Debate With A Christian: My First Real-Life Theological Argument

[Pure_Argent]

So I was talking to one of my friends today. She's a pretty devout Christian - sort of semi-creationist, I'm not really sure exactly where her beliefs fall - and I mentioned that we were reading William Paley's "Natural Theology" - the Watchmaker Argument - for my Intro to Philosophy course. So, of course, the immediate reaction was "And that doesn't convince you?"
So this thread is two things: one, it is a summary of the argument which took place, and two, it is a request for help in analyzing both the Natural Theology argument and the argument she put forth.

Well, I have to critique myself a little bit, because when she asked why the I believed that the universe didn't have a creator even though the odds against it forming on its own were so great, I didn't bring up the whole "Who designed the designer?" bit. I should have. That's the major weak point in that argument. It also defeats the Watchmaker rather neatly.
Anyway, what I did do was reference an argument I heard here on the JREF. I can't find the thread and I don't remember who posted it, but it was the "Todd and the Lottery" bit - if the person who came up with this is here, please come forward so I can give you credit.

Suppose that there is another universe where there is a lottery. Every time someone wins that lottery, a universe comes into being, complete with little race of intelligent inhabitants. Now, one day, Todd wins the lottery and a new universe springs into existence. No matter what, the inhabitants of that universe will always see a universe where Todd won the lottery.

Basically, the odds against it may be huge, but it had to happen to someone and it might as well be us. This is, admittedly, not the best rebuttal, but instead of taking the obvious route of talking about probabilities she switched to an attack on evolution. The standard bit, you know: "An eye is too complex to have evolved. Entropy says that it's impossible."
My rebuttal: Entropy (if it does, in fact, apply to anything outside thermodynamics - I'm not sure if it does) does not say that evolution is impossible. In fact, it supports evolution. Evolution is an exercise in improbability. The odds against any member of a species being born with any favorable mutation are astronomical. But evolution, since it takes place over hundreds of years and generations, has plenty of chances for something good to happen. Entropy is chaos, and evolution requires chaos to happen.
Her retort: But it's impossible for a genetic mutation to be beneficial.

I have to admit that I choked on my soda at this point. She took advantage of my dumbfounded silence to elaborate. A bacterium that absorbs nutrition from its surroundings, she said, can mutate so that it doesn't absorb as much. But this isn't beneficial. While this bacterium can survive longer in, say, poison, it will die before any other bacterium since it can't absorb as much nutrition in favorable conditions.

I had no idea where she got this horrible misconception. So I set about correcting it.
It is entirely possible for a genetic mutation to be beneficial. The odds against a favorable genetic mutation are exactly the same as those against a detrimental one. The universe doesn't care whether or not a mutation strengthens or weakens its receiver. I think I convinced her that it is possible for a mutation to be good - it was probably just that the word "mutation" carries negative connotations.
She still wasn't convinced that an eye could evolve, though, so I gave her my proto-fish argument.

Consider a race of proto-fish that have no sensory apparatus of any kind. They just drift along, hoping.
One day, a proto-fish is born whose genes are a little messed up. He has a tiny patch on its side that senses light. Not really sight, but this proto-eye on this proto-fish can at least tell when there's light around. Well, this proto-fish goes on to have babies, and one of its babies has a slightly more sensitive light patch. It can see basic shapes. And this lets it avoid predators, find better food, avoid hazards, and generally rule the proto-fish world, because "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king."
This slow increase of vision quality goes on for a long time. Eventually, the eye-fish replace all the proto-fish because of their superior ability to survive. And, eventually, through a series of infinitesimally small changes, the proto-eyes of the eye-fish become actual eyes.

