I have been trying to debate more, but it seems I keep failing to capitalize on weak statements. It usually goes.
Me: God is an unverifiable hypothesis.
Person: So is evolution.
Me: Um, we have evidence for evolution.
Person: Can you observe it?
Me: Micro evolution yes, but macro evolution takes millions of years.
Person: You can't observe it, so I'm right! :D
Me: . . .

I usually feel like there is nothing else I can say at this point. I know we have archeological evidence for macro evolution, but I can't just take a person to a science museum. Is there any advice someone can give me to help strengthen my arguments or strengthen my knowledge?

My question is, do you just go around asking for debates or something? I mean I can understand the point of wanting to strengthen your arguments. But it just sounds to me as if you're going around like some ass and just warranting a debate from someone.

Evolution is something that plays a role in every single day of our human existence. It's how breeding works. It's the reason it's so difficult to create working HIV and flu vaccinations. There's absolutely no excuse for saying that evolution doesn't occur. Anyone who does is a moron that is terrified to live in a world without superstition (which is doubly stupid because you can believe in evolution and also creation myths.)

At 11/4/11 03:19 AM, Jedi-Master wrote: If I'm not mistaken, most people who deny macroevolution(AKA creationists and "intelligent design" advocates) still believe that microevolution is true. It's probably because bacteria becoming more resistant to antibiotics and the mutations that occur frequently in cells is so commonly talked about and has an enormous amount of evidence that these people simply can't deny it.

Moreover, if I'm not mistaken, macroevolution is essentially microevolution over a very long period of time. Ask your opponent if he/she believes in microevolution. More than likely, they will say that they do. Then tell them that macroevolution is microevolution but over a long period of time.

You can also say that the fossil record is enough evidence of macroevolution, but I doubt that your opponent will accept that.

To accept microevolution but deny macroevolution is like saying that one can walk to the kitchen, but cannot walk to the mall that is one block away. It doesn't make any sense.

Literally, the only people who use the terms micro and macro evolution are creationists. It's something they made up to rationalize their faith in a world where they are blatantly wrong but senselessly bash things they don't understand anyway because they have been taught it is the right thing to do. You will almost never hear biologists using the phrases, because they are just silly.

Like you said, the different forms that living things take is only a matter of time. Evolution is defined as "the change in the frequency of genes in a population over time." That is literally the only meaning of evolution. It's not concerned with the origin of anything, only with the fact that things observably change, and it doesn't matter how drastic the change is. If in the next few years the human population experienced a 20% drop in the number of blond people that would be evolution. If a body part changes function or loses most functionality in most of the population, that's evolution. It's all the same, just different changes.

Now look at dog breeding, just for example. Breeding is artificial selection rather than natural selection, but the only difference practically speaking is that artificial selection generally has a set goal to achieve(while natural selection is generally pretty undirected from a design standpoint, based on reactions to the environment rather than a plan.) In the last few thousand years humans have bred hundreds of different dog breeds, all vastly differing in size and tasks they are designed to perform, some of which are barely recognizable as dogs, and they are all certainly distinguishable from one another. If all of this change could occur in a couple thousand years, imagine how much change could be observed over millions of years. A whole lot, that's how much. But humans haven't even existed for millions of years and have only been studying evolution for a few hundred, so of course we are unable to truly appreciate events which take millions of years to unfold. But it doesn't take much to wrap your head around the idea that things are capable of change if you give them time. Even people are different depending on where they are from - that's why we have different races and ethnicities.

To discredit creationists using Darwin's "theories" is hypocritical. Natural selection as well as creationism are both theories and deserve mutual respect. While I keep an open mind one cannot help but wonder what if. What if this marvelous universe was the manifestation of intelligent design? What preceded the designer if anything at all? There mere fact that we are living and breathing in a complex world is mind boggling. Who is to say you are even currently conscious? What is consciousness? There are so many more interesting topics and debates than our current one.

At 11/4/11 02:06 AM, PepperJoe wrote: Me: God is an unverifiable hypothesis.

I think we found why you can never meet someone on an equal ground...

