A Closer Look at the Evidence - Kleiss

chilipepper · 10th January 2005, 11:34 AM

Hey all,

I'm a first-time poster, looking for some help.

My inlaws have recently gone Born-Again, which is not such a big deal, as they are pretty cool about not proselytizing over Thanksgiving dinner. I've heard plenty of inlaw horror stories from others to realize that I'm not that badly off.

Anyways, they handed me a book to flip through, that was like a soft-cover copy of a train wreck - I just couldn't stop reading it. It was (ta-dah!) A Closer Look at the Evidence - Richard & Tina Kleiss

Basically, it is a page-a-day "Why Evolution is Wrong, and Creationism is right, and here's the Science that Proves It!" kinda book - carbon-14 dating and live mollusks, silt exiting the Mississippi, and many, many more.

Can anybody direct me to any online resources that debunk this sort of thing? I'm not interested in screwing up dinner, but I'd like to be able to hold my own in the argument.

Many thanks.

Chili

Cleon · 10th January 2005, 11:39 AM

http://www.talkorigins.org - start there.

Bandersnatch · 10th January 2005, 11:39 AM

Talk.Origins is a great evolutionary site.

ETA:
Curses! Beaten...again.

Hawk one · 10th January 2005, 11:58 AM

One thing that may work is relevant analogies, and here is one about C-14 dating that I haven't seen in Talk Origins or anywhere else:

Until the electronic thermometers recently took over, most of them were made with quicksilver, thanks to the large and also constant expansion when heated or cooled. But it also has plenty limitations. It only works between about -40 degrees and +50 degrees (celsius). And you must make sure to put it in proper shade in order to actually observe the temperature between the air. And make sure it's not lying down for a certain period.

But as long as you know its limitations and how to use it, it's accurate enough. And so is C-14 dating. It has its limitations in that it can only measure dead organic material between about 50 and 30 000 years. And you must make sure not to get the equivalent of direct sunlight on it. And some other rules as well.

And here is the main point: Anyone talking about the live mollusc being reported to be millienia old is basically trying to measure molten iron by sticking a quicksilver thermometer into the liquid mass. No matter how much you wish for that to work, it just won't.

I must admit I don't know what those electronic thermometers are doing in order to measure the air. And you should do a bit more of research on how C-14 dating are applied by scientists so that you can follow up the analogy with some proper facts. And for that, Talk Origins is a good place to start, but not necessarily stop (But they have tons of links and references to other scientific sites and books that you can go to after reading the initial articles, so it should be easy to continue from there).

Edited some grammatical errors.

Quasi · 11th January 2005, 01:58 AM

On a side note, it is interesting to see how creationism involves a huge commercial enterprise. From selling thousands of copies of "Pandas and People" to schools, to all these books, DVD's and audio tapes. I think it is time for Jesus to throw the merchants out of the temple...
I would absolutely start at talk.origins BTW.

chilipepper · 11th January 2005, 07:56 AM

Thanks all, for the quick responses.

It's a pain in the butt to have to try and argue against someone armed with a book like that, because you have to be well-versed in palaeontology, then suddenly put on your astrophysist hat, then become a geologist, biologist, zoologist, etc., etc. Meanwhile, all the other guy has to do is flip to the next page and read.

*sigh*

Dragonrock · 11th January 2005, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by chilipepper
Thanks all, for the quick responses.

It's a pain in the butt to have to try and argue against someone armed with a book like that, because you have to be well-versed in palaeontology, then suddenly put on your astrophysist hat, then become a geologist, biologist, zoologist, etc., etc. Meanwhile, all the other guy has to do is flip to the next page and read.

*sigh*

I like to start discussions like that by explaining that the process of science is attempting to disprove your own ideas. Or, as I think Bruce said it, crash testing your idea to see what it takes to destroy it. When they spout one of their sound bites I ask how they think it could be disproven. You can't beat them with pithy phrases but you might be able to start them thinking about what they read.

Hellbound · 11th January 2005, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dragonrock
I like to start discussions like that by explaining that the process of science is attempting to disprove your own ideas. Or, as I think Bruce said it, crash testing your idea to see what it takes to destroy it. When they spout one of their sound bites I ask how they think it could be disproven. You can't beat them with pithy phrases but you might be able to start them thinking about what they read.

Um, that was my quote (see sig)

Dang it, I finally get a good idea and no one remembers it was me *sigh*

Dr Adequate · 11th January 2005, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by chilipepper
Thanks all, for the quick responses.