I don't think she was entirely convinced, but she was definitely worried. When I took the offensive and went after the Garden of Eden story, she denied that it was impossible for the Garden to have been the source of the entire human race. Apparently, having more than two sons and a few daughters, as well as living for over a hundred years, allows one man and woman to become the basis for a race of six billion. I mentioned the teeny fact that everyone would have died out from inbreeding, but she waved it aside.
I could see that I was going to make no headway here, so I turned to the Flood. She also denied that this was impossible. She says that the Flood would have "redistributed the chemicals" so that the carbon-dating processes wouldn't have worked. Looking back, this is an obvious strawman, but at the time I fell for it. I went ahead on this topic.
First of all, I'm pretty sure that this redistribution thing is 100% bollocks, but I'm no Chemistry or Geology major, so I could be wrong. When I told her that I didn't buy it, she cornered me. She referenced a time when a volcano erupted and the rocks were carbon-dated to be over a billion years old, even though they had solidified within the last ten.
I couldn't refute this, since I didn't have my laptop in front of me at the time and so couldn't look it up, but I'm pretty sure that this is a flat-out falsehood. Can anyone here confirm this?

About there, we ran out of time before our next classes started. I had to head off to Philosophy.
Anyway, can you guys spot any obvious mistakes that either of us made? How could I have phrased my argument more accurately? Where did I go wrong?

[Olowkow]

I always liked Tom Leikis' "I don't know and neither do you!" I'd go for the brunette with glasses instead, who is a lapsed Lutheran, personally.:)

[BobTheDonkey]

My humble opinion is that there really wasn't anywhere you went "wrong." You might not have "won the war," but perhaps you inspired her to reassess her position, and her data. The next move requires some finesse. I suggest doing research on the volcano carbon dating (as I recall, it was a bad study that has been cited many times over - but I can't recall where I read it, sorry), print out what you find, and take it to her. Don't slap her in the face with it, this isn't about winning/losing - it's about leading her towards finding her own, accurate sources.

Say something like: "Our convo the other day got me curious, so I did a bit of research on the carbon-14 dating thing... Here's what I found..."

And mention all the other methods of dating that aren't carbon-14, but support the accuracy of carbon-14. Not saying overwhelm her, that will put her on the defense. The idea is to encourage her critical thinking skills, give her the means, let her find her own way.

Hope that's somewhat helpful...

[Pure_Argent]

My humble opinion is that there really wasn't anywhere you went "wrong." You might not have "won the war," but perhaps you inspired her to reassess her position, and her data. The next move requires some finesse. I suggest doing research on the volcano carbon dating (as I recall, it was a bad study that has been cited many times over - but I can't recall where I read it, sorry), print out what you find, and take it to her. Don't slap her in the face with it, this isn't about winning/losing - it's about leading her towards finding her own, accurate sources.

Say something like: "Our convo the other day got me curious, so I did a bit of research on the carbon-14 dating thing... Here's what I found..."

And mention all the other methods of dating that aren't carbon-14, but support the accuracy of carbon-14. Not saying overwhelm her, that will put her on the defense. The idea is to encourage her critical thinking skills, give her the means, let her find her own way.

Hope that's somewhat helpful...

Thanks. I think I'll do that. If I can find it... I'm going to go look that up.

[MIKILLINI]

I think you gave her pause for thought. Perhaps she may be checking things out right now. Regarding the flood, it was another do over to repopulate the earth, so ask her who was on the ark.

[BobTheDonkey]

Here's the Wiki on Radiometric dating (includes brief descriptions of the various isotopes used and the ranges they're effective at):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

Here's the Wiki on Radiocarbon dating:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating

[Simon39759]

I concur, you did pretty good, especially taken cold like this.

Anyway, I am not sure about the volcanoes bit as carbon-dating does not work on samples much older than 60,000 thousand years, let alone billions, other elements are used insteand.
She might have misunderstood something like this story (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD013_1.html), essentially, older inclusions within the lava screwing up with the results.

It is taken from this wonderful, wonderful website (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html), look around, not only are there a couple other debunking of the radiometric dating of volcanoe bit but they also go through most of the creationists arguments.
They also sell a book that is basically the same as the website, useful if you don't have internet access during your 'debates'.

[Dunstan]

I agree with BobTheDonkey. "Victory" in these situations consists not of coming up with some argument that stuns your interlocutor. It's really about (1) exposing her to arguments she hasn't heard before; and (2) convincing her that you're worth talking to about this. It's ok if you don't have a counter-argument for some talking point she mentions; just say you'll have to think about it and get back to her -- and then do it. By showing that you're open to alternate viewpoints (even if skeptically so) rather than rejecting them out of hand, you encourage her to do the same.

