Review and improve my debunking of my gf`s whacko brother

StopEvangelists
Posts: 51
Joined: 2006-04-14
User is offlineOffline
Review and improve my debunking of my gf`s whacko brother

Here is an actual email from him:

Dear sister Sue,

God is good. What an answer to prayer we are seeing regarding Mom's care and progress!

Forgive me for rambling on a bit this evening about an approach to the discovering the truth through the window of the marvelous order that we see in the world around and within us. That discourse is not something that can be just blurted out on a cell phone conversation. We need a very methodical, ordered way of thinking about the evidence God has placed within our grasp, so that we may "be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear" (1 Peter 3:15).

Just for the sake of ordering our thoughts, here are some great questions to ask someone who believes in evolution:

1. Why do you believe in the theory of evolution? (Not why do you refuse to believe intelligent design. Don't be sidetracked with objections to the alternative to evolution.)

2. What is the best scientific evidence you have that supports the theory of evolution? Please don't be vague (Don't be satisfied with vague answers like "because of biology and fossils." Try to get specific examples of why they believe it).

3. Do you realize the evolution model for origins violates the laws of science? (See chart below.)

4. What scientific laws do you know that support the theory of evolution?

5. How did life originate?

6. Do you believe in spontaneous generation?

7. How did energy originate?

8. How did mass originate?

9. Is everything from design or accident?

10. What caused everything?

11. Is there a cause?

SCIENTIFIC LAW CREATION MODEL EVOLUTION MODEL
1st Law of Thermodynamics Agrees Contradicts

2nd Law of Thermodynamics Agrees Contradicts

Biogenesis Agrees Contradicts

Cause and Effect Agrees Contradicts

=====================================

Here are my answers - please help me improve on them.

1. I believe in the theory of evolution because it is the best rational fit for the history of living things that science currently has. It makes verifiable predictions of species variation, and instances of evolution happening all around us can be readily observed. There is no alternate explanation that provides verifiable, repeatable evidence. Further, the vast vast vast majority of people that study evolution in detail, for a living, agree on it's validity due to these repeatable, verifiable evidence and prediction.

2. As mentioned above, I believe in evolution because it is the most rational explanation for why life is the way it is. It uses actual scientific observations and the scientific method to accurately predict and verify species variation. Further, following Occram's Razor, it is the most simple explanation for the above.

3. This question is completely wrong, and reflects your lack of knowledge. The first and second laws of thermodynamics are completely consistent with evolution. Biogenesis and Cause and Effect are not laws of science.

4. The first and second laws of thermodynamics, to mention a couple.

5. There are a number of explanations, none of which have been scientifically proven to an extent for me to espouse one. There are theories involving RNA clays, comets, lightning, etc. These all have reasonable basis in science, and we are looking for predictions and observations to verify or disprove them. Science is the ongoing pursuit of knowledge. The lack of a definite answer does not lend any credence to a supernatural being - rather, it is just a question not yet definitively answered yet.

6. I'm not 100% sure of the meaning of "spontaneous generation" - does this mean how did a digestive system, or an eye evolve? The fossil record shows such organs evolved over many generations as the organism survived and passed on its genes to the next generation. I need help here.

7 and 8. This is a leading question that assumes mass and energy were created. I think existance is axiomatic, and was not created from nothing. It has always been, and always will be, just as the laws of thermodynamics suggest. Science cannot currently describe the state or movement of energy/matter before the Big Bang, but I do know it was there. Again, there isn't any evidence that the Universe as we know it was created from nothing. There is evidence that it changed forms.

9. Again, this is a leading question giving only 2 possibilities. Rather than design (which there is no evidence of), or "accident", I vote for naturalistic and probable. If you flip a coin a million times, the chances of getting them all heads is very very small. However, if you try this experiment hundreds of trillions of times, you'll eventually get it done. Further, evolution suggests that only positive, life enriching traits are passed on to the next generation because the negative ones cause an early death and no offspring. It's a natural, verifiable, observable explanation.

