lost in the shuffle, and the owners of these lost arguments will probably whine about it. Again, it's a product of the debate climate, not any particular belief system.

 

#9 - "Mistspelled"... clever . At any rate, this is mostly the same as #5-#8. Your list is interesting, but it comes down rather heavily on the "evos = poor debaters" side, and that's just not fair.

 

#10 - Circular reasoning? Really? Again, it's more like this: "How do we know life evolved from non-life?" "Because of <insert a cannonade of arguments for evolution here>." "But couldn't special creation explain what we see today just as well?" "Well, maybe, but that opens up a whole slew of ontological and theological questions that seem problematic. Besides, the evidence points very nicely at life evolving from non-life, so that's the theory we ought to accept." "I find your evidence unconvincing." "Gah! That's the fifth time today!"

 

#11 - This is a product of miscommunication, not of evos intentionally undermining the debate. The problem is that creationists will often consider something a legitimate point when evos find it so obviously off-topic that no one even needs to explicitly state how off topic it is. Examples:

"There's disarray in evolutionary thinking - Darwinian or non Darwinian?" This is not an argument against evolution per se. There's plenty of debate over Copenhagen vs. Bohmian quantum mechanics, but that doesn't mean the Standard Model is in any jeopardy. Evolution is the same way: there's plenty of disagreement about the details of how evolution happened, but all models are consistent with the same basic framework.

"Are there transitionals or not?" Yes, although not as many as evolutionists would like to see. This does undermine the proactive use of transitionals as a stand-alone argument for evolution. On the other hand, evos can legitimately say that it "doesn't matter" in many contexts because the (admittedly small) number of transitional fossils we have found is entirely consistent with many models of evolution.

 

#12 - Admittedly, there are a lot of different models of evolution. To a non-evolutionist, this probably looks like excessive elasticity. There are, however, a few things that all evolutionary theories predict. This is what makes them science. A few that come to mind are: microevolution and a mechanism by which traits can be passed with modification from parent to offspring (these were predicted and then confirmed, so they count even though they're no longer "falsifiable"), no "true chimeras" with complex genetic features from multiple, distinct branches of the phylogenetic tree, the existence of an evolutionary tree that fits (at least roughly) with the available data on genetic relations between species... This point more than any other I'd like to turn back at the creationists. Anything, except perhaps vivid demonstration of macroevolution in the lab, fits under the umbrella of the world being created by a higher intelligence. Don't accuse evolutionists of encompassing too many possibilities when your ground seems to be "everything the evolutionists aren't predicting."

 

#13 - Wave-of-hand arguments are made in two situations: when the arguer is a jerk (see #1 & 5-8) or when the argument being made is scientifically worn-out but still popular. You provide a perfect example: "The odds are so low as to be virtually nonexistant" is a very popular argument against evolution, but it holds no water. The very idea of natural selection skews the odds in favor of evolution, so most of the odds cited against evolution are unrealistically low. I've heard that the odds of a human being evolving are less than the odds of a junkyard explosion producing an airplane. In fact, I've heard it dozens of times, so you'll have to forgive me for dismissing the argument with a simple "Bah!" and a wave of my hand the next time it's made. If you have more insightful analysis about how selection isn't enough to produce reasonable odds, make your analysis explicitly; the chance of an evo engaging you in meaningful debate will rise substantially.

 

#14 - Guilty as charged. Admittedly, lack of credentials often means that one hasn't read any of the relevant literature and will just spout bullet points from www.your_favorite_evo_vs_creationism_site.com. This isn't always the case, though, and I do wish evos would realize that someone without an official degree can still be educated about an issue and debate it constructively.

 

#15 - Yeah, this is what happens when you catch perpetrators of #14 red-handed. If there's one thing I learned from debate, it's that you should never assume your opponent can't find a source to back up a claim, no matter how silly it seems.

 

#16 - Let's be abundantly clear that when evos say "no serious scientist questions evolution," that's more of an exaggeration than a bald-faced lie. Correction: Only a tiny percentage of biologists with degrees question evolution (degrees DO matter in this context; anyone intelligent can participate in a debate, but the "scientific community" should be reserved for those who have studied their topics very extensively and can be regarded as experts). Admittedly this isn't a very good argument for evolution, but it isn't wrong either. By the way, Darwin got to question to consensus because he used scientific observation to contradict untested dogma. Scientists can still question the consensus, but they need to have sufficient evidence and a coherent enough argument to contradict the consensus' reasoning.