[Pure_Argent]

Thanks to all you guys, especially for the links. They're all very interesting.

But I can't find the stupid volcano story she referenced... whoever she heard it from must have just been flat-out wrong.

[~enigma~]

She referenced a time when a volcano erupted and the rocks were carbon-dated to be over a billion years old, even though they had solidified within the last ten.
Either she is flat out lying or the source of her information was lying. Look up the limits on carbon dating.

[MG1962]

Either she is flat out lying or the source of her information was lying. Look up the limits on carbon dating.

I believe she is refering the Yellowstone fossil trees, many were preserved in an up right position. Their point is, if engulfed in lava they should have burned, if through natural sedimentation it should have taken thousands of years

The real answer is the trees were victims of ash events

[~enigma~]

I believe she is refering the Yellowstone fossil trees, many were preserved in an up right position. Their point is, if engulfed in lava they should have burned, if through natural sedimentation it should have taken thousands of years

The real answer is the trees were victims of ash events
Were the rocks carbon dated to be over a billion years old? What I said still rings true.

[kedo1981]

HERE YEEEE YEEEE all creationists, Carbon dating is only used on organic matter, not rocks.

[MG1962]

Were the rocks carbon dated to be over a billion years old? What I said still rings true.

Sorry I was not defending the verasity of the claim. Just adding some detail to an often repeated creationist claim regarding carbon dating

[Simon39759]

Thanks to all you guys, especially for the links. They're all very interesting.

But I can't find the stupid volcano story she referenced... whoever she heard it from must have just been flat-out wrong.


Humm, the information she gave was vague and a bit inaccurate.
Carbon-dating does not work on rocks. It also would not give a results of 'billions of years', it is only accurate within a 50.000ish thousand of years.
So, either her sources use carbon dating on very inadequate samples, got a crummy answer, because it does not work on this type of sample and went around parading this failure as a 'proof'.
That's possible, Morris did pull of that trick with dinosaur bones.

But I suspect that she actually mistook carbon-dating for another radiometric dating methods (there are a few around) and is actually referring to these stuff (still from the index of creationist claims):
Here (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD012.html) and here (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD013.html) and there (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD013_1.html).

[LordoftheLeftHand]

But it's impossible for a genetic mutation to be beneficial.

...
I had no idea where she got this horrible misconception.
Well I have a pretty good idea where she got it. This is a common statement from creationists. They will repeat this and "there are no transition fossils". You can give them all the information possible to dispel these 2 ideas, you'll think you've changed their minds. Then the next time you talk they will repeat them again! It is almost like they are reset back to factory defaults after a discussion. You'll get a pretty good idea how far gone she is if she repeats the statement next time you guys chat (disreguarding your previous conversation).

[Cainkane1]

So I was talking to one of my friends today. She's a pretty devout Christian - sort of semi-creationist, I'm not really sure exactly where her beliefs fall - and I mentioned that we were reading William Paley's "Natural Theology" - the Watchmaker Argument - for my Intro to Philosophy course. So, of course, the immediate reaction was "And that doesn't convince you?"
So this thread is two things: one, it is a summary of the argument which took place, and two, it is a request for help in analyzing both the Natural Theology argument and the argument she put forth.

Well, I have to critique myself a little bit, because when she asked why the I believed that the universe didn't have a creator even though the odds against it forming on its own were so great, I didn't bring up the whole "Who designed the designer?" bit. I should have. That's the major weak point in that argument. It also defeats the Watchmaker rather neatly.
Anyway, what I did do was reference an argument I heard here on the JREF. I can't find the thread and I don't remember who posted it, but it was the "Todd and the Lottery" bit - if the person who came up with this is here, please come forward so I can give you credit.