Next time you try to debate somebody I suggest NOT going after them before the debate starts. Perhaps then they will not be so defensive.

At 11/4/11 03:19 AM, Jedi-Master wrote:

To accept microevolution but deny macroevolution is like saying that one can walk to the kitchen, but cannot walk to the mall that is one block away. It doesn't make any sense.

Way to plagiarize thunderf00t, BRO.

You want advice on how to argue the finer points of evolution with creationists? Okay, here's my advice: Don't. Avoid it unless you're forced to. Save it for arguments that actually matter, like keeping creationist text out of school curriculum or criticizing local government when they start spouting off horseshit strawmen to undermine scientific research efforts.

It's not a matter of just giving up, it's more about saving your breath for things that could actually be constructive as opposed to the colossal waste of time that is attempting to show a delusional person that they are delusional (unless you derive pleasure from being infuriated by ignorance, in which case go for it). People much more vested and trained in the subject of evolution by natural selection than you or I have been arguing this for a century and a half with little to no results.

tl;dr just tell creationists to have fun being scientifically illiterate and consider that a win.

At 11/4/11 03:19 AM, Jedi-Master wrote: Then tell them that macroevolution is microevolution but over a long period of time.

psh... i'd love to see a chicken turn into a cat.

At 11/4/11 12:50 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 11/4/11 03:19 AM, Jedi-Master wrote: Then tell them that macroevolution is microevolution but over a long period of time.

psh... i'd love to see a chicken turn into a cat.

DOGS DON'T MAKE NON-DOGS. THEY ONLY EVER MAKE MORE DOGS.

Why can't you darwinists understand this???

Why are you even debating with creationists in the first place?

Of course they're fun to laugh at, but giving them a platform of credibility and you've basically told the world that you're willing to argue with lunacy.

At 11/4/11 12:58 PM, Famas wrote: DOGS DON'T MAKE NON-DOGS. THEY ONLY EVER MAKE MORE DOGS.

Why can't you darwinists understand this???

do they have a bird whistling in the background, or was that someone's nose?
either way, we should probably get a unique spin on this thread before this becomes like the other evolution threads... umm, thanks jeebus for selective dog breeding?

...or are humans still evolving (my prof says no!)

At 11/4/11 03:32 AM, Psil0 wrote: My question is, do you just go around asking for debates or something? I mean I can understand the point of wanting to strengthen your arguments. But it just sounds to me as if you're going around like some ass and just warranting a debate from someone.

I like to discuss with other people, but making people annoyed or pissed off isn't my goal at the end of the day. I just want to learn how to debate better in one on one conversation.

At 11/4/11 05:51 AM, Sleepyx13 wrote: To discredit creationists using Darwin's "theories" is hypocritical. Natural selection as well as creationism are both theories and deserve mutual respect. While I keep an open mind one cannot help but wonder what if. What if this marvelous universe was the manifestation of intelligent design? What preceded the designer if anything at all? There mere fact that we are living and breathing in a complex world is mind boggling. Who is to say you are even currently conscious? What is consciousness? There are so many more interesting topics and debates than our current one.

Creationism is not a theory, but an hypothesis. It is an idea that someone comes up with. Evolution is a theory because it has enough evidence to show it works. I do not want to get this thread closed, so post religious debates in the God vs. Atheism thread or send me a pm if you want to discuss this more please.

At 11/4/11 01:49 PM, PepperJoe wrote:

I like to discuss with other people, but making people annoyed or pissed off isn't my goal at the end of the day. I just want to learn how to debate better in one on one conversation.

Then maybe you should brush up on some elementary biology text and attend a few lectures as opposed to asking the internet for advice. If you'd like some suggestions then here's a few to get you started:

Origin Of Species by Charles Darwin - This is a no brainer, but a surprising amount of people haven't read it. While a lot of content is dated postulation that was later rendered obsolete by modern genetics, it lays down the basic framework needed for understanding the core principals of evolutionary theory, and what speciation actually is.