 

#17 - Replace "EVOLUTION IS A FACT" with "THAT STILL DOESN'T PROVE ANYTHING" and you've defined one of evolutionists' biggest frustrations with creationists. (I'm not talking about all creationists, just like you're not talking about all evolutionists, but it does boil down to that all too often.)

[Master Buffalax 0]

Good stuff. Here is some more to add to it.

The science "god did it" type excuses. It's where they invoke a situation where the laws change just so their claims can work.

 

Example:

 

Q: How do you compress all the matter in the universe into a dot when it break all known laws of physics?

 

A: There were no laws. That is why this could happen.

 

Note: the answer invokes a situation where boundless things can happen (like during God's creation). Problem is with this type of excuse, no laws equals no order. No order equals total chaos. Plus, they would have to explain the order of how each law came to be and why.

 

The self cancelling question:

 

Q: Who created God?

 

Note: This question is self cancelling because through having answered that question another of the same type will arise and repeat itself for infinity.

 

Example: If you found out who or what created God, then you would have to answer where that came from. And it would continue forever. It's the same difference as if old earthers could answer where the matter came from for the Big Bang. After they figured that out, then another question would arise asking: Where did that come from. And this would also continue forever. Which makes the question non-scientific. But is a lame excuse question when they cannot answer the questions already asked of them.

 

We make the rules so we can break the rules. And we also determine who has to abide by them, and who does not:

 

Q: If creation is true, why can it not be tested in a lab?

 

A: If evolution is true, why cannot the millions of years of the claimed "process" not be observed?

 

Note: To answer some questions you have to answer with a question just like it. The answer to the evolution question will always be "time" (time god did it). Basically, given enough time anything can and will happen is what they will try to imply. But, to much time required, so you will never see it. That is breaking the rule where all creationists are required, by them, to produce testable claims. When their main claim (millions of years of evolution) cannot be tested, and happens to be 50% of what the theory actually is. But their claims are always accepted even when not tested. And creationist claims are always rejected for the same exact reason.

 

The stacking if evidence:

 

Q: Why is evolution a true fact?

 

A: It has "mountains" of evidence.

 

Note: the problem with claim of mountains of evidence, is that it's the same type of evidence. New evidence is not often found.

 

Example: It would be like me claiming to have mountains of evidence because there are a billion Bibles in circulation. Problem is, it's the same type of evidence which is not a progression to finding answers. Which is not scientific. Mountains of evidence for evolution equals a bunch of bones from the same group of fossils that are stacked to make this claim. Each fossil only support what the other fossils are. They do not support a progression of finding answers, or solving problems.

23360[/snapback]

I wasn't able to track down your rules on double-posting... I assume this is ok because it's two responses to two different original posts? Anyhoo:

 

-The "Science God did it" excuses-

Most of the tactics listed in this thread fall somewhere between "very misleading" and "slightly overblown" (since it's one side of the debate posting on the other side's tactics, that's actually commendable). This one in particular, though, actually makes me angry. You can say all you want about scientific theories being overly flexible and changing to fit the argument, but scientists do adhere to well-established laws, and to say otherwise is to do a disservice to the scientific method and everything it stands for. Your one example is absurd on two grounds. First, no good physicist would say "there were no laws." The correct statement would be that "conditions around the time of the big bang were so unlike those today that physical laws would be vastly different, and we are at present incapable of saying exactly how." Saying that we don't know how physics worked around the time of the big bang isn't "invoking the science God"; it's admitting that quantum mechanics and the mysteries of higher dimensions limit how much we can know about our universe's origin. Second, questioning the Big Bang is not an argument against evolution, any more than inconsistencies in the Bible are arguments against creation. Either stick to evolution's domain - how living things proceeded from their origins to their current state - or admit that you're tackling all of scientific naturalism, which is a much bigger and more philosophical issue.

 

-Who created God?-

I note that you actually highlight the infinite regress this question produces. You say this makes it a silly question; I say the infinite regress is exactly what the question is meant to call attention to. The infinite regress is, admittedly, not an argument against creationism, since any theory will eventually run up against the problem of first causes. However, it is a rebuttal to such arguments as "every creation needs a creator" and "the universe couldn't just spring out of nothing." Against an atheist evolutionist, you could keep asking "why? why? why?" until at some point he was forced to admit "I don't know why." Against a creationist, you could do the same until you got to "because God did it." Neither is a satisfying answer, which is why first origins should be left out of the evolution discussion. The "who created God" argument is used merely to show that the creationists' first cause makes no more sense a priori than any other alternative.