10. This question is too broad to even approach. I guess the best answer is Natural Processes. What does this have to do with evolution? Further, this is yet another leading question, and a subset of #11, in that there has to be a cause to cause everything.

11. This question has nothing to do with evolution, and is a preceding question to #10.

Now, my questions for you:

1. Why does there have to be a cause?
2. Assuming a Creator, please explain auto-immune diseases, cancers and birth defects.
3. What non-biblical, scientifically verifiable evidence do you have that God, and not a pink unicorn, flying spaghetti monster, or other supernatural entity created the universe as we know it?
4. How can you prove the supernatural exists?
5. Why do you insist that the universe was created?
6. Does the absence of a precise answer for everything mean that an entire theory is invalid?

--------------------------------

Please enrich, particularly, on #6, and maybe the questions to ask back. I respect him because he takes very good care of my g/f's mother, but he drives me absolutely fucking nuts every time I see him. He's spreading his bullshit every week to my g/f, and I can't say anything becasue I don't want to get in a fight in front of her old and ill mother.

I'm ready to take the gloves off because now he is converting my g/f back into a whackjob Christian again. I know that he is a lost cause, but I will not give up on my g/f, and right now, she's only hearing one side because I haven't opened up my mouth.

Thanks in advnace.

-------------------------------
EDIT - Here's this guys website - http://quiettimepoems.blogspot.com/

"I retired from the U.S. Navy in 1997. More importantly, I trusted Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior in 1973 and will tell anyone about Him who will listen to the evidence that manifests Him to be the Savior of the world. I am currently employed as a visiting English Language Arts teacher in the San Diego City Schools District. I am especially interested in demonstrating the evidence that PROVES the Bible to be true, by honestly examining the accuracy of fulfilled prophecy (God has NEVER been wrong), the historical reality of the resurrection of Christ, the intelligent design evident in nature by which God has clearly illustrated His attributes, and an objective examination of the scientific validity of the Bible, whenever it speaks to issues of science (e.g., the Bible's claim that the stars were innumerable (Jeremiah 33:22) while astronomers in 150 A.D. said there were at most 3,000). A lot is riding on this, friends. God's promises of salvation are as valid as His promises of judgment. And you must decide which one you want to experience for all of your eternity... a long time to regret the wrong choice. Come to Christ today, while you may. -Matthew 11:28."

UGH.

"Religion is like a badly written contract - most people don't read most (much less all) of it, believe what the other party says, and execute with the best of intentions and naivety."

- Me


Lucretius
Lucretius's picture
Posts: 30
Joined: 2006-04-05
User is offlineOffline
Review and improve my debunking of my gf`s whacko brother

Pretty good, though you should say that you accept evolution, not that you believe it.

Ask the guy what "laws" of science violate evolution. As you guessed, you will most likely hear about the first and second laws of thermodynamics. Ask himm to be specific, so you can destroy the claims more easily.


qwak
Posts: 124
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Review and improve my debunking of my gf`s whacko brother

#6 really isn't that great of a question.

you can quite easily answer that one as "no", since the question implies that things just came to be out of nowhere, which is contradictory of evolution, going all the way back to the original self replicating molecules that we think eventually became what we think of as life.

as for the laws of thermodynamics, it's usually best to mention the distinction between open and closed systems and how those laws apply to them. The earth is NOT a closed system, we have energy constantly pouring in from the sun, if that wasn't the case, we wouldn't even be alive, let alone have evolved.

one can also argue from a standpoint of informational entropy that evolution is a result of entropy in action.

music

http//www.myspace.com/antiqwak


RossCaleb
Posts: 44
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Review and improve my debunking of my gf`s whacko brother

Dealing with #6, spontaneous generation was the theory hundreds of years ago, I believe during or around the renaissance, when scientists believed that things and creatures could randomly appear from nowhere. The idea came from when maggots would seem to be "created" on old meat that layed out for too long. This theory was proved wrong when they took an open-air piece of meat and put it next to a piece of meat in a closed container. Of course, the closed container piece had no maggots and the open-air one did.

He's trying to relate a ridiculous scientific claim to our "claim" of evolution. But evolution is not a claim, it is proven. So just tell him "no" in whatever way you like.