The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins - A rather groundbreaking text that helps to explain the dynamics of the competition between genes for survival. It challenges the crude understanding of evolution instilled in people by the rather lacking curriculum in public education regarding biology by demonstrating that the idea of natural selection being "for the good of species" is completely bunk, and illustrates that from the perspective of genes within organisms of the same species.

Anything regarding the discovery of DNA - Pretty much required if you want to have any sort of valid understanding of evolution, as the discovery of the double helix has pretty much laid the entire foundation for the modern theory of how heredity functions, and you can't have evolution without heredity.

At 11/4/11 05:51 AM, Sleepyx13 wrote: To discredit creationists using Darwin's "theories" is hypocritical. Natural selection as well as creationism are both theories and deserve mutual respect.

Sounds to me like you have absolutely no idea what a scientific theory even is. The rest of the post is made entirely of cliches.

At 11/4/11 01:45 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

either way, we should probably get a unique spin on this thread before this becomes like the other evolution threads.

The spin here is that the OP wants us to do his homework for him.

every science have independently proven evolution

other methods of creation are only read on fantasy novels (bible, lord of the rings)

At 11/4/11 12:58 PM, Famas wrote:

At 11/4/11 12:50 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 11/4/11 03:19 AM, Jedi-Master wrote: Then tell them that macroevolution is microevolution but over a long period of time.

psh... i'd love to see a chicken turn into a cat.

DOGS DON'T MAKE NON-DOGS. THEY ONLY EVER MAKE MORE DOGS.

Why can't you darwinists understand this???

No, people that argue this are missing three critical points.

One, which has already been made, is that it usually takes much longer than dogs have been bred to see changes that dramatic.

The second, which has also already been made, is that humans are in control of the breeding and choose the outcomes they breed for, so nobody is TRYING to make anything but a dog, just changing the characteristics of the dog. If anything, one could argue they are preventing the dogs from becoming anything else by continuing to select for doglike features.

The third, and possibly the most critical, is that the entire concept of species is a human concept. We put these labels on things and they often change from time to time. Depending on what species concept you use, almost any breed of dog could be considered a different species. The argument that one modern species of animals cannot become another modern species of animal is stupid nonsense, because that's not a claim that has been made by science at all. The fact that you can't breed "dogs" into "mice" in a couple human lifetimes doesn't mean it could never happen and doesn't mean that dogs and mice aren't already similar enough to be referred to as loosely related in the first place. Mice even share most of their DNA and a lot of their anatomy with humans, which is why most early testing for drugs is performed on mice.

At 11/4/11 05:51 AM, Sleepyx13 wrote: To discredit creationists using Darwin's "theories" is hypocritical. Natural selection as well as creationism are both theories and deserve mutual respect. While I keep an open mind one cannot help but wonder what if. What if this marvelous universe was the manifestation of intelligent design? What preceded the designer if anything at all? There mere fact that we are living and breathing in a complex world is mind boggling. Who is to say you are even currently conscious? What is consciousness? There are so many more interesting topics and debates than our current one.

Absolutely not. If you had said big bang is as likely as creation, maybe I could have let you slide on that, but not natural selection. Natural selection is something that actually CAN be observed, even if you don't believe in "macroevolution." It's as much of a fact as evolution is. I mean, it just makes sense - over many generations you would EXPECT animals, plants, etc... to adapt to living in a particular environment and interacting with one another. That means a lot of things dying along the way, including extinctions(something like 99% of all species go extinct) but the result would be a balanced and functioning system.

The rest of your post is basically pseudo philosophical nonsense. We know what consciousness is because we have defined it as an ability to perceive and understand our environment. It is an emergent property of a developed brain interpreting reality through sensory information and memory. It's not even unique to humans. You don't need any gods at all for any of the wonderful things you describe, and you certainly don't need any gods to appreciate them.

At 11/4/11 04:11 AM, Yorik wrote:

Wow, it is pretty amazing how many of you are quick to state that creationists are stupid and unable to use proper science.

Anyone who does is a moron that is terrified to live in a world without superstition.

Ouch. That was a douche comment.