 

-Unequal Application of Rules-

This is hardly fair. The crux of this argument rests on an all-too-common creationist assertion: direct observation of macroevolution in the lab is the only way to really support evolution experimentally. This is untrue. Scientists would love to see macroevolution directly, but as you pointed out, that would take way too long. So instead, evolutionary biologists content themselves with observing the PREDICTIONS of evolutionary theory: microevolution, minor speciations, patterns of genetic inheritance, etc. Perhaps not ideal, but certainly enough to gain evidence in favor of evolution. The problem with creationism is that it can't really test ANYTHING in the lab. Please correct me if I missed a thread addressing this question, but does creationism really make any predictions other than "evolutionary theory shouldn't be consistent with the world?" If one of those fellows at the Discovery institute could say "creation theory, unlike evolution theory, predicts thing X" and then locate thing X, that would be a red letter day in creationism's credibility.

 

-Mountains of Evidence-

The evidence is not all of the same type, at least not in the way that a billion bibles would all be of the same type. There's fossil evidence, which contrary to your claim actually comes from a fair variety of groups. There's retroviral DNA fragments. There's phylogenetic trees constructed from statistical similarity in genomes. There's vestigial organs. The list goes on. None of these is enough to prove evolution on its own, and I'm sure you have arguments against all of them. The "mountains of evidence" argument is just meant to point out how remarkable it is that all of these small but independent facts of the world line up with evolutionary theory. It's like having a broken window, muddy footprints across the house, and some hair you don't recognize in your bedroom on a day when you can't find your diamond necklace. By themselves, each of these facts could be explained in any number of ways. Taken together, they strongly point toward you being robbed.

[ikester7579 20]

How often is a completely new fossil found?

 

One maybe two in a year? Sometimes zero? How do you build a mountain of different types of evidence for evolution if the material for that mountain is slow coming?

[CTD 1]

#10 - Circular reasoning? Really? Again, it's more like this: "How do we know life evolved from non-life?" "Because of <insert a cannonade of arguments for evolution here>." "But couldn't special creation explain what we see today just as well?" "Well, maybe, but that opens up a whole slew of ontological and theological questions that seem problematic. Besides, the evidence points very nicely at life evolving from non-life, so that's the theory we ought to accept." "I find your evidence unconvincing." "Gah! That's the fifth time today!"

23668[/snapback]

Well, let's see...

 

(adding bold)

#12 - Admittedly, there are a lot of different models of evolution. To a non-evolutionist, this probably looks like excessive elasticity. There are, however, a few things that all evolutionary theories predict. This is what makes them science. A few that come to mind are: microevolution and a mechanism by which traits can be passed with modification from parent to offspring (these were predicted and then confirmed, so they count even though they're no longer "falsifiable"), no "true chimeras" with complex genetic features from multiple, distinct branches of the phylogenetic tree, the existence of an evolutionary tree that fits (at least roughly) with the available data on genetic relations between species...  This point more than any other I'd like to turn back at the creationists. Anything, except perhaps vivid demonstration of macroevolution in the lab, fits under the umbrella of the world being created by a higher intelligence. Don't accuse evolutionists of encompassing too many possibilities when your ground seems to be "everything the evolutionists aren't predicting."

Both variation and reproduction were observed long before even the Greek forms of evolutionism. We're told these are evolution, and these are what the "theory" explains.

 

It is circular to claim as a prediction the very things which the "theory" supposedly explains. This is arguably goalpost repositioning as well, but the secondary wrongness is totally eclipsed by the primary.

 

Permit me to anticipate and preemptively analogize. Observing laces on my shoes, I advance the premise that the laces evolved over a span of 20 million years from seaweed. Looking further into the matter, I find that my shoelaces are composed of cotton and plastic. Wow! My prediction that my shoes have laces is really being confirmed. Now I can even tell you what they're made of.

 

Connecting the dots,

laces = variation

cotton & plastic = genetics & biology

prediction = utterly bogus attempt to feign success

O = path of logic

0 = value

[CTD 1]

-The "Science God did it" excuses-

Most of the tactics listed in this thread fall somewhere between "very misleading" and "slightly overblown" (since it's one side of the debate posting on the other side's tactics, that's actually commendable). This one in particular, though, actually makes me angry. You can say all you want about scientific theories being overly flexible and changing to fit the argument, but scientists do adhere to well-established laws, and to say otherwise is to do a disservice to the scientific method and everything it stands for. Your one example is absurd on two grounds. First, no good physicist would say "there were no laws." The correct statement would be that "conditions around the time of the big bang were so unlike those today that physical laws would be vastly different, and we are at present incapable of saying exactly how." Saying that we don't know how physics worked around the time of the big bang isn't "invoking the science God"; it's admitting that quantum mechanics and the mysteries of higher dimensions limit how much we can know about our universe's origin. Second, questioning the Big Bang is not an argument against evolution, any more than inconsistencies in the Bible are arguments against creation. Either stick to evolution's domain - how living things proceeded from their origins to their current state - or admit that you're tackling all of scientific naturalism, which is a much bigger and more philosophical issue.

