Fun with Creationists

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I thought I'd start a thread where people could post their interesting adventures with creationists and IDers. On another forum, I posted Marvin Minsky's succinct statement of the process of evolution:
The Process of Evolution is the following abstract idea:

There is a population of things that reproduce, at different rates in different environments. Those rates depend, statistically, on a collection of inheritable traits. Those traits are subject to occasional mutations, some of which are then inherited.

Then one can deduce, from logic alone, without any need for evidence, that:

THEOREM: Each population will tend to increase the proportion of traits that have higher reproduction rates in its current environment.
Someone responded with:
Thanks to Paul A for confirming yet again, that "evolution" has no "need for evidence"!
I quite enjoyed that.

~~ Paul

[Byzantine Magpie]

I always like asking Creationists who built the great pyramids of Egypt.

After all, either the pyramids were built shortly before or after the Flood.

If they were built before the Flood, why do they show no signs of having been submerged under salt water.

If they were built after the Flood, who built them? After all, if only 8 people survived the Flood, it would take over 700 years at an annual population growth rate of 2% to produce enough people that Egypt alone could have a population of around 1 million (a reasonable estimate for Egypt’s population at the time the pyramids were built).

That requires the pyramids to have been built much more recently than any historian will accept.

[patchbunny]

I spent the summer of '95 under the grace of a sympathetic newspaper editor who let me defend evolution in earnest by publishing many of my Letters to the Editor. I was on my own through June and July, until supporting letters began appearing in August (as well as letters from folks asking that something else be discussed!). I held my own, providing a good response to all of the creationists that sent in mail.

Unfortunately, the parting shot was an editorial written by a creationist that I was unable to respond to, as I was headed on vacation for several weeks.

Was a lot of fun. Talk.origins was great deal of help in forming my responses.

[alfaniner]

Whenever I hear "How can one thing 'evolve' into something so different?" I always tell them to look at the differences between a baby and an adult (you could even go earlier than birth), and that "evolution" happens in the space of 20 years or so.

[CBL4]

My favorite was when I was dealing with an electrical engineer creationist. He had copies of all the pamphlets from one of the creationist "research" groups. We agreed to discuss two of them and I would pick one and he would pick the other.

I picked one about the 2nd law of thermodynamics. He was quite impressed with the pamphlet until I pointed out that the 2nd law only applied in a closed system and that the earth was receiving energy from the sun. As an engineer, he immediately realized that the pamphlet was BS and he had a bewildered look on his face.

The next day I said that if in 10 seconds I could irrefutable disprove one of the pamphlets, what did it say about credibility of the rest?

I did not change his mind before he quit the company but perhaps I put him on the right track. But the look on his face was priceless.

CBL

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by alfaniner
Whenever I hear "How can one thing 'evolve' into something so different?" I always tell them to look at the differences between a baby and an adult (you could even go earlier than birth), and that "evolution" happens in the space of 20 years or so.

That's not the best way to look at it though. Things don't change into other things. Their surviving progeny take on traits that past generations didn't have so much (weren't dominant, but become dominant by breeding out other more dominant traits that all of a sudden are no longer beneficial), and some take on new traits via mutation (rarer). Well, there's more to it than that even...

Thing is, your point just sends them the message that plants or animals can just suddenly turn into something else (lizard turn into a dog);) Sure, a tadpole turns into a frog, or a caterpillar to a butterfly, but that's not evolution.

[phildonnia]

Originally posted by alfaniner
Whenever I hear "How can one thing 'evolve' into something so different?" I always tell them to look at the differences between a baby and an adult (you could even go earlier than birth), and that "evolution" happens in the space of 20 years or so.

This is the pro-evolution side's own fallacy. While development of individuals can be compared in many ways to the phylogenesis of a species, they are not governed by the same laws. Conflating the two will can only result in more misunderstanding of Evolution, and more points of spurious attack by Creationists.

