John Platko wrote::coffee:

I don't think I've ever met a creationist in real life. I've got to get out more - I don't even know where I'd look for one.

Try your local evangelical church. You'll find a lot of experts on god, just like you are.

romansh wrote:

John Platko wrote::coffee:

I don't think I've ever met a creationist in real life. I've got to get out more - I don't even know where I'd look for one.

Try your local evangelical church. You'll find a lot of experts on god, just like you are.

I would be shocked to find out there was a church within 10 miles of me where the general population didn't accept evolution. And there's a lot of people within 10 miles of me. On the other hand, I'm confident there are churches where people take the Bible literally and then rationalize the hell out of it.

Even what I take to be your view John is a minority view

http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/belie ... igins.aspx

romansh wrote:Even what I take to be your view John is a minority view

http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/belie ... igins.aspx

That's frightening. But seriously I don't recall ever meeting anyone who seriously defends creationism. Most of the religious people in my life are Catholic and the church doesn't have a problem with evolution. I do remember when I was young having an uncle that looked at me one day and asked: do you believe we evolved from monkeys? He shook his head and walked on. Intelligent design is not being taught in the schools were I live. I guess that's why there's so much effort at trying to move the school budgets away from local education boards. Oh well, nothing a few more thousand years of evolution won't fix.

Catholics are OK. I've had many a friendly beer with Catholic priests (and a few with bishops), but I always feel the need to scrub with disinfectant after meeting any type of fundamentalist. Anywhere within fifty metres of a creationist and I get the urge to scrub with sulphuric acid and a wire brush.

My Uncle once did a favour to the local MP's wife (or maybe it was a Councillor, I forget which), and stocked her newspaper in the waiting area of his restaurant. Typical Fundie claptrap. It went on about how scientists were wasting their time, because the Bible had already predicted their findings, or some such nonsense.

If it were't for the fact that I knew most people wouldn't have had the time to read it, I'd have junked the lot.

Tzelemel wrote:My Uncle once did a favour to the local MP's wife (or maybe it was a Councillor, I forget which), and stocked her newspaper in the waiting area of his restaurant. Typical Fundie claptrap. It went on about how scientists were wasting their time, because the Bible had already predicted their findings, or some such nonsense.

If it were't for the fact that I knew most people wouldn't have had the time to read it, I'd have junked the lot.

Creationist: Creationists use the scientific method. Creation science is a science.

Counter-argument: Scientific method consists of proposing a hypothesis and testing it. It also has predictive power , such as being able to predict what kind of rocks you should find in what strata, being able to calculate the path of an asteroid, being able to predict which medicines should work and which should not. What hypothesis are you testing, and how are you going to test that hypothesis?

"Universe 10,000 years old? Where's the evidence for that?"
"Compare and contrast with:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0754t74/the-beginning-and-end-of-the-universe-1-the-beginning
Only 19 days left for that 2nd response, though.
EDIT
For anyone interested, part 2 is available for a further 6 days:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b075dxsq/the-beginning-and-end-of-the-universe-2-the-end
(I don't know what the Beeb's policy is these days for viewers outside the UK.)

John Platko wrote:

romansh wrote:

John Platko wrote::coffee:

I don't think I've ever met a creationist in real life. I've got to get out more - I don't even know where I'd look for one.

Try your local evangelical church. You'll find a lot of experts on god, just like you are.

I would be shocked to find out there was a church within 10 miles of me where the general population didn't accept evolution. And there's a lot of people within 10 miles of me. On the other hand, I'm confident there are churches where people take the Bible literally and then rationalize the hell out of it.

May I ask in what part of the US you live? I want to live THERE!