Basically, the odds against it may be huge, but it had to happen to someone and it might as well be us. This is, admittedly, not the best rebuttal, but instead of taking the obvious route of talking about probabilities she switched to an attack on evolution. The standard bit, you know: "An eye is too complex to have evolved. Entropy says that it's impossible."
My rebuttal: Entropy (if it does, in fact, apply to anything outside thermodynamics - I'm not sure if it does) does not say that evolution is impossible. In fact, it supports evolution. Evolution is an exercise in improbability. The odds against any member of a species being born with any favorable mutation are astronomical. But evolution, since it takes place over hundreds of years and generations, has plenty of chances for something good to happen. Entropy is chaos, and evolution requires chaos to happen.
Her retort: But it's impossible for a genetic mutation to be beneficial.

I have to admit that I choked on my soda at this point. She took advantage of my dumbfounded silence to elaborate. A bacterium that absorbs nutrition from its surroundings, she said, can mutate so that it doesn't absorb as much. But this isn't beneficial. While this bacterium can survive longer in, say, poison, it will die before any other bacterium since it can't absorb as much nutrition in favorable conditions.

I had no idea where she got this horrible misconception. So I set about correcting it.
It is entirely possible for a genetic mutation to be beneficial. The odds against a favorable genetic mutation are exactly the same as those against a detrimental one. The universe doesn't care whether or not a mutation strengthens or weakens its receiver. I think I convinced her that it is possible for a mutation to be good - it was probably just that the word "mutation" carries negative connotations.
She still wasn't convinced that an eye could evolve, though, so I gave her my proto-fish argument.



I don't think she was entirely convinced, but she was definitely worried. When I took the offensive and went after the Garden of Eden story, she denied that it was impossible for the Garden to have been the source of the entire human race. Apparently, having more than two sons and a few daughters, as well as living for over a hundred years, allows one man and woman to become the basis for a race of six billion. I mentioned the teeny fact that everyone would have died out from inbreeding, but she waved it aside.
I could see that I was going to make no headway here, so I turned to the Flood. She also denied that this was impossible. She says that the Flood would have "redistributed the chemicals" so that the carbon-dating processes wouldn't have worked. Looking back, this is an obvious strawman, but at the time I fell for it. I went ahead on this topic.
First of all, I'm pretty sure that this redistribution thing is 100% bollocks, but I'm no Chemistry or Geology major, so I could be wrong. When I told her that I didn't buy it, she cornered me. She referenced a time when a volcano erupted and the rocks were carbon-dated to be over a billion years old, even though they had solidified within the last ten.
I couldn't refute this, since I didn't have my laptop in front of me at the time and so couldn't look it up, but I'm pretty sure that this is a flat-out falsehood. Can anyone here confirm this?

About there, we ran out of time before our next classes started. I had to head off to Philosophy.
Anyway, can you guys spot any obvious mistakes that either of us made? How could I have phrased my argument more accurately? Where did I go wrong?
You did fine. The girl you debated has absorbed the woo woo creationist hogwash to the point she'll never change. She isn't educated but even if she does well in science she'll still never change.

Read my argument with a very educated mormon.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=146987

If you read this you'll see that even an excellant background in science isn't enough to pry the non sense from a believers head.

Good luck.

[Cainkane1]

So I was talking to one of my friends today. She's a pretty devout Christian - sort of semi-creationist, I'm not really sure exactly where her beliefs fall - and I mentioned that we were reading William Paley's "Natural Theology" - the Watchmaker Argument - for my Intro to Philosophy course. So, of course, the immediate reaction was "And that doesn't convince you?"
So this thread is two things: one, it is a summary of the argument which took place, and two, it is a request for help in analyzing both the Natural Theology argument and the argument she put forth.

Well, I have to critique myself a little bit, because when she asked why the I believed that the universe didn't have a creator even though the odds against it forming on its own were so great, I didn't bring up the whole "Who designed the designer?" bit. I should have. That's the major weak point in that argument. It also defeats the Watchmaker rather neatly.
Anyway, what I did do was reference an argument I heard here on the JREF. I can't find the thread and I don't remember who posted it, but it was the "Todd and the Lottery" bit - if the person who came up with this is here, please come forward so I can give you credit.