23669[/snapback]

I don't see evolutionist having any call to get angry over this. They are the one trespassing, so it may be a case of being angry because one gets caught.

 

If I don't know something, I don't go around insisting other folks accept as fact that which I don't know. But I'm not pushing bogus philosophies and antihistory.

 

If you're going to claim something is a fact, you are supposed to know it. If you insist others accept it as fact, this obligation is absolute (and even then you may be on thin ice).

 

-Who created God?-

I note that you actually highlight the infinite regress this question produces. You say this makes it a silly question; I say the infinite regress is exactly what the question is meant to call attention to. The infinite regress is, admittedly, not an argument against creationism, since any theory will eventually run up against the problem of first causes. However, it is a rebuttal to such arguments as "every creation needs a creator" and "the universe couldn't just spring out of nothing." Against an atheist evolutionist, you could keep asking "why? why? why?" until at some point he was forced to admit "I don't know why." Against a creationist, you could do the same until you got to "because God did it." Neither is a satisfying answer, which is why first origins should be left out of the evolution discussion. The "who created God" argument is used merely to show that the creationists' first cause makes no more sense a priori than any other alternative.

You mix apples and oranges. Although one can construct infinite regress lines of questioning with ease, the primary arguments of creationists don't rely upon infinite regress. Any that do are every bit as flawed.

 

No doubt, some will be tempted to respond by posting questions evolutionists cannot answer. Infinite regress is a subset of unanswerable questions - not the entire set. Most of these questions should be answerable. They are not examples of infinite regress.

 

However, it is a rebuttal to such arguments as "every creation needs a creator" and "the universe couldn't just spring out of nothing."

Not so. The childish, smarty-pants question assumes God was created. In truth, I think it is only advanced for stun value: the creationist's mind is supposed to get stuck in a loop asking "How could anyone ask such a stupid question!", preventing the target from responding properly.

 

And regarding the universe, infinite existence must either be assumed, or a point of creation posited. Until a third option is presented, this is a valid dichotomy, long recognized by evolutionists themselves.

[CTD 1]

-Unequal Application of Rules-

This is hardly fair. The crux of this argument rests on an all-too-common creationist assertion: direct observation of macroevolution in the lab is the only way to really support evolution experimentally. This is untrue. Scientists would love to see macroevolution directly, but as you pointed out, that would take way too long. So instead, evolutionary biologists content themselves with observing the PREDICTIONS of evolutionary theory: microevolution, minor speciations, patterns of genetic inheritance, etc. Perhaps not ideal, but certainly enough to gain evidence in favor of evolution.

Clever, this attempt to downplay the scope of the problem.

 

Special pleading and outright refusal to apply logic and the rules of science occurs almost universally throughout the entire argument-from-spam that is evolutionism. It's not just this one (critical) issue.

 

The problem with creationism is that it can't really test ANYTHING in the lab. Please correct me if I missed a thread addressing this question, but does creationism really make any predictions other than "evolutionary theory shouldn't be consistent with the world?" If one of those fellows at the Discovery institute could say "creation theory, unlike evolution theory, predicts thing X" and then locate thing X, that would be a red letter day in creationism's credibility.

23669[/snapback]

If you really think so, you really don't have much experience at all, or haven't been paying attention.

 

If you knew the history of evolutionism, you'd know that it was formulated specifically to run contrary to creationism. Thus many refutations of evolutionism are arguments in favour of creationism. Research that verifies the age of the earth and the events surrounding the flood is not just debunking evolutionism; it supports creationism.

 

Think I'll take a break & do something else for a while.

[Master Buffalax 0]

Wow, such a warm welcome for my first post . Glad to see y'all are engaging the issues. Let's give this a whirl.

 

ikester: If you find the current evidence unconvincing, that's a legitimate argument to be made. However, a slow-growing mountain is still a mountain until you can debunk what's already there, so don't dismiss "mountains of evidence" as a silly argument. The reason it counts as a mountain is that a lot of people have been at this for quite a while, so many bits of evidence have been found even if it took a while to get them.