Individual development has no genotype/phenotype distinction. It is subject to some degree of "intelligent design". It follows "Lamarckian" principles. And so on. It is not Darwinian Evolution.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by CBL4
My favorite was when I was dealing with an electrical engineer creationist. He had copies of all the pamphlets from one of the creationist "research" groups. We agreed to discuss two of them and I would pick one and he would pick the other.

I picked one about the 2nd law of thermodynamics. He was quite impressed with the pamphlet until I pointed out that the 2nd law only applied in a closed system and that the earth was receiving energy from the sun. As an engineer, he immediately realized that the pamphlet was BS and he had a bewildered look on his face.
Cool. Dr. Ray presented that at TAM2.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by phildonnia
This is the pro-evolution side's own fallacy. While development of individuals can be compared in many ways to the phylogenesis of a species, they are not governed by the same laws....
Do you mean to say that ontogeny does not recapitulate phylogeny?

[phildonnia]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
Do you mean to say that ontogeny does not recapitulate phylogeny?

In a very general sense, this excuse for using impressive polysyllabic words may be true for some stages of life. In particulars it is rather false. In any case, there are differences as I pointed out.

[Alkatran]

My girlfriend had no idea what the big bang was until I explained it to her. She thought the world was made 6000 years ago period. No other explanation. (I don't mean she didn't want to budge on the position, she just wasn't informed at all on any of this)

I still can't believe how many things I take for granted that people who grow up in more religious environments just don't know.

I mean, I know most of the opinion of the theists...

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by patchbunny

Was a lot of fun. Talk.origins was great deal of help in forming my responses.

I think I remember reading the feedback from that.:D :)

[geni]

Originally posted by Alkatran
I mean, I know most of the opinion of the theists...

Doubtful. There are an awful lot of relgions on the planet.

[kedo1981]

Alkatran

She lied to you dude; I'm the one who really “explained� ;) the "BIG BANG" to her (wink wink)
"Sorry I couldn’t resist a setup like that�

[Alkatran]

Originally posted by geni
Doubtful. There are an awful lot of relgions on the planet.

True.

[Just thinking]

Originally posted by alfaniner
Whenever I hear "How can one thing 'evolve' into something so different?" I always tell them to look at the differences between a baby and an adult (you could even go earlier than birth), and that "evolution" happens in the space of 20 years or so.

Here's one better ... point to a butterfly. Or simply ask them to point to something in the physical world (or universe) that does not evolve in some way over time. (And when he can't come up with something -- hit him with "Your thinking.")

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by phildonnia
In a very general sense, this excuse for using impressive polysyllabic words may be true for some stages of life. In particulars it is rather false. In any case, there are differences as I pointed out.
Phildonnia,

I think Jeff's question was just a tad tongue-in-cheek.

[LW]

Originally posted by Byzantine Magpie
If they were built after the Flood, who built them? After all, if only 8 people survived the Flood, it would take over 700 years at an annual population growth rate of 2% to produce enough people that Egypt alone could have a population of around 1 million (a reasonable estimate for Egypt’s population at the time the pyramids were built).

Well, the creationists tend to suppose (that is, those of them who think about it even a bit do suppose) a much greater population growth rate for the centuries immediately after the flood. Something like 10 surviving kids per a couple per generation. That way it takes about 9 generations (about 300 years) to reach populations over a million.

[Alkatran]

They don't even need to suppose that. Here's another, well thought out, answer.

God dun it.

:hit:

[phildonnia]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
...
I think Jeff's question was just a tad tongue-in-cheek.

I know. And it is really fun to say "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny".

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by phildonnia
I know. And it is really fun to say "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny".

Not as funny as to believe it. :D

[pupdog]

ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny
That was the motto of our Geology Club back in college.
We didn't mind that it is not exactly true, but it did sound neat.

A creationist at the factory where I used to work would argue with me. He even gave me a tape of some Creationist lecture, which contained gems like "You've never seen a bat with just one wing" and "...sedimentary rocks, metamorphic rocks, and ignatious rocks..." (obviously not exposed to real geologists). Creationism fit right in with my co-worker's belief system; he was also a leader of the local branch of the John Birch Society. He had lots of whacko ideas.