Basically, the odds against it may be huge, but it had to happen to someone and it might as well be us. This is, admittedly, not the best rebuttal, but instead of taking the obvious route of talking about probabilities she switched to an attack on evolution. The standard bit, you know: "An eye is too complex to have evolved. Entropy says that it's impossible."
My rebuttal: Entropy (if it does, in fact, apply to anything outside thermodynamics - I'm not sure if it does) does not say that evolution is impossible. In fact, it supports evolution. Evolution is an exercise in improbability. The odds against any member of a species being born with any favorable mutation are astronomical. But evolution, since it takes place over hundreds of years and generations, has plenty of chances for something good to happen. Entropy is chaos, and evolution requires chaos to happen.
Her retort: But it's impossible for a genetic mutation to be beneficial.

I have to admit that I choked on my soda at this point. She took advantage of my dumbfounded silence to elaborate. A bacterium that absorbs nutrition from its surroundings, she said, can mutate so that it doesn't absorb as much. But this isn't beneficial. While this bacterium can survive longer in, say, poison, it will die before any other bacterium since it can't absorb as much nutrition in favorable conditions.

I had no idea where she got this horrible misconception. So I set about correcting it.
It is entirely possible for a genetic mutation to be beneficial. The odds against a favorable genetic mutation are exactly the same as those against a detrimental one. The universe doesn't care whether or not a mutation strengthens or weakens its receiver. I think I convinced her that it is possible for a mutation to be good - it was probably just that the word "mutation" carries negative connotations.
She still wasn't convinced that an eye could evolve, though, so I gave her my proto-fish argument.



I don't think she was entirely convinced, but she was definitely worried. When I took the offensive and went after the Garden of Eden story, she denied that it was impossible for the Garden to have been the source of the entire human race. Apparently, having more than two sons and a few daughters, as well as living for over a hundred years, allows one man and woman to become the basis for a race of six billion. I mentioned the teeny fact that everyone would have died out from inbreeding, but she waved it aside.
I could see that I was going to make no headway here, so I turned to the Flood. She also denied that this was impossible. She says that the Flood would have "redistributed the chemicals" so that the carbon-dating processes wouldn't have worked. Looking back, this is an obvious strawman, but at the time I fell for it. I went ahead on this topic.
First of all, I'm pretty sure that this redistribution thing is 100% bollocks, but I'm no Chemistry or Geology major, so I could be wrong. When I told her that I didn't buy it, she cornered me. She referenced a time when a volcano erupted and the rocks were carbon-dated to be over a billion years old, even though they had solidified within the last ten.
I couldn't refute this, since I didn't have my laptop in front of me at the time and so couldn't look it up, but I'm pretty sure that this is a flat-out falsehood. Can anyone here confirm this?

About there, we ran out of time before our next classes started. I had to head off to Philosophy.
Anyway, can you guys spot any obvious mistakes that either of us made? How could I have phrased my argument more accurately? Where did I go wrong?
You didn't go wrong anywhere you just got caught up in a debate you weren't entirely prepared for. Creationists believe so many absurd things that in my case I get flabbergasted.

Noahs flood is my pet peeve. I once came up on a website rebutting that idiot story and a book could be written about how that could never have happened. The story of God blowing on a pile of dirt and creating humans and animals is absurd in its own right but thats what the creationists push as truth. Prepare to be discouraged and astounded at how stupid otherwise intelligent people can be.

[~enigma~]

Sorry I was not defending the verasity of the claim. Just adding some detail to an often repeated creationist claim regarding carbon dating
Until creationists can reconcile a literal 6 day creation week with known facts of science, they can make any claim they wish. None of them are true.

Before some fruitcake creationist claims that each day was not a day but an eon, let them explain how each day of creation was likened to a day in a workers week in Exodus, or are we to believe that Yahweh the slave driver wanted men to work eons before having a day off?

[Pure_Argent]

Well, on a happy note, I saw her today and she didn't spit in my face. We actually had quite a nice conversation and neither of us referenced the discussion of the day before. I think our friendship can withstand the occasional theological debate. Good news.
I think I'll let it go a little while, though, so I don't annoy her.

[DuckOnWarpath]

I don't see anyone else mentioning this and since I did an article on it last month, I have to emphasize that the 2nd law of thermodynamics has everything to do with closed systems and absolutely nothing to do with anything else.