It's a pain in the butt to have to try and argue against someone armed with a book like that, because you have to be well-versed in palaeontology, then suddenly put on your astrophysist hat, then become a geologist, biologist, zoologist, etc., etc. Meanwhile, all the other guy has to do is flip to the next page and read.

*sigh*

After you've shown that three or four of the arguments in the book are ignorant gibble, surely that would do? It doesn't polish off Creationism entirely, but it would demonstrate to them that the people who wrote that particular book are morons credulously passing on nonsense about scientific subjects they don't understand.

If you give us a list of their arguments, in summary, then I'll help take the mickey. It's probably all on talkorigins somewhere... but as MRC_Hans put it, I like a turkey-shoot.

Dragonrock · 11th January 2005, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Huntsman
Um, that was my quote (see sig)

Dang it, I finally get a good idea and no one remembers it was me *sigh*

Sorry, but you see how I could get confused, you both have identical avatars...or not.

SezMe · 11th January 2005, 01:40 PM

I think Dragonrock is on to something. Instead of you having to put on your physics hat, then biology hat, etc., ask them probing questions. After all, THEY are the ones making claims, not you. And you can do it politely, "That is very interesting, but do you know if C-14 dating has any limits?" Make THEM back up their claims.

Hellbound · 11th January 2005, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dragonrock
Sorry, but you see how I could get confused, you both have identical avatars...or not.

Quite understandable...the taco was in the way, right?

jmercer · 11th January 2005, 03:08 PM

Frankly, I wouldn't bother. It's extremely unlikely you're going to win them over, and it's almost certain that you'll end up with a horror story on your hands if you try.

It's not like they asked your opinion on it - by handing you the book and discussing it, they're trying to convince you that their viewpoint is correct.

Sorry, but that's my take on it.

maddafinga · 11th January 2005, 07:04 PM

Look up the facts to refute the major points in the book, write the real science in the margins. Next family dinner, return the book and tell them to read it again.

Just a thought. Personally, I'm too antagonistic with my crazed religious inlaws, but I don't really like them anyway.

DevilsAdvocate · 11th January 2005, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Quasi I think it is time for Jesus to throw the merchants out of the temple...

Love it! Jesus really did talk sense from time to time.

chilipepper · 12th January 2005, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by jmercer
Frankly, I wouldn't bother. It's extremely unlikely you're going to win them over, and it's almost certain that you'll end up with a horror story on your hands if you try.

Picture a living room, with about two dozen books and not a single one dealing with anything other than living a Christian life. There's a Christian-themed board game under the Christmas tree. The nativity scene is about the size of a loveseat. My joke about how there were originally 18 wisemen, but they cut it down to 3 so that they would all fit on the coffee table, bombs.

Nooooo, I'm not convincing anyone.

Quote:

It's not like they asked your opinion on it - by handing you the book and discussing it, they're trying to convince you that their viewpoint is correct.

Yep. Lots of "want you to keep an open mind" and "why reject other possibilities?" Thanks, Mom-in-Law, my first reaction to a scientific conundrum is to ascribe it all to some disembodied, long-bearded omnipotent dude...

Mostly I just want to keep evolution etc. on the table, in the hopes that some of it sinks in to the two teenagers still living under their roof.

Chili

maddafinga · 12th January 2005, 10:34 AM

Wow, you're related to the Flanders.

chilipepper · 12th January 2005, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by maddafinga
Wow, you're related to the Flanders.

By marriage only, I would hasten to note.

10th January 2005, 11:34 AM	#1
chilipepper New Blood Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7	A Closer Look at the Evidence - Kleiss Hey all, I'm a first-time poster, looking for some help. My inlaws have recently gone Born-Again, which is not such a big deal, as they are pretty cool about not proselytizing over Thanksgiving dinner. I've heard plenty of inlaw horror stories from others to realize that I'm not that badly off. Anyways, they handed me a book to flip through, that was like a soft-cover copy of a train wreck - I just couldn't stop reading it. It was (ta-dah!) A Closer Look at the Evidence - Richard & Tina Kleiss Basically, it is a page-a-day "Why Evolution is Wrong, and Creationism is right, and here's the Science that Proves It!" kinda book - carbon-14 dating and live mollusks, silt exiting the Mississippi, and many, many more. Can anybody direct me to any online resources that debunk this sort of thing? I'm not interested in screwing up dinner, but I'd like to be able to hold my own in the argument. Many thanks. Chili
chilipepper New Blood Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7

