Yes, I understand how it is portrayed – everything went poof and there it was but I know that there are people who have earned their doctorates in biology who certainly know a lot more about the subject than I do and yet see evolution as a major problem to be corrected. Does anyone know the arguments that are used when adults are in the room? Yes, I know the child ones (it is a matter of faith/ God doesn't make mistakes/ Evolution does not feel right/ I don't want to live in a world that is so meaningless/ if evolution is real than we are all psychopathic beasts etc)

At some point someone said to an intelligent man that the accepted theory of evolution is less likely than the Noah story and convinced him that it was true and I would like very much to know what those talking points are because I am certain that I will have this debate with a few people some time this year and if I make up my counter points on the spot I may come across as condescending or worse – I could be stumped.

I will note also that the last scientist I heard insisted that every part of the Genesis story was pure metaphor except the part where the bible says that there is no evolution which of course the bible does not say- I need to be ready for some twisted logic-- All right (I beat my chest) How in the fuck is creationism possible?

Tags: answers, creationism, debate, evolution, from, genesis, points, talking

Views: 360

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

If you want to know what the arguments are for those silly people who actually believe that a myth is real, then I'd suggest (and I really hate suggesting it because I don't want to give them internet traffic) doing a google search for AnswersinGenesis.org. I've heard it's a popular creationist site.

The reality is that it's only possible if someone ignores a lot of facts. The problem is that when presented with all of those facts, they typically just start to think that everyone is wrong except for the people they already think are right.

How about the earth orbits the sun, and not the other way around?  Honestly, you have to do a lot of mental fact-elimination to reach a belief in Creationism.  The more feeble the argument for Creationism, the more blind faith is needed.  That's the "la la la I'm not listening" thing.  So you have to realise that for that kind of discussion, there is little by way of logic or fact that will help. 

In that kind of circumstance, it might be worth you working out for yourself, what success looks like.  Are you hoping that the Creationist is going to say, "Oh wow!  You're right"?  If so, I truly admire your optimism.

Personally, I think that the whole belief in the idea that humans are special, is arrogant.  In my view, we have not finished evolving.  We could be the equivalent of a starfish now, compared to what we end up as.

Sadly, I think you are hoping that fact and logic will outweigh belief.  It doesn't.  Belief is a different language to fact and evidence.

Starfish may be relatively simple, but amazing none the less. Over 400 million year history, hundreds of species, can be regenerative (a severed limb can actually regrow into a whole animal), ability to digest food outside its body, live for decades, and they have a "distributed brain."

Umm....I would start with dinosaurs if I were u....If the Earth was created in 7 days...and if man was on the seventh...then where dafuq did Barney go???
The stupidest retort i have heard is that God put the bones there to test our faith....pls tell me a smart counter if you hear it!!

I find it amazing that god revealed himself to mankind and gave incorrect explanations. It is not so amazing that these explanations are consistent with the common beliefs of the day.

There are people with degrees in biology who barely covered the topic of Evolution while at university. Some missed it when they sneezed. Then I suppose the scientific parts of the bible are enough for some. Why study other books when all you need to know is revealed by god himself in this one!!

Of course these "universities" are Christian Science places of further “education”. They can study modern political theory based on the biblical experience. The geology students are always amazed at how clever god was to bury the fossils in the correct order to test their faith. Some of the history lessons go back eons to the beginning of time just over 6,000 years ago. A theology student can write a full one page thesis on proving the resurrection because the rock was not there on the third day for his degree.

Best is the fact that they can live on campus for only a few thousand dollars per year and learn all about life in the real world from meeting so many new faces that have exactly the same beliefs as they do. The only people who think there is a debate between creationists and evolutionists (i.e. educated people) are creationists. Everyone else including god (I know) calls it as it is. You don’t need a degree to come up with a good word to describe it. I think however Dawkins sums it up neatly here.

I suppose taking a hammer and giving your cranium a few good whacks would certainly help in making creationism make sense. 

Tell them Pat Robertson said it wasn't true!?!?!