I always thought that if you want to change the world then you have to start with yourself. So if the heads of state want to end terrorism, they should go ahead and kill themselves. - Anti-Flag


StopEvangelists
Posts: 51
Joined: 2006-04-14
User is offlineOffline
Review and improve my debunking of my gf`s whacko brother

Here's my updated version:

Thanks for the help!!

1. I accept, not believe, evolution because it is the best rational fit for the history of living things that science currently has. It makes verifiable predictions of species variation, and instances of evolution happening all around us can be readily observed. There is no alternate explanation that provides verifiable, repeatable evidence. Further, the vast vast vast majority of people that study evolution in detail, for a living, agree on it's validity due to these repeatable, verifiable evidence and prediction.

2. As mentioned above, I accept, not believe, evolution because it is the most rational explanation for why life is the way it is. It uses actual scientific observations and the scientific method to accurately predict and verify species variation. Further, following Occram's Razor, it is the most simple explanation for the above.

3. This question is completely faulty, and reflects your lack of knowledge. The first and second laws of thermodynamics are completely consistent with evolution. Biogenesis and Cause and Effect are not laws of science. You are most likely misapplying the Second Law in assuming that the earth is a closed system. Rather, it is an open system, with a constant stream of energy pouring in from the sun, amongst other sources.

4. The first and second laws of thermodynamics, to mention a couple.

5. There are a number of explanations, none of which have been scientifically proven to an extent for me to espouse one. There are theories involving RNA clays, comets, lightning, etc. These all have reasonable basis in science, and we are looking for predictions and observations to verify or disprove them. Science is the ongoing pursuit of knowledge. The lack of a definite answer does not lend any credence to a supernatural being - rather, it is just a question not yet definitively answered yet.

6. This question is faulty because it implies that things just came to be out of nowhere, which is contradictory of evolution, going all the way back to the original self replicating molecules that we think eventually became what we think of as life.

But, just to play ball and assume your question isn't absurd, at best it reflects a lack of knowledge:

Spontaneous Generation was the theory hundreds of years ago, During or around the Renaissance, when scientists believed that things and creatures could randomly appear from nowhere. The idea came from when maggots would seem to be "created" on old meat that layed out for too long. This theory was proved wrong when they took an open-air piece of meat and put it next to a piece of meat in a closed container. Of course, the closed container piece had no maggots and the open-air one did. This claim has nothing to do with evolution.

7 and 8. This is a leading question that assumes mass and energy were created. I think existance is axiomatic, and was not created from nothing. It has always been, and always will be, just as the laws of thermodynamics suggest. Science cannot currently describe the state or movement of energy/matter before the Big Bang, but I do know it was there. Again, there isn't any evidence that the Universe as we know it was created from nothing. There is evidence that it changed forms.

9. Again, this is a leading question giving only 2 possibilities. Rather than design (which there is no evidence of), or "accident", I vote for naturalistic and probable. If you flip a coin a million times, the chances of getting them all heads is very very small. However, if you try this experiment hundreds of trillions of times, you'll eventually get it done. And, along the way, you'd probably have a number of occurances of 900,000+ heads. Further, evolution suggests that only positive, life enriching traits are passed on to the next generation because the negative ones cause an early death and no offspring. It's a natural, verifiable, observable explanation.

10. This question is too broad to even approach. I guess the best answer is Natural Processes. What does this have to do with evolution? Further, this is yet another leading question, and a subset of #11, in that there has to be a cause to cause everything.

11. This question has nothing to do with evolution, and is a preceding question to #10.

Now, my questions for you in regards to evolution::

1. Why does there have to be a cause?
2. Assuming a Creator, please explain auto-immune diseases, cancers and birth defects.
3. What non-biblical, scientifically verifiable evidence do you have that God, and not a pink unicorn, flying spaghetti monster, or other supernatural entity created the universe as we know it?
4. How can you prove the supernatural exists?
5. Why do you insist that the universe was created?
6. Does the absence of a precise answer for everything mean that an entire theory is invalid?

--------------------
Now, for some other questions:

Let's just start with the earth being flat.