10th January 2005, 11:39 AM	#2
Cleon King of the Pod People Moderator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 20,536	http://www.talkorigins.org - start there.
	__________________ "People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz." - Newt Gingrich

11th January 2005, 01:58 AM	#5
Quasi Critical Thinker Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 424	On a side note, it is interesting to see how creationism involves a huge commercial enterprise. From selling thousands of copies of "Pandas and People" to schools, to all these books, DVD's and audio tapes. I think it is time for Jesus to throw the merchants out of the temple... I would absolutely start at talk.origins BTW.
Quasi Critical Thinker Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 424

11th January 2005, 07:56 AM	#6
chilipepper New Blood Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7	Thanks all, for the quick responses. It's a pain in the butt to have to try and argue against someone armed with a book like that, because you have to be well-versed in palaeontology, then suddenly put on your astrophysist hat, then become a geologist, biologist, zoologist, etc., etc. Meanwhile, all the other guy has to do is flip to the next page and read. sigh
chilipepper New Blood Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7

11th January 2005, 08:16 AM	#7
Dragonrock Militant Elvisian Tacoist Join Date: May 2002 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 9,856	Quote: Originally posted by chilipepper Thanks all, for the quick responses. It's a pain in the butt to have to try and argue against someone armed with a book like that, because you have to be well-versed in palaeontology, then suddenly put on your astrophysist hat, then become a geologist, biologist, zoologist, etc., etc. Meanwhile, all the other guy has to do is flip to the next page and read. sigh I like to start discussions like that by explaining that the process of science is attempting to disprove your own ideas. Or, as I think Bruce said it, crash testing your idea to see what it takes to destroy it. When they spout one of their sound bites I ask how they think it could be disproven. You can't beat them with pithy phrases but you might be able to start them thinking about what they read.
	__________________ ...it rings a bell in my head that just don't chime...--pillory There is no God but the Great Taco In The Sky and Elvis is his prophet.

10th January 2005, 11:39 AM	#3
Bandersnatch Critical Thinker Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 411	Talk.Origins is a great evolutionary site. ETA: Curses! Beaten...again.

10th January 2005, 11:58 AM	#4
Hawk one Emperor of the Internet Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Right below The Hat. Posts: 12,845	One thing that may work is relevant analogies, and here is one about C-14 dating that I haven't seen in Talk Origins or anywhere else: Until the electronic thermometers recently took over, most of them were made with quicksilver, thanks to the large and also constant expansion when heated or cooled. But it also has plenty limitations. It only works between about -40 degrees and +50 degrees (celsius). And you must make sure to put it in proper shade in order to actually observe the temperature between the air. And make sure it's not lying down for a certain period. But as long as you know its limitations and how to use it, it's accurate enough. And so is C-14 dating. It has its limitations in that it can only measure dead organic material between about 50 and 30 000 years. And you must make sure not to get the equivalent of direct sunlight on it. And some other rules as well. And here is the main point: Anyone talking about the live mollusc being reported to be millienia old is basically trying to measure molten iron by sticking a quicksilver thermometer into the liquid mass. No matter how much you wish for that to work, it just won't. I must admit I don't know what those electronic thermometers are doing in order to measure the air. And you should do a bit more of research on how C-14 dating are applied by scientists so that you can follow up the analogy with some proper facts. And for that, Talk Origins is a good place to start, but not necessarily stop (But they have tons of links and references to other scientific sites and books that you can go to after reading the initial articles, so it should be easy to continue from there). Edited some grammatical errors.

11th January 2005, 11:52 AM	#8
Hellbound Abiogenic Spongiform Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: In a handbasket Posts: 8,942	Quote: Originally posted by Dragonrock I like to start discussions like that by explaining that the process of science is attempting to disprove your own ideas. Or, as I think Bruce said it, crash testing your idea to see what it takes to destroy it. When they spout one of their sound bites I ask how they think it could be disproven. You can't beat them with pithy phrases but you might be able to start them thinking about what they read. Um, that was my quote (see sig) Dang it, I finally get a good idea and no one remembers it was me sigh

11th January 2005, 12:15 PM	#9
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,897	Quote: Originally posted by chilipepper Thanks all, for the quick responses. It's a pain in the butt to have to try and argue against someone armed with a book like that, because you have to be well-versed in palaeontology, then suddenly put on your astrophysist hat, then become a geologist, biologist, zoologist, etc., etc. Meanwhile, all the other guy has to do is flip to the next page and read. sigh After you've shown that three or four of the arguments in the book are ignorant gibble, surely that would do? It doesn't polish off Creationism entirely, but it would demonstrate to them that the people who wrote that particular book are morons credulously passing on nonsense about scientific subjects they don't understand. If you give us a list of their arguments, in summary, then I'll help take the mickey. It's probably all on talkorigins somewhere... but as MRC_Hans put it, I like a turkey-shoot.