He seems like he's losing it, but maybe he is just getting moments of clarity in his old age.

It's RELIGION.  It doesn't have to make sense.

As I was starting up Windows Media Player a few minutes ago and my first song up was REM's "Losing My Religion" I was thinking that it is the ones least likely to listen that most need to lose their religion.

So, with that in mind, the ones that will be the biggest problem will be the ones who won't listen so don't tell them anything. Ask them.

Ask them why, if creationism is correct, even YEC (Young Earth Creationists) like Kent Hovind are now saying natural selection is correct but lying and saying that natural selection – the central aspect of Darwin's evolution – supposedly has nothing to do with evolution.

Ask them why creationists ridicule abiogenesis as "life from rocks" when the bible story is man from clay – finely ground rocks. Aren't they indirectly ridiculing the bible?

There are more – especially more complex – things you could ask but they won't understand the more complex and won't remember all of them if you give them too many. Part of the idea behind my suggestion is to get them doubting but able to remember a few to read up on their own.

If they try to bring up irreducible complexity, ask them if they can go out to their car and take any part out of the engine and still have it work. The answer is no, of course. "So that must mean there were no simpler cars – the one you are driving is the exact same as the first car ever made." When they realize what you just said is bull-oney, they will hopefully be bright enough to realize the same could be true of the irreducible complexity claims against evolution.

It all comes down to faith. And what better way to prove one's faith than to believe on faith some patently nonsensical horseshit?

Niall, I don't know where to start with you - I realize you're new here, and I truly don't want to embarrass you, but your introductory paragraphs are all over the place.

You begin by discussing what I assume is the beginning of the universe, You move from that, to a brief mention of evolution, then jump to the Noah story, then from that, back to evolution again. I want to be fair to you, so let me take the Noah story first:

According to the Bible, Noah allegedly lived around 2500-2600 BCE.

In 2900 BCE, an actual flood occurred in Mesopotamia (modern-day Iraq), when the Euphrates River overflowed its banks to a depth of 22.5 feet (15 cubits). The king, who was an actual, documented, historical character, named Zuisudra, survived the flood by boarding a trading barge, loaded with cattle, sheep, cotton and beer, and floated down to the Persian Gulf. A hundred or so years later, the first known adventure novel was written, known as The Epic of Gilgamesh, a long epic poem describing the adventures of a fictional character, Gilgamesh, as he searches for eternal life. During the course of the story, he travels to the ends of the earth (in those days, Earth had an end) to meet the fictional king, Utinapistum (a fictional representation of actual King Zuisudra), who told Gilgamesh of the horrible flood that occurred that he and his wife escaped in a boat. The part regarding fictional King Utinapistum ends with the king making a sacrifice to the gods of a burnt offering, and I quote, "the gods smelled the sweet savor."

Bear in mind, that the actual 2900 BCE Mesopotamian flood, in that flat, level land, covered what we today would think of as three counties, to a depth of 22.5 feet.

Then we come to the Biblical Noah's flood, 300 years later, that covered the entire world, above the highest mountains. How much higher? 15 cubits higher, exactly the same depth as the real, actual, 2900 BCE Mesopotamian flood. Does that suggest where Noah's flood story might have come from? But wait, there's more!

After Noah disemb-ark-ed, he made a burnt sacrifice, and guess what god smelled? "The sweet savor," word for word, from The Epic of Gilgamesh! Even the doves at the end, came from Gilgamesh!

I've done the calculations, and there isn't nearly enough water in, on, under, or above the earth to cover even Mt, Ararat, much less Mount Everest.

The Noah story is a total fabrication, based on the older, Mesopotamian story.

RSS

Support T|A

Think Atheist is 100% member supported

All proceeds go to keeping Think Atheist online.

Donate with Dogecoin

Members

Forum

Things you hate.

Started by Devlin Cuite in Small Talk. Last reply by Ari E. S. 25 minutes ago. 67 Replies

Videos

  • Add Videos
  • View All

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Into life hacks? Check out LabMinions.com

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service