I'm assuming Yorik has never witnessed an actual debate in this subject area before. Otherwise, he wouldn't be so ignorant as to say that. There are brilliant debaters, such as William Lane Craig for example, who argue for creationism.

My question to the OP is, what use is debating this when you yourself are not sure about it? Why not actually spend the time researching your argument. If what you believe in your research is true, than you should have no problem winning the debate, or at the very least, not have any doubts.

At 11/5/11 01:44 AM, SweetenBoy wrote:

At 11/4/11 04:11 AM, Yorik wrote:

Wow, it is pretty amazing how many of you are quick to state that creationists are stupid and unable to use proper science.

Anyone who does is a moron that is terrified to live in a world without superstition.

Ouch. That was a douche comment.

I'm assuming Yorik has never witnessed an actual debate in this subject area before. Otherwise, he wouldn't be so ignorant as to say that. There are brilliant debaters, such as William Lane Craig for example, who argue for creationism.

I've seen a ton of debates on the subject - in fact I dare say I have probably seen more than you have - and they all go the same way. This is the rundown, in a nutshell; creationists present a handful of the dozen or so arguments they usually use, WHOEVER the opponent is (doesn't matter what field) presents the appropriate counterarguments that refute them every single time, then the creationist does one of two things. They either make an unfounded, nonsense appeal to emotion (HITLER WAS AN ATHEIST AND ATHEISM KILLS PEOPLE) or they say something like "yeah, well, you know, even though most of what you said is confirmed to be true you can't prove some stuff 100%, so it doesn't matter that I can't, and truth is relative, and what I believe makes people feel good, so we are both okay for believing what we want, plus you need as much faith as I do to believe what you believe, etc etc.." Then from that point on, if one of the parties hasn't left because they realized how pointless it is to continue(because they both know that the part that is coming up is only a matter of time) the non-creation guy will continue to provide evidence and refute claims that the other made while the creationist sits there and shoots everything down like "nope, nope, nope, nope, nope...."

I'll agree there are plenty of intelligent creationists, but that doesn't give creationism any more credibility and it doesn't mean they aren't wrong. Intelligent people are wrong literally all the time and, with the exception of claims made by certain ancient books, intelligent people are generally able to acknowledge when they were wrong and move on with a corrected understanding. The problem is that, like I said, most people of faith make exceptions with their logic to justify their faith that they would NEVER make in any other context, and that is a result of the indoctrination involved in all religion.

The problem with debates like this is that the two sides basically have different goals. The non-creationist side is generally seeking truth and trying to learn and develop an understanding, and to educate others as well as themselves and encourage critical thinking. Creationists usually seem to weigh out whether they won or lost a debate based on whether or not their resolve was shaken by the discussion - whether or not doubt ever crossed their mind. Well, it's easy to not be convinced of something when you begin the discussion already having decided what your outcome should be.

Seriously, it's obvious that creationists don't care to actually think about it and make a decision based on actual evidence because they don't even care to come up with new arguments once in a while. They make the same arguments, they get refuted in exactly the same way, and instead of learning something from that they continue using them. This has been going on since humans began having this discussion, and the lack of evidence for gods only gets more and more noticeable over time as we scientifically learn more and more about the way the world and the universe works.

At 11/5/11 01:44 AM, SweetenBoy wrote:

:William Lane Craig for example, who argue for creationism.

By the way, I forgot who that was until I searched for him. He is exactly as stupid as most of the other known creationist speakers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9NlRKJBK t4

Keep in mind that I am not saying he is ENTIRELY stupid, I'm saying that on this particular issue he demonstrates foolishness. There is a difference in pointing out that someone is being an idiot and saying that they are actually, 100% irredeamably retarded.

In that video I showed here there are some things that I mentioned in the rundown I gave in my previous posts. He cites the bible expecting the fact that it says a few nice things makes it credible in the slightest(and without even demonstrating why anyone should be interested in what the bible says at all, considering that it is original and only the source of all of the unverifiable claims he is attempting to validate) and then the clip ends with him making an appeal to emotion (that it's okay to believe nonsense if it motivates people to do good things, regardless of the fact that we can do the same good things without believing said nonsense and the result of the nonsense doesn't justify the nonsense.)