11th January 2005, 01:30 PM	#10
Dragonrock Militant Elvisian Tacoist Join Date: May 2002 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 9,856	Quote: Originally posted by Huntsman Um, that was my quote (see sig) Dang it, I finally get a good idea and no one remembers it was me sigh Sorry, but you see how I could get confused, you both have identical avatars...or not.
	__________________ ...it rings a bell in my head that just don't chime...--pillory There is no God but the Great Taco In The Sky and Elvis is his prophet.

11th January 2005, 01:40 PM	#11
SezMe post-pre-born Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 16,367	I think Dragonrock is on to something. Instead of you having to put on your physics hat, then biology hat, etc., ask them probing questions. After all, THEY are the ones making claims, not you. And you can do it politely, "That is very interesting, but do you know if C-14 dating has any limits?" Make THEM back up their claims.

11th January 2005, 02:26 PM	#12
Hellbound Abiogenic Spongiform Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: In a handbasket Posts: 8,942	Quote: Originally posted by Dragonrock Sorry, but you see how I could get confused, you both have identical avatars...or not. Quite understandable...the taco was in the way, right?

11th January 2005, 03:08 PM	#13
jmercer Question Everything Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Facing the unfaceable Posts: 12,259	Frankly, I wouldn't bother. It's extremely unlikely you're going to win them over, and it's almost certain that you'll end up with a horror story on your hands if you try. It's not like they asked your opinion on it - by handing you the book and discussing it, they're trying to convince you that their viewpoint is correct. Sorry, but that's my take on it.
	__________________ "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke, British Statesman and Philosopher, 1729-1797 "Cheeky Monkey!" - Chillzero "Daft Sausage!" - Tkingdoll "Context is everything, and sophistry will not protect you." - chillzero

11th January 2005, 07:04 PM	#14
maddafinga Scholar Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 61	Look up the facts to refute the major points in the book, write the real science in the margins. Next family dinner, return the book and tell them to read it again. Just a thought. Personally, I'm too antagonistic with my crazed religious inlaws, but I don't really like them anyway.
maddafinga Scholar Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 61

11th January 2005, 08:00 PM	#15
DevilsAdvocate Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 3,651	Quote: Originally posted by Quasi I think it is time for Jesus to throw the merchants out of the temple... Love it! Jesus really did talk sense from time to time.

12th January 2005, 08:02 AM	#16
chilipepper New Blood Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7	Quote: Originally posted by jmercer Frankly, I wouldn't bother. It's extremely unlikely you're going to win them over, and it's almost certain that you'll end up with a horror story on your hands if you try. Picture a living room, with about two dozen books and not a single one dealing with anything other than living a Christian life. There's a Christian-themed board game under the Christmas tree. The nativity scene is about the size of a loveseat. My joke about how there were originally 18 wisemen, but they cut it down to 3 so that they would all fit on the coffee table, bombs. Nooooo, I'm not convincing anyone. Quote: It's not like they asked your opinion on it - by handing you the book and discussing it, they're trying to convince you that their viewpoint is correct. Yep. Lots of "want you to keep an open mind" and "why reject other possibilities?" Thanks, Mom-in-Law, my first reaction to a scientific conundrum is to ascribe it all to some disembodied, long-bearded omnipotent dude... Mostly I just want to keep evolution etc. on the table, in the hopes that some of it sinks in to the two teenagers still living under their roof. Chili
chilipepper New Blood Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7

12th January 2005, 10:34 AM	#17
maddafinga Scholar Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 61	Wow, you're related to the Flanders.
maddafinga Scholar Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 61

12th January 2005, 01:52 PM	#18
chilipepper New Blood Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7	Quote: Originally posted by maddafinga Wow, you're related to the Flanders. By marriage only, I would hasten to note.
chilipepper New Blood Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7