 

CTD:

*I'll admit that variation was what evolution was meant to explain. However, many scientific theories are formed around the general perception of a thing and make predictions about the details. Back in Darwin's day (and well before) it was known that there existed similar but distinct varieties of species. Evolution makes a subtly but importantly stronger prediction: environmental pressures should be able to INDUCE a given population to turn into a NEW variety. This was not rigorously tested until Darwin predicted it, and it counts as a successful prediction. Besides, even if you don't accept that particular argument, I listed several others, so evolution as a whole is not completely circular.

 

*Make no mistake: I'm not angry about people being skeptical about the Big Bang. It's not especially well-understood, and it's almost entirely tangential to the subject of evolution anyway. I'm angry about ikester's insinuation that scientists have to flagrantly break their own rules for the Big Bang to even make sense. Cosmologists follow the laws of physics just like the rest of us, and it's not their fault if those laws break down under inflationary conditions.

 

*I think you still miss the point of the "Who created God?" argument. It's not really even an argument against creationism, although many evos will use it as such. I maintain, however, that it is a rebuttal to "every creation needs a creator" and "the universe couldn't come from nothing." Such arguments stem from the implicit assumption that a higher creator makes more sense a priori than a universe which simply Is. Asking who created God merely calls attention to the fact that either side must take for granted some first cause, and a pre-existing universe makes as much sense as a pre-existing God.

 

*You're free to say that evolutionists bend the laws of science left and right. From my perspective, most (not all, sadly) evolutionists seem to apply the rules of science fairly, or at the very least more fairly than you think. In any event, I think this is another one of those product-of-the-debate-not-the-position flaws: one is always inclined to interpret the rules in his or her favor.

 

*I take issue with the assertion that evolution was formulated specifically to run contrary to creationism. Evolution was formulated because Darwin and others saw a pattern in the world, and they had a revolutionary idea as to why that pattern might be. They did not go out looking for a reason to contradict creation and then settle on evolution as the most plausible option. Besides, even if they had, your statement that "many refutations of evolutionism are arguments in favour of creationism" slants the debate unfairly. I don't care how good any theory is; it never gets to be the 'default' position which is somehow confirmed by the debunking of other theories. Any legitimate theory must have proactive evidence showing that it, specifically, is true, rather than just a slew of evidence showing that the proposed alternatives are false. (To pre-empt an argument I see coming against this: yes, I realize that some evos tend to take evidence against creationism as evidence for evolution. This is because, no matter how convincing you find it, there IS a lot of evidence that works well with evolution; for someone who finds that evidence compelling, evolution can become the default position until another theory is found which matches the evidence at least as well. If there were mountains of pro-creationism evidence as well, anti-evolution arguments could legitimately be seen as supporting creationism.)

 

*I do stand corrected on my statement that creationism makes no predictions. While the evidence for a young Earth/global flood looks awfully sketchy to me, it's evidence all the same, and that counts. I'll rephrase my statement: there are testable claims in Biblical creationism, as well as in other theories that tell a specific creation story. I maintain, however, that no testable claims are made by the generic creationist theory espoused by the Discovery Institute. Simply saying that "there must have been a creator" makes no testable claims. In fact, I can think of two instances in which creationists ventured to make predictions, and neither turned out especially well. Walter ReMine's "message theory" basically amounted to a prediction of what's already known (and even that was flimsy - if making evolution seem unfeasible was one of God's primary creation goals, one would think that he could have done a better job.) Michael Behe's irreducible complexity still holds some water in the realm of molecular biology, but all of his initial examples have since been shown to not be as irreducibly complex as he thought they were. I have yet to see a situation in which creation predicted a particular occurrence in nature which was then observed, in the same way that evolution predicted microevolution before it was demonstrated in the lab.

[jason777 1]

The problem with creationism is that it can't really test ANYTHING in the lab. Please correct me if I missed a thread addressing this question, but does creationism really make any predictions other than "evolutionary theory shouldn't be consistent with the world?" If one of those fellows at the Discovery institute could say "creation theory, unlike evolution theory, predicts thing X" and then locate thing X, that would be a red letter day in creationism's credibility.

 

 

From Steve Fuller;

 

"What is now called "Mendelian Genetics" was contributed by people who held the counter-darwinian assumption that every member of a species,regardless of it's generational history,is programmed with a reproductive propensity.That assumption is a legacy of special creationism,a research tradition in natural history that connects the devout Linnaeus and Mendel."(Science vs. Religion,Intelligent Design and the problem of Evolution)

 

Mendel had experimental data in his hand and is considered the father of genetics.Darwin had nothing and they still have nothing but special pleading.So who is doing science and who is'nt?