I'm going to watch the whole 2+ hour debate between Hitchens and Craig and I suggest that you do, too. Then we'll see.

The rest of your post is basically pseudo philosophical nonsense. We know what consciousness is because we have defined it as an ability to perceive and understand our environment. It is an emergent property of a developed brain interpreting reality through sensory information and memory. It's not even unique to humans. You don't need any gods at all for any of the wonderful things you describe, and you certainly don't need any gods to appreciate them.

Philosophical non-sense? Your brain can interpret while you are dreaming, collecting the same sensory information as you can while awake. Can you not feel, hear, or even taste while dreaming? Is that not being fully conscious, or is it non-sense? I also never stated these things needed a deity to be appreciated.

If you advocate creationism, you can't really be considered "brilliant."

Ignorance at it's finest.

Sounds to me like you have absolutely no idea what a scientific theory even is. The rest of the post is made entirely of cliches.

Ah, another victim of highschool bullying. Replying to and insulting two people at the same time? Damn you, public education system.

At 11/5/11 05:51 AM, Sleepyx13 wrote: Philosophical non-sense? Your brain can interpret while you are dreaming, collecting the same sensory information as you can while awake. Can you not feel, hear, or even taste while dreaming? Is that not being fully conscious, or is it non-sense? I also never stated these things needed a deity to be appreciated.

What is your point?

At 11/5/11 05:14 AM, Jedi-Master wrote: If you advocate creationism, you can't really be considered "brilliant."

Argue the point, not the people.

At 11/5/11 05:53 AM, Sleepyx13 wrote:

If you advocate creationism, you can't really be considered "brilliant."

Ignorance at it's finest.

^^ This.

At 11/5/11 03:18 AM, Yorik wrote:

The problem with debates like this is that the two sides basically have different goals. The non-creationist side is generally seeking truth and trying to learn and develop an understanding, and to educate others as well as themselves and encourage critical thinking. Creationists usually seem to weigh out whether they won or lost a debate based on whether or not their resolve was shaken by the discussion - whether or not doubt ever crossed their mind.

I really hope you don't believe that to be true. It's not, FYI.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KBx4vvlb Z8

Don't try and argue evolution versus god. Apples and oranges. Instead, argue that they can coexist and prove by contradiction that they can't. Allow me to try and explain:

Evolution is statistics at work over time. "Survival of the fittest" means that one species was more suited it's environment (which can be anything: human body, jungle, etc.) relative to another. If both species have the same resource requirements, this puts them in direct competition and accelerates the effect. If the species are not in competition, they are still affected by the environment. If species A, on average, makes 4 offspring via sexual reproduction (2 parents) and then the parents die, the species has made a net zero increase to their population. If species B always makes 4 offspring via asexual reproduction (1 parent) and the parent dies, the species has made a net +3 to their population. If A and B live in the same area and each member of both species require the same amount of space to live, species A will eventually die out unless it finds more space elsewhere. This will happen regardless of competition or predation because space is a basic requirement for all life. This is because, on average, B makes more offspring than A. B is outperforming A.

If you want a video game analogy: Red team has mostly newbie players but has some super-elite paid professional players; Blue team is composed entirely of regulars (not pros, but not newbies either). In a game of team deathmatch, Red team will have an equal or lower average kill/life ratio than Blue team. If enough games are played, statistically blue team will have more wins than red team.

If that doesn't make sense to you, go watch an episode of Deadliest Warrior and that may help.

No matter what god you believe in, creator, observer, or other, statistics exist because math exists (hopefully). Now, we might not know exactly the origin of life, but if a god created all life, he had to have pushed a start button somewhere. And unless he is hand-guiding all life in their physical and behavioral changes, it is statistics at work.

There are many, many more aspects to evolution than explained here, but essentially, evolution is statistics. Take a course or read about evolution and population genetics if you want to try and understand better.