EDIT: Didn't know certain phrases got automaticaly filtered, so I just removed the "offensive" part.

[Pure_Argent]

I don't see anyone else mentioning this and since I did an article on it last month, I have to emphasize that the 2nd law of thermodynamics has everything to do with closed systems and absolutely nothing to do with anything else.

EDIT: Didn't know certain phrases got automaticaly filtered, so I just removed the "offensive" part.

Excuse my ignorance, but what's a closed system?

[Simon39759]

Basically, a system that is isolated from its surrounding.

You can have entropu decrease locally, but it takes energy. If you take the universe as a whole, the best closed system there is, because the energy it contains is more or less 'finite', entropy is always going to progress.
If you take the earth's ecosystem, there is plenty of energy coming in, from the sun mainly, and hence, there is absolutely no impossibility from entropy to decrease.

[Pure_Argent]

Basically, a system that is isolated from its surrounding.

You can have entropu decrease locally, but it takes energy. If you take the universe as a whole, the best closed system there is, because the energy it contains is more or less 'finite', entropy is always going to progress.
If you take the earth's ecosystem, there is plenty of energy coming in, from the sun mainly, and hence, there is absolutely no impossibility from entropy to decrease.

Ah! Thank you! I just learned something!

[Gate2501]

It was me that came up with that Todd and the lottery bit, I forget which thread it was in. I always use the name *Todd* for whatever reason, when I need a fictional protagonist. I believe that I was attempting to illustrate why "fine-tuning" type arguments are entirely bunk with that lottery example. We can only see a universe which allows us to exist, after all, we couldn't exist to see a universe that didn't allow us to exist.

[Pure_Argent]

It was me that came up with that Todd and the lottery bit, I forget which thread it was in. I always use the name *Todd* for whatever reason, when I need a fictional protagonist. I believe that I was attempting to illustrate why "fine-tuning" type arguments are entirely bunk with that lottery example. We can only see a universe which allows us to exist, after all, we couldn't exist to see a universe that didn't allow us to exist.

Ah, there you are! Well, I have to say that I really like the lottery argument. Thanks for posting it!

[~enigma~]

Ah! Thank you! I just learned something!
So have I. Never heard of entropu before. Must be a french word :)

[arthwollipot]

Your one-stop shop for creationist claims:

Index to Creationist Claims (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/)

[Pure_Argent]

Your one-stop shop for creationist claims:

Index to Creationist Claims (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/)

w00t!

[Simon39759]

So have I. Never heard of entropu before. Must be a french word :)

It's entropy's slutty sister... shut-up!

;)




Your one-stop shop for creationist claims:

Index to Creationist Claims (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/)


w00t!

*Grumble* I had already posted like, 4 links to the website and nobody noticed...
*Grumble, grumble*
:D

[Beerina]

When I took the offensive and went after the Garden of Eden story, she denied that it was impossible for the Garden to have been the source of the entire human race. Apparently, having more than two sons and a few daughters, as well as living for over a hundred years, allows one man and woman to become the basis for a race of six billion. I mentioned the teeny fact that everyone would have died out from inbreeding, but she waved it aside.

As she should, since the apologists countered that one at least 35 years ago.

See, as the direct creations of God, Adam and Eve's DNA was perfect, without any flaws in it that would stack up in inbreeding to "expose" them.



:eusa_whistle:



Ok, then did the bad DNA evolve?

No, Devil planted it!







:eusa_whistle:

And so on and so forth.





First of all, I'm pretty sure that this redistribution thing is 100% bollocks

It would only redistribute if the water carried the carbon down into all the lower layers. Such intrusion should be brutally obvious to geologists for a number of completely different reasons, which don't exist.


but I'm no Chemistry or Geology major, so I could be wrong. When I told her that I didn't buy it, she cornered me. She referenced a time when a volcano erupted and the rocks were carbon-dated to be over a billion years old, even though they had solidified within the last ten.

Assuming said rocks with said provenance are known to exist, it could be because the molten rock in the volcano is the same as the solidified rock around you. Again, geologists would know if this was the case.

Also, I don't think carbon dating goes back that far anyway, but that's a separate issue.