 

Creation is easily falsifiable,all you have to do is show us life coming from non-life or a human coming from a non-human,therefore creationism is a science that can be tested.

 

I'm not aware of any prediction made by evolution that has'nt been proven wrong.If evolution is a science,then why can't they give us a prediction that can be tested without hiding behind millions of years or being parasitic on creation discoveries.

 

 

 

Thanks.

[Master Buffalax 0]

From Steve Fuller;

 

"What is now called "Mendelian Genetics" was contributed by people who held the counter-darwinian assumption that every member of a species,regardless of it's generational history,is programmed with a reproductive propensity.That assumption is a legacy of special creationism,a research tradition in natural history that connects the devout Linnaeus and Mendel."(Science vs. Religion,Intelligent Design and the problem of Evolution)

 

Mendel had experimental data in his hand and is considered the father of genetics.Darwin had nothing and they still have nothing but special pleading.So who is doing science and who is'nt?

 

Creation is easily falsifiable,all you have to do is show us life coming from non-life or a human coming from a non-human,therefore creationism is a science that can be tested.

 

I'm not aware of any prediction made by evolution that has'nt been proven wrong.If evolution is a science,then why can't they give us a prediction that can be tested without hiding behind millions of years or being parasitic on creation discoveries.

Thanks.

23678[/snapback]

I'll concede that DNA was not uniquely predicted by evolutionary theory. Incidentally, I was unaware that Mendel was a creationist. However, I stand by my assertion that evolution can uniquely claim to have predicted microevolution. It wasn't long ago that "mutations are never beneficial" was a widespread creationist claim; massive observation of microevolution and new trait development proved that wrong. Keep in mind that I'm not saying microevolution proves evolution, I'm just saying that microevolution was a successful prediction of the original evolutionary theory.

 

More generally, you can disagree with particular claims all you want, but to say that evolutionists have "nothing but special pleading" on their side is objectively false. The layering of the fossil record, the agreement of trees produced by various genetic tests, the consistent grouping of major morphological features, retroviral DNA fragments, and yes, even microevolution are all points in favor of evolution. I'll freely admit that there are arguments to be made against all of these, but if you want a prediction made by evolution that hasn't been proven wrong, just grab any item off this list. If you want a prediction that can be tested "without hiding behind millions of years", grab any item off the list except for the retroviral DNA (it'd take a while to get another such fragment going).

 

And lastly, your "easy" conditions for falsifying creation are absurd. The odds of a human in particular evolving from another species are very low, so evolution as well as creationism predicts that no human will ever again come from a non-human. This argument is akin to me saying "Look, I drew the queen of spades off the top of a shuffled deck of cards." and you replying with "Prove it by reshuffling the deck and doing it again." If I pulled the queen of spades again, that would be more indicative of a higher order in the deck than of true randomness. This leaves "show abiogenesis" as your only condition for falsifying creationism. If you really want to go down that road, go ahead; abiogenesis is very poorly understood and hotly debated, so creationism could be a legitimate alternative to it. The problem is, specifying creationism as merely anti-abiogenesis means it's no longer competitive with evolution. Abiogenesis deals with the origin of life, whereas evolution deals with the development of life from its origins into its present form. Let's say for the sake of argument that God created the first few cells, which then evolved into all life on Earth as we know it. In order to really compete with evolution, creationism must make a testable prediction which the above theory would not make. To my knowledge, this has never been done (except with more specific stories of creation, as mentioned in my previous post).

[ikester7579 20]

If you find the current evidence unconvincing, that's a legitimate argument to be made. However, a slow-growing mountain is still a mountain until you can debunk what's already there, so don't dismiss "mountains of evidence" as a silly argument. The reason it counts as a mountain is that a lot of people have been at this for quite a while, so many bits of evidence have been found even if it took a while to get them.

Here is the difference since you seem to not understand.

 

1) The so called mountain of evidence is the same type of evidence stacked upon itself.

2) If you remove all the same type of evidence, and only leave the evidence that is a progression (all different). Which is how science is supposed to work. You have a mole hill.

 

A mole hill is not a mountain. But when a mole hill is presented as a mountain, it speaks volumes about that mountain and the theory it is supposed to represent.

[jason777 1]

Hi Master Buffalax,

 

I'll concede that DNA was not uniquely predicted by evolutionary theory. Incidentally, I was unaware that Mendel was a creationist. However, I stand by my assertion that evolution can uniquely claim to have predicted microevolution.

