BBC Focus Magazine

[Nails]

yes MPL that was what I was going to say...

walk away.... win win

A dignified response certainly, and possibly a moral victory.
But I suspect that your opponent will merely claim that you have no argument, so you would both be claiming victory!

In my opinion, only calm and reasoned debate can stand any kind of chance of winning over a creationist. It must be a slow battle, piece by piece introducing the evidence and explaining why creationism has no evidence.

[The Beige Avenger]

How's about we have one?

[Flakkarin]

I don't know any creationists we can debate with! (Although I'm sure it wouldn't take me 5 minutes to find one in Alberta - the 'Texas of the North' - one tried to convince me in the street he had 'evidence' for the existence of God)

Reasoned debate sounds good, but I was recently discussing this with a friend who said he saw a long debate between a woman and I think it must have been Dawkins on tv. He said they got to the transitional fossil thing, and the woman flatly denied they existed. He named the samples, and in what museum(s) they were and she said 'I've been to that museum, and they weren't there'.
What the heck do you say then?? In the face of stupefying denial!

[Shadowwolf]

But I suspect that your opponent will merely claim that you have no argument, so you would both be claiming victory!

Indeed it may be construed as science having no credible argument, it may additionally be looked upon as scientific elitism. What would the reaction be if the climatologists that stand for AGW were to just politely smile and walk away from skeptics? I doubt many would be impressed and I can't see proponents of evolution just walking away as being viewed in anything but a negative light by the other side. Which would matter not were this vocal minority not trying to gain positions of influence, from which to influence the spread of their faith based outlook in areas were it has no place. Such active participants with an agenda can not simply be ignored or they will have free reign that may potentially damage.

In my opinion, only calm and reasoned debate can stand any kind of chance of winning over a creationist. It must be a slow battle, piece by piece introducing the evidence and explaining why creationism has no evidence.

I am honestly not sure if that is possible, a receptiveness to questions and critical analysis is as far as I can tell absent or perhaps suppressed is a better word, from many who believe the creationist version. Perhaps it might be possible in those who are brought up that way but everything about it is based on belief without evidence, you will be doing far, far more than just showing why evolution is better at explaining our origins than creationism, you will be teaching them about science and employing rational reason everywhere first. A worthy endeavour sure, but to a committed believer this is highly unlikely and not something done in a short encounter.

Like I mentioned earlier you don't win, not in their minds at any rate, the best to be hoped for is that it might set an already inquisitive mind down the right track, and that there is an opposing voice that stands guard against the aims of the more fundamental element.

[Shadowwolf]

Reasoned debate sounds good, but I was recently discussing this with a friend who said he saw a long debate between a woman and I think it must have been Dawkins on tv.

I saw that one also, what do you do when faced with flat refusal? The other side undoubtedly thought that Dawkins had been caught out in a bare faced lie.

I'm also not sure where one would be found or if it would even be such a good idea, we had one before who was extolling the virtues of ID over evolution. He also engaged in flat out denial, willful misunderstanding of plain text, prone to repeated weaseling out and was highly insulting to just about everyone. We had to lock it three times — he just kept starting it anew and rarely contributed to anything else — and became most wary of such topics for quite some time after, unable to continue his proselytising he disappeared.

[Liam Sheppard]

the question is raised, why would you want to 'win' this argument?

a sage who associates with fools is a fool.

a fool who associates with sage cannot see with the sages eyes

[Shadowwolf]

I'd agree, why bother except that the argument was brought to science, they don't have a choice but to engage it lest they are accused of ignorance, or folks have an agenda, get places where they might do real damage.

On the street I suppose it matters not and one may as well walk away or engage them as you see fit on a personal level.

[The Beige Avenger]

I don't know any creationists we can debate with! ...

You don't need to believe in what you are debating for.

In this case it is playing Devil's advocate which is an exceedingly useful tool to use in your daily life.

[Liam Sheppard]

hi...im Liam......and I'm.........

a creationist!...

I think that reality is a construct created by god to test our faith and that in trying to understand the universe through science we can't see the wood for the trees..