A simple analogy against creationism? How about:

Life is like a box of chocolates... Each one has a different filling inside, each one revealing the confectionery wonder within (once you get beneath the surface) just like excavation reveals evidence of some long extinct creature that fills in a point on the fossil record. Creationism is like a chocolate with an imaginary flavor that is obviously absent from the box because there's no evidence the flavor exists. Now, one can reject the myriad chocolates with their tasty delights and wait around wishing for a flavor that doesn't exist. Or, one can dive in to the chocolates that are real, savor every sweet morsel for all it's uniqueness and be thankful they were able to appreciate the blessings of the natural world before your one and only mortal life comes to an all-to-soon end.

Something like that... I was just riffing.

<edited for clarity>

mingthething wrote:

Tzelemel wrote:My Uncle once did a favour to the local MP's wife (or maybe it was a Councillor, I forget which), and stocked her newspaper in the waiting area of his restaurant. Typical Fundie claptrap. It went on about how scientists were wasting their time, because the Bible had already predicted their findings, or some such nonsense.

If it were't for the fact that I knew most people wouldn't have had the time to read it, I'd have junked the lot.

Creationist: Creationists use the scientific method. Creation science is a science.

Counter-argument: Scientific method consists of proposing a hypothesis and testing it. It also has predictive power , such as being able to predict what kind of rocks you should find in what strata, being able to calculate the path of an asteroid, being able to predict which medicines should work and which should not. What hypothesis are you testing, and how are you going to test that hypothesis?

In that particular instance, the best thing to do was to make sure nobody hung around waiting for a table long enough to read it.

I suspect the fundies would have a purple fit if it was suggested that they were conceived via IVF

mingthething wrote:

Tzelemel wrote:

Gila Guerilla wrote:Evolutionist: "Such and such an evolutionary line split off from such and such else evolutionary line, X hundreds of thousands of years ago".

Creationist: "That's wrong - were you there ??? (Sucker)."

Evolutionist: "How can you say it didn't happen - were you there ??? (Back at you)."

That's a terrible counterargument, because they'll just point to the Bible, then you have to waste time debating the Bible.

My counterargument would be, "So, are you saying that we should let all the murderers free? After all, none of the detectives or prosecutors were there to witness the crime."

Then they'd bring up examples of wrongful conviction occurring to justify their argument that nobody knows for sure because 'you weren't there'. Then the argument from Rashomon etc. Then comes the argument of 'The facts are the same. Just that we interpret the facts differently'. I don't know if I've got a snappy, vivid argument that demolishes this in one or two sentences.

That was not meant to be a counter argument, or an argument, either pro- or con- evolution, (except against the type of argument being proffered in the first place). If the argument ' were you there ? ' is used as a counter to evolution, then the reply is: ' No, were you there?' I was making an analogy, as the thread title suggested. If the original argument was crap, then no wonder my reply is crap too. That's the whole point.The answer to each question is NO in both cases.Then a whole new line of argument has to ensue, (if at all).

Ken Ham uses the ' were you there ? ' argument with little kids too young to understand what B.S. it is. He tells them that, to shut down claims of evolution, just ask 'Were you there?'
What I am saying, is if you had to be there to know what happened, and because no one now living was there, the original argument is crap.

Bringing in the Bible has nothing to do with 'were you there?'. And the counter about murderers is perfectly logical, in the line of the original 'were you there?' as a counter to evolution. Of course we don't have to have been at the committing of a crime to figure out what happened, nor do we have to be present to figure out how evolution has unfolded. Furthermore, we don't have to have been there to see how geological formations were gradually formed. But that is not so controversial, yet it contradicts a young earth belief.

I'm saying to Ham and his ilk, if you can use a crappy argument, so can anyone else. It's better if we don't do it; and by the way this was not addressed to Ham or any creationists, but it could be. And discussing the Bible with people like Ham is useless, because they are apparently incapable of any self-analysis or criticism, (self or otherwise).

How about :-

Evolutionist: "Such and such an evolutionary line split off from such and such else evolutionary line, X hundreds of thousands of years ago".

Creationist: "That's wrong - were you there ??? (Sucker)."

Evolutionist: "Don't ask such stupid f****ing questions."