Anyway, can you guys spot any obvious mistakes that either of us made? How could I have phrased my argument more accurately? Where did I go wrong?

The meme-plex which guides her life and has successfully spread to so many people has ready-made defense mechanisms for this. She's memorized most of them.

I'd advise boning up on our atheist meme-plexe's responses. This is a good place to do so.

[Pure_Argent]

*Grumble* I had already posted like, 4 links to the website and nobody noticed...
*Grumble, grumble*
:D

:drool:

Sorry, Simon. Totally missed your post. My bad.

As she should, since the apologists countered that one at least 35 years ago.

See, as the direct creations of God, Adam and Eve's DNA was perfect, without any flaws in it that would stack up in inbreeding to "expose" them.



:eusa_whistle:



Ok, then did the bad DNA evolve?

No, Devil planted it!







:eusa_whistle:

And so on and so forth.







It would only redistribute if the water carried the carbon down into all the lower layers. Such intrusion should be brutally obvious to geologists for a number of completely different reasons, which don't exist.




Assuming said rocks with said provenance are known to exist, it could be because the molten rock in the volcano is the same as the solidified rock around you. Again, geologists would know if this was the case.

Also, I don't think carbon dating goes back that far anyway, but that's a separate issue.





The meme-plex which guides her life and has successfully spread to so many people has ready-made defense mechanisms for this. She's memorized most of them.

I'd advise boning up on our atheist meme-plexe's responses. This is a good place to do so.

Yeah, I'd noticed that. Unfortunately, there is no logical argument that cannot be countered by enough idiocy.

[arthwollipot]

*Grumble* I had already posted like, 4 links to the website and nobody noticed...
*Grumble, grumble*
:DFive, actually, but the reason we missed them is that you didn't blatantly advertise what it was you were linking to like I did. :p

[six7s]

...I mentioned that we were reading William Paley's "Natural Theology" - the Watchmaker Argument - for my Intro to Philosophy course. So, of course, the immediate reaction was "And that doesn't convince you?"
<snip/>

Well, I have to critique myself a little bit, because when she asked why the I believed that the universe didn't have a creator even though the odds against it forming on its own were so great, I didn't bring up the whole "Who designed the designer?" bit. I should have. That's the major weak point in that argument. It also defeats the Watchmaker rather neatly.If she's resorting to arguing "the odds", ask her what they are...

If she's stumped, point her to 'Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker' by cdk007 on YouTube: www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0)

mcAq9bmCeR0

more info

In this video I deconstruct the broken watch straw man argument used by creationist / ID supporters to attack evolution. I had to pack a ton of information into this video so you WILL need to pause it periodically.

The basic premise of the argument is that a bunch of parts will never randomly assemble into the correct arrangement to form a properly functioning complex. Once again, creationists / ID supporters miss the basic concept of evolution entirely. No biologists believes, nor is there any evidence that complex systems form spontaneously in one fell swoop. That would be creation. Systems evolve through many intermediates, one step at a time, slowly building up the complexity.

Here I deconstruct their straw man argument. Basically, I simulate clocks as living organisms. Selective pressure is focused on their ability to accurately tell time. NO goal is imposed on the design <snip/>

[BobTheDonkey]

Regarding the argument using odds:

When she (anyone) claims that the odds of life emerging on earth is hugely against, ask for just how against they figure the odds to be. If they say infinite, ask if they say infinite because they feel the odds are too large a number for them to express. Work it so that you settle on a number - even if it's 34230482059820984523:1. Then, ask how many galaxies are in the universe, and how many stars in each galaxy, and how many planets (on average) each star could have (even if it's just 1/star on average). Then do the math to show that given the number of galaxies, number of stars in each galaxy, and avg number of planets for each star the 34230482059820984523:1 probability shows that there actually must be life on more than just our planet (strictly by running the odds). (Credit where it's due: Dawkins does this in one of his books - can't recall which one exactly at this time. And I believe Dennett does something similar with odds in Darwin's Dangerous Idea.)

Now you've established that the odds are in favor of life evolving on some planets, somewhere in the universe - we just so happen to be one of those planets that "beat" the odds. Long odds don't necessarily mean it couldn't happen.

