How to argue

[GenesForLife]

against a creationist who tries to suggest that evolution is statistically improbable, despite evidence, and assumes that is also a faith based system?

[Bella Fortuna]

A sledgehammer might be your most effective argument.

[GenesForLife]

A sledgehammer might be your most effective argument.

but yeh, I found this article
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 153835.htm

[Bella Fortuna]

A sledgehammer might be your most effective argument.

but yeh, I found this article
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 153835.htm

You can use that to wrap the sledgehammer in afterward when you're trying to hide the evidence.

[FBM]

A sledgehammer might be your most effective argument.

but yeh, I found this article
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 153835.htm

They'll just turn it around and say that since humans and sea urchins are obviously so different, the evidence really should be interpreted to show that DNA sequencing is meaningless.

[Thinking Aloud]

against a creationist who tries to suggest that evolution is statistically improbable, despite evidence, and assumes that is also a faith based system?

On the statistics side, he/she is basically coming at it the wrong way. To paraphrase a YouTube video I watched the other day, if you stand on a beach and pick up a grain of sand, what were the chances of you picking that one particular grain from all the grains of sand on the planet, or even on the beach? Astronomical odds - but nevertheless, you picked it. However the chance of you picking up one grain of sand was exactly 1, or 100%.

To claim statistical improbability for evolution is equally backward, as evolution happens, and has been seen to happen, therefore the probability of it happening is 1 because it does. The probability of it getting started is a different matter, and a different subject - abiogenesis. Even in that subject, if the probability is very low that a particular series of chemical reactions will occur in just the right way, such that it becomes self-replicating, if you have a sufficiently large laboratory (the size of a planet) with a sufficiently large pool of ingredients (the primordial oceans) and sufficiently large amount of time (several billion years), the likelihood of that reaction occurring becomes higher. An analogy might be - what are the chances of tossing 100 tails in a row, flipping a coin? If you only flip it 100 times, then the chances are very slim indeed. Toss a billion coins a billion times, and the chances of 100 tails in a row somewhere in that sequence are far greater. And it only takes one occurrence to get the result you want.

[Animavore]

A sledgehammer might be your most effective argument.

but yeh, I found this article
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 153835.htm

He's just going to tell you that the DNA is similar because God uses the same "toolbox" for all his creations.

In my experience (I lived with one of these assholes for 4 months) you can't win with them. Just drop it.

[GenesForLife]

A sledgehammer might be your most effective argument.

but yeh, I found this article
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 153835.htm

They'll just turn it around and say that since humans and sea urchins are obviously so different, the evidence really should be interpreted to show that DNA sequencing is meaningless.

But the fact that genes can be put from one organism to another makes that a bit null and void doesn't it?

[FBM]

A sledgehammer might be your most effective argument.

but yeh, I found this article
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 153835.htm

They'll just turn it around and say that since humans and sea urchins are obviously so different, the evidence really should be interpreted to show that DNA sequencing is meaningless.

But the fact that genes can be put from one organism to another makes that a bit null and void doesn't it?

It should, but with their fucked up "logic", they could probably find a way to make it mean the opposite. I've argued with so many of them that I'm with Ani on this one, though Bella' sledgehammer technique sounds tempting...

[Gawdzilla Sama]

GFL, if he thinks it's "statisically improbable" hit him with this:

Pre-life conditions on the Earth existed for billions of years. The "building blocks" were there, waiting for the right combination of events. Which could have come at any second. How many seconds in a billion years?

Once life started, each single cell creature had a chance to start evolving into something more complex. The single-cells ruled the Earth for 85% of the time we know life to have been here, in their trillions at any given time. Billions of years worth of seconds times trillions of critters (cyano-bacteria or "blue-green algae", same thing.) So have him do the math and see what the bottom line is both for life getting started at all and for life becoming more than a slime in a pond.

If that doesn't convince him, beat him to death. We don't need him.

[FBM]

...If that doesn't convince him, beat him to death. We don't need him.

[Animavore]

Here's a skeptoid podcast on how to argue with a creationist.

http://cdn4.libsyn.com/skeptoid/skeptoi ... 2e316ae4c9

[Beelzebub2]

A sledgehammer might be your most effective argument.

but yeh, I found this article
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 153835.htm

He's just going to tell you that the DNA is similar because God uses the same "toolbox" for all his creations.

In my experience (I lived with one of these assholes for 4 months) you can't win with them. Just drop it.

Yeah - what's the point? It's just a waste of time - you'd get better results if trying to teach a mule how to do the break dance.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

A sledgehammer might be your most effective argument.

but yeh, I found this article
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 153835.htm

He's just going to tell you that the DNA is similar because God uses the same "toolbox" for all his creations.

In my experience (I lived with one of these assholes for 4 months) you can't win with them. Just drop it.

Yeah - what's the point? It's just a waste of time - you'd get better results if trying to teach a mule how to do the break dance.

I consider it practice. 100 hours of practice for every hour of battle is a rule of thumb I found useful. (It's easier to refine your aim when the target isn't shooting back.)

[Beelzebub2]

A sledgehammer might be your most effective argument.

but yeh, I found this article
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 153835.htm

He's just going to tell you that the DNA is similar because God uses the same "toolbox" for all his creations.

In my experience (I lived with one of these assholes for 4 months) you can't win with them. Just drop it.

Yeah - what's the point? It's just a waste of time - you'd get better results if trying to teach a mule how to do the break dance.

I consider it practice. 100 hours of practice for every hour of battle is a rule of thumb I found useful. (It's easier to refine your aim when the target isn't shooting back.)

Well, if someone finds it amusing and purposeful - then sure, why not? I just don't think I'll manage to influence anyone so I leave people to their own beliefs and little fantasies. They're most likely to discard anything outside their comfort area, anything they don't find appealing, useful or comforting anyway.