Math. Tools of the Universe. Tools of God. But which one is wielding them? I don't know. Do you?

Sorry for double post. Dumb math error. Species A makes a net +2, not net zero.

At 11/5/11 01:18 PM, SweetenBoy wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KBx4vvlb Z8

I already watched it and it basically is. I even typed up the problems with his arguments and, even though Hitchens quite horribly dripped the ball on this particular debate, I regret to admit, criticisms of Craigs argument are quite easy to find. I'll post my notes along with some people much more qualified to speak on the subject than I, then you can respond if you like and we can continue the debate for ourselves.

First, professionals criticising the argument.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wb10QvaHp S4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRmKA5zUY BI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HthQ6a7FZ eA&feature=related

I could go on, but that's already a lot to watch and I'm not going to have a lot of space to paste this anyway. This is a rundown of pretty much everything Craig says.

1. In his opening argument, Craig immediately resorts to shifting the burden of proof, saying that atheists have been unable to prove that God doesn't exist for thousands of years. The problem is that atheists, on this subject, are actually responding to claims being made by theists. For example, if I make a claim that I am 12 feet tall and capable of running 40 mph and I don't demonstrate this to you somehow, you are justified in not believing me. It's not up to you to prove that those things aren't true, it's up to me to prove that they ARE true. The same applies here. Theists make a claim that there is a god and, as Craig so observantly points out, no proof has presented itself in thousands of years. Doesn't simply turning the argument around demonstrate the stupidity of the point he attempts to make?
2. After that he basically says "the universe began, therefore God." He talks about how infinity is an abstract concept (which is true) and that the universe probably had a beginning (also true I suppose) and he simply fills those gaps with a creator that somehow exists outside of time and space, providing no observations that support this(anything that implies that anything can exist outside of nothingness) and without explaining how he came to this conclusion while examining evidence that does not even imply this.
3. Next he begins the old argument that the universe is finely tuned for existence and life. This is not proof of anything, because life adapts to its environment, not the other way around, and the fact that the universe is tuned perfectly to exist in the form that it exists today doesn't mean that it couldn't exist in some other form. A popular example of this is with a bicycle deck. The odds of drawing a hearts royal flush in poker are about 2,598,960 to 1. But what are the odds of drawing a particular hand at random, like 2 of hearts, 7 of clubs, king of clubs, 4 of diamonds and 9 of hearts? It's a hand that means nothing at all, but the odds of drawing it are exactly the same. People often interpret things that happen to work in their favor as being planned for them when in reality it could have worked out any other way and they would still interpret it in the same way because it's the only way they could acknowledge that it worked out. We give these things meaning, not the other way around.
4. Moral argument then begins. He states that God must be the source of morality. This is obviously flawed, even putting aside all of the immoral things that God obviously supports in the bible. If our morals come from God, where did God's morals come from? If Gods morals are universally correct ways to live life then God is not needed for morality(because morals must exist outside of God and be moral regardless of what God says) and if morals come from God then you would have to concede that things are moral simply because God says so and that if God told you to kill and rape people(which he often does in the bible) then you are morally obligated to do so, which is in fact immoral and slavery. Meanwhile, despite what Craig says about rape not being wrong from an atheist standpoint, atheists don't need to believe in God at all to know that those things are wrong. The fact that people who don't believe in God AT ALL accept the same things as being moral and immoral makes the idea that you can only be moral with God demonstrably wrong. Not only that, but most of the commandments that people actually honor today were laws in almost every developed civilization at the time, including Egypt, and none of them believed in this God.
5. Now he just cites the bible concerning Jesus and occasionally cites others doing the same. The bible cannot be used to justify claims in the bible because there is a conflict of interest.
6. Finally, more unsubstantiated claims. He says that God will reveal himself to people who believe. What about people who believe bust still never have one of these experiences? And what about the fact that God interacting with one person personally is not proof for anyone else because nobody else can share that experience? It's exactly the same thing I had a problem with in bullet 1 - that claims which cannot be demonstrated are not validated claims and one cannot be expected to be persuaded by such a statement.