Truthfully, we know the odds of life evolving somewhere in the galaxy is exactly 1:1. We know this because we know that we evolved and we live. You can explain this after you've used her own numbers to show that extreme probabilities are not impossibilities.

[Pure_Argent]

That was an amazing video.

Thank you six7s.

[bokonon]

If she's resorting to arguing "the odds", ask her what they are...

If she's stumped, point her to 'Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker' by cdk007 on YouTube: www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0)

mcAq9bmCeR0
I've seen that video, and it's not even persuasive to me. One can program a computer to model and even to present visualizations of all kinds of things that don't have any basis in reality. It's unreasonable to expect anyone who doesn't program computers themselves to accept such a simulation as evidence that the argument is reasonable.

[Simon39759]

Regarding the argument using odds:

When she (anyone) claims that the odds of life emerging on earth is hugely against, ask for just how against they figure the odds to be. If they say infinite, ask if they say infinite because they feel the odds are too large a number for them to express. Work it so that you settle on a number - even if it's 34230482059820984523:1. Then, ask how many galaxies are in the universe, and how many stars in each galaxy, and how many planets (on average) each star could have (even if it's just 1/star on average). Then do the math to show that given the number of galaxies, number of stars in each galaxy, and avg number of planets for each star the 34230482059820984523:1 probability shows that there actually must be life on more than just our planet (strictly by running the odds). (Credit where it's due: Dawkins does this in one of his books - can't recall which one exactly at this time. And I believe Dennett does something similar with odds in Darwin's Dangerous Idea.)

Now you've established that the odds are in favor of life evolving on some planets, somewhere in the universe - we just so happen to be one of those planets that "beat" the odds. Long odds don't necessarily mean it couldn't happen.

Truthfully, we know the odds of life evolving somewhere in the galaxy is exactly 1:1. We know this because we know that we evolved and we live. You can explain this after you've used her own numbers to show that extreme probabilities are not impossibilities.


Actually, the odds of life evolving are very much higher than that.
We know that amino-acids and nucleic acids and bi-lipid membranes appear spontaneously in many circumstances.
Indeed, Miller's experiment have shown the quick formation of amino-acids, and these amino-acids were found in in nebulae and more recently in comets.
The building blocks of life are not rare and they react with each other constantly.
And, really, the only thing you need to jumpstart life is a self-replicating nucleotide sequences, and we have produced some of these in the lab.

More research needs to be done, of course, but from what we know now, the odds are far from astronomical, more global, in fact, as it was a virtual certitude that life would appear on Earth.

[BobTheDonkey]

Actually, the odds of life evolving are very much higher than that.
We know that amino-acids and nucleic acids and bi-lipid membranes appear spontaneously in many circumstances.
Indeed, Miller's experiment have shown the quick formation of amino-acids, and these amino-acids were found in in nebulae and more recently in comets.
The building blocks of life are not rare and they react with each other constantly.
And, really, the only thing you need to jumpstart life is a self-replicating nucleotide sequences, and we have produced some of these in the lab.

More research needs to be done, of course, but from what we know now, the odds are far from astronomical, more global, in fact, as it was a virtual certitude that life would appear on Earth.

I agree with you, wholeheartedly. I was simply giving an example from the other side - someone who would pick a wildly huge number to show that life is extremely improbably, and then destroying that improbability with, basically, even bigger numbers :D

[Pure_Argent]

I agree with you, wholeheartedly. I was simply giving an example from the other side - someone who would pick a wildly huge number to show that life is extremely improbably, and then destroying that improbability with, basically, even bigger numbers :D

Well, thanks to both of you! They're both very good arguments, and I will definitely use them if the subject ever comes up again.

[Simon39759]

Yes.
There is actually some calculation made by creationist.
But, from what I saw, they are calculating the chances of all the atoms of a modern cell coming together in just the right fashion. These odds are, indeed, astronomical.

But, of course, that's not what abiogenesis is all about. Abiogenesis is about self-replicating molecules undergoing natural selection and gaining complexity...

But being wrong and misleading has never stopped creationists before.