[Shadowwolf]

Perhaps oh Beige one, but can someone who does not truly believe make a credible effort? If they are persuaded will it not just be down to them not really believing it in the first place rather than a genuinely convincing argument, and just how does one play devils advocate with something that is essentially based on extrapolation from fiction?

[Shadowwolf]

Saw this btw, rather amusing

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/upload/2010/02/mammals_vs_saurians/mammals_v_saurians.php

[The Beige Avenger]

Perhaps oh Beige one, but can someone who does not truly believe make a credible effort? If they are persuaded will it not just be down to them not really believing it in the first place rather than a genuinely convincing argument, and just how does one play devils advocate with something that is essentially based on extrapolation from fiction?

Think deep down for the merits of the hypothesis of Creationism, think of counter arguments, think of counter arguments for counter arguments...

For this though, whoever would play Devil's advocate would actually have to research Creationism in order to correctly represent it as itself and not present a representation of creationism that is more fathomable. Some people for instance hide behind evolution as a means to an end like through the actions and influences of God, from out of the mire, life was sent on a path that would eventually lead to human kind; influences and actions including the extinction of dinosaurs and all the beautiful flaws we have...

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if this was the official stance of the church... or a really comfortable way for a religious person to feel secure.

Even when things in the Bible are treated as not-literal: like Adam not being human, but a cell or bacterium or some such which gives a piece of itself to make its off-spring / wife. The lack of diversity in genetic material not mattering so much for therm little critters whereas the thought of a man and woman making children leaves one scratching one's head as to who is doing what to whom in the future and wondering if we are all in-bred... of course, to some extent we are in-bred and there did have to be at some point a mitochondrial 'Eve', a mother of us all.

How much play do we have in 'interpretation' of the creation myth?

I'm going on a (probably incorrect) assumption that all creation myths stem from Genesis from the Old Testament.

Is the very fact that it is open to interpretation grounds for an instant debunk?
Or, is 'interpretation' the equivalent of an alternative theory like their are in evolution.

I'm rambling... my apologies!

[M Paul Lloyd]

You know this all puts me in mind of old Douglas Adams 'The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy' and Slartibartfast 'designing' glaciers. Lol.

Oh his clarity is so very missed.

[Nails]

the question is raised, why would you want to 'win' this argument?

a sage who associates with fools is a fool.

a fool who associates with sage cannot see with the sages eyes

Wise words indeed.
But is it not our duty as educated people who understand at least a little science to try and educate those who may not have been as fortunate as us to receive a good scientific education?

hi...im Liam......and I'm.........

a creationist!...

I think that reality is a construct created by god to test our faith and that in trying to understand the universe through science we can't see the wood for the trees..

I don't think you could ever convincingly prove that the universe was or was not designed in the first place - if the big bang is correct, it could have been initiated by a higher being.
It is plausible, if improbable.

Edited it was, whilst I may agree, it strays far from the OP and arguments of the validity of the Bible or His existence are also outside this forums scope, as interesting as they may be.

From what I can gather, evolution scares people because it counters strict biblical interpretation, relegates us to animals who evolved through 'random chance' (nothing to do with natural selection then) - and of course if Genesis is rubbish, there was no original sin to attone for and so the whole Jesus story is not necessary.

I could go on, but there is of course no need - you get the picture.
And I fully expect this post to be edited because it oversteps the mark.

[Nails]

You know this all puts me in mind of old Douglas Adams 'The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy' and Slartibartfast 'designing' glaciers. Lol.

Oh his clarity is so very missed.

Indeed MPL - sorely missed.

[Dash Lightning]

Particularly fond of norway

[M Paul Lloyd]

I can only agree Norway does have a singularly lovely climate.

[worldmaker]

Sneak in at night and swap all their bibles around?
Change the dates!




And I love Norway too, all those highly evolved Viking girls!

[Shadowwolf]

...and swap all their bibles around?

I think they do that anyway when the need arises.

And I love Norway too, all those highly evolved Viking girls!

Ahhh Norway...

[The Beige Avenger]

Stavanger was the hottest place I'd ever been to... before I went to Cyprus where it was 45 C!

And yeah, nice place.