Mendel is best known for his discovery of the laws of inheritance. His study originated with his curiosity as to how plants obtained atypical characteristics. On one of his frequent walks around the monastery, he found an atypical variety of an ornamental plant. He took it and planted it next to the typical variety. He grew their progeny side by side to see if there would be any approximation of the traits passed on to the next generation. This experiment was "designed to support or to illustrate Lamarck's views concerning the influence of environment upon plants." He found that the plants' respective offspring retained the essential traits of the parents, and therefore were not influenced by the environment. Thus, with this experiment, he refuted the theory of Lamarckian evolution which was popular at the time.

 

Through further experimentation with pea plants, Mendel developed the three laws of Mendelian inheritance. Mendel's experiments unambiguously showed that while variation occured within species, it only occurred within limits. In documented lectures, he refuted the theory of evolution, stating that the laws of inheritence did not permit limitless change, but only permitted change within definite parameters.

 

Mendel lived at the same time as Charles Darwin, but Darwin never read his work. Darwin's theories were composed without knowledge of the rules of inheritence, and in direct opposition to them.

 

The significance of Mendel's work was not recognized until the turn of the 20th century. Its rediscovery prompted the foundation of genetics. However, because Euro-American society at the time was so enamoured with Darwin's speculations, Mendel's science was largely ignored. It was not until the early 20th century that the importance of his ideas was realized. The period that followed was known as the Eclipse of Darwinism, when Darwin's theory of evolution came to be seen as irrelevant in light of the observable, quantifiable laws of inheritence which falsified it.

 

http://creationwiki.org/Gregor_Mendel

 

 

BTW,welcome to the forum.

 

 

 

Enjoy.

[CTD 1]

8. Double Standard on Responding Trying to condense responses into one longer posts will often draw the “I can’t be expected to read through that “drek†from evos right after they’ve accused you of not responding. There’s no way around this other than to spend every waking hour posting individual responses, so you’ll have to live with #6,#7 and #8 in every debate because you can’t expect evos to hold to the same standards they have for you. That would make it too easy for you anyway and take all the fun out of it.

23350[/snapback]

This is usually combined with #3 or #5 from what I've seen.

 

For example, they post 29 Evidences for Evolution at talkdeceptions (and hope they only post the link, rather than pull a paste job.) But if you respond with a Link to the Debunking thereof. Then they whine about "I can't be expected to address all that."

 

They'll complain no matter what. They'll either say you rely too much on links, or you don't support your argument enough. Your posts are either too long or too short. This kind is never satisfied, and yes, the very same one will fault you both ways.

 

11. Intentionally Missing the Point “There’s disarray in evolutionary thinking – did it happen by Darwinian means or Non-Darwinian means?†“Doesn’t matter –  everyone still believes in evolution.†‘But that’s not the point.††What’s the point?†That there’s disarray in evolutionary thinking.†“Doesn’t matter – everyone still believes in evolution.†“Sigh!† “Are there transitionals or are transitionals non-existant as some evos say?“ “Doesn’t matter – everyone still believes in evolution.†“But how do you know if there’s not agreement on transitionals?†“Doesn’t matter –  everyone still believes in evolution.†‘Sigh!† “Did it happen gradually or in huge jumps?†“Doesn’t matter – everyone still believes in evolution.†This will go on ad nauseum and flows directly into #12. 

23350[/snapback]

This one takes many, many forms. Feigning stupidity is an all-time favourite. It ranges from requests to define terms they've already demonstrated they understand, to obviously false analogy, to self-contradiction, to openly lying and pretending browsers don't have scroll bars.

 

Any experienced evolutionologist could go on and on. And on and on and on. It almost rates its own branch in evolutionology, and I have to give a little credit: one sometimes finds originality. It is rare, but it's still possible to pioneer new ways to pretend to be stupid.

 

I was thinking this #11 needs more work, but the sheer size of the project is prohibitive. If anyone would like examples, email or PM me. Please specify your preferences on the sad/funny scale.

[CTD 1]

CTD:

*I'll admit that variation was what evolution was meant to explain. However, many scientific theories are formed around the general perception of a thing and make predictions about the details. Back in Darwin's day (and well before) it was known that there existed similar but distinct varieties of species. Evolution makes a subtly but importantly stronger prediction: environmental pressures should be able to INDUCE a given population to turn into a NEW variety. This was not rigorously tested until Darwin predicted it, and it counts as a successful prediction. Besides, even if you don't accept that particular argument, I listed several others, so evolution as a whole is not completely circular.

23677[/snapback]

Inducing variety? That's Lamarckism. And classic Darwinism. But not neoDarwinism. Of course all three are evolutionism, so as long as one's flexible enough about it...

 

The only problem left is that Darwin and Lamarck claimed they'd already observed things like that. I recall something about finches being mentioned. It's my understanding that prediction involves new things.

 

But I appreciate your dedication.

*Make no mistake: I'm not angry about people being skeptical about the Big Bang. It's not especially well-understood, and it's almost entirely tangential to the subject of evolution anyway. I'm angry about ikester's insinuation that scientists have to flagrantly break their own rules for the Big Bang to even make sense. Cosmologists follow the laws of physics just like the rest of us, and it's not their fault if those laws break down under inflationary conditions.

A summary of my assessment can be found in my sig.

 

*I think you still miss the point of the "Who created God?" argument. It's not really even an argument against creationism, although many evos will use it as such. I maintain, however, that it is a rebuttal to "every creation needs a creator" and "the universe couldn't come from nothing." Such arguments stem from the implicit assumption that a higher creator makes more sense a priori than a universe which simply Is. Asking who created God merely calls attention to the fact that either side must take for granted some first cause, and a pre-existing universe makes as much sense as a pre-existing God.

'Eternal' is the term. You all understand 'eternal' when you seek to twist math and make models for the universe to be eternal. You understand it just fine. But then turn around and forget? Pfft! What a joke.

 

*I take issue with the assertion that evolution was formulated specifically to run contrary to creationism. Evolution was formulated because Darwin and others saw a pattern in the world, and they had a revolutionary idea as to why that pattern might be. They did not go out looking for a reason to contradict creation and then settle on evolution as the most plausible option.

History says otherwise. Darwin's excuse was the death of his daughter, we're told. Huxley was always against God from the get-go. The X Club was made up of people who used "science" as a euphemism for atheism.

 

Besides, even if they had, your statement that "many refutations of evolutionism are arguments in favour of creationism" slants the debate unfairly. I don't care how good any theory is; it never gets to be the 'default' position which is somehow confirmed by the debunking of other theories. Any legitimate theory must have proactive evidence showing that it, specifically, is true, rather than just a slew of evidence showing that the proposed alternatives are false. (To pre-empt an argument I see coming against this: yes, I realize that some evos tend to take evidence against creationism as evidence for evolution. This is because, no matter how convincing you find it, there IS a lot of evidence that works well with evolution; for someone who finds that evidence compelling, evolution can become the default position until another theory is found which matches the evidence at least as well. If there were mountains of pro-creationism evidence as well, anti-evolution arguments could legitimately be seen as supporting creationism.)

You misunderstand. When the question is one of history, the primary means of investigation are historical. Nobody can even count the number of flood accounts around the world. Default in matters of history is what we are told has happened.

 

Discover, verify, reconcile. That's what I advocate when investigating history. The typical evolutionist cannot even acknowledge that history is the issue. Puts them at a disadvantage. You're welcome to blab. I don't think they'll listen if you do.

[CTD 1]

Couple of suggestions for the master list:

 

Calling conclusions 'evidence'

The sharp of eye will have noted examples recently in this very thread. Conclusions are not evidence.

 

This is the basis for the all-too-common false accusation that creationists deny evidence. There is not much evidence creationists deny exists. Evolutionist conclusions are rejected, and this obviously enough is not the same thing.

 

Disputing Darwin

This is a subgroup. It's just another way to dodge falsification.

 

In his writing, Darwin mentioned several objections to his "theory". Bring up any evidence that shows he was wrong for any of those reasons, and the reflexive response is that it isn't a valid objection because the "theory" does not "predict" whatever.

 

Note that Darwin was an accomplished double-talker. For example, when he says

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down

Does he mean it? What does the word 'demonstrated' mean here? Does it mean "force even a stubborn liar to confess this"? Or does it mean "show to the extent that any reasonable person must accept it"? Now I have seen evolutionists argue that the common-sense interpretation of this sentence is not at all what Darwin had in mind. They have mocked me for even thinking it.

 

Yet consider what that means: Darwin was just lying. He was only pretending his "theory" was science. He only meant to give a false impression that one could falsify it. This is difficult to dispute. I don't try. He may have been every bit the deceiver his followers make him out to be.

 

Anyhow, if you object to evolutionism on any of the grounds Darwin himself mentioned, do not be surprised when they say such objections mean nothing. That's just what they sincerely believe.