On your blog profile, http://www.blogger.com/profile/3995347, you cite Isaiah 40:22 to claim "The Bible affirmed that the earth was round long before science discovered it."

Isaiah 40:22 reads ""He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in."

We have two conditions here:

1- Isaiah 40:22 is claiming that the Earth is a flat circle.

2- Isaiah 40:22 is claiming that the Earth has a circle above it.

If we were to take condition #1, then we are left with a clear and irrefutable contradiction between Isaiah 40:22 and some of the Bible's verses that I mentioned above in the article, because a flat circle doesn't have "four corners", and ironically in either case, we still have a scientifically false claim about the Earth's shape.

If we were to take condition #2, then it doesn't prove that the Earth is an egg-shaped figure, and Isaiah 40:22 surely becomes irrelevant to this subject.

7. Isn't a circle a two-dimensional, flat object? The Earth is slighlty egg-shaped, not even a sphere.

8. How do you resolve the inherent contradiction between that verse and the following verses?

"He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble. (From the NIV Bible, Job 9:6)"

"Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand. (From the NIV Bible, Job 38:4)"

"that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it? (From the NIV Bible, Job 38:13)"

"He unleashes his lightning beneath the whole heaven and sends it to the ends of the earth. (From the NIV Bible, Job 37:3)"

"for he views the ends of the earth and sees everything under the heavens. (From the NIV Bible, Job 28:24)"

"Their measure is longer than the earth and wider than the sea. (From the NIV Bible, Job 11:9)"

"Religion is like a badly written contract - most people don't read most (much less all) of it, believe what the other party says, and execute with the best of intentions and naivety."

- Me


RossCaleb
Posts: 44
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Review and improve my debunking of my gf`s whacko brother

In addition to your answers:

#1 ("Why do you believe in the theory of evolution"Eye-wink: It's just a theory now?

#2 ("What is the best scientific evidence you have that supports the theory of evolution? Please don't be vague"Eye-wink: What science is there in theism, again? Sorry, I didn't know that science was a positive arumentative point for theists.

For his #3 ("Do you realize the evolution model for origins violates the laws of science?"Eye-wink...I'd ask him back: Do you realize that theism violates all laws of science?

Same for #4 ("What scientific laws do you know that support the theory of evolution?"Eye-wink, hit him back. Unless you prefer to stick to just evolution's credibility. The thing here, though, is that if he doesn't already see the credibility of something proven, then you're probably not going to get through to him that way.

#5 ("How did life originate?"Eye-wink: How did God originate? If life or the possibility for life can't be infinite, then how can God be? He should admit that a non-deity-created universe with life is possible. Then you'll have an open door. Without that, you're not going to change anyone's mind.

#6 we already answered at the top

#7 ("How did energy originate?"Eye-wink: Refer to #5. At least for the concept.
#8 ditto ^

#9 ("Is everything from design or accident?"Eye-wink: Accident. I guess he asks this to go somewhere with your answer. Again, I'd refer to my argument in #5. If things can't exist and "accidentally" create life on their own, then why can God? Then, if he explains why, ask him, depending on his answer: "but you're giving humanistic qualities and wants to a supreme being." or "if God could create all of this, how could an equally infinite and wonderous universe not create life just the same?" I rather like that last one.

#10 ("What caused everything?"Eye-wink: He's really crucifying that dead Jesus, I mean beating that topic to death, isn't he? We've gone over this basic point for the past 5 or so questions.

#11 ("Is there a cause?"Eye-wink: To repeat, what's the cause for God? Does there have to be a cause? Apparently for your side, no. So what's wrong with my (logical and correct) side's stance, again?

I always thought that if you want to change the world then you have to start with yourself. So if the heads of state want to end terrorism, they should go ahead and kill themselves. - Anti-Flag


Thor
Posts: 42
Joined: 2006-02-25
User is offlineOffline
Review and improve my debunking of my gf`s whacko brother

I wouldn't pay to much attention to the scientific rebbutals, and instead focus on comeing across as interlectually superior and look at his questions in the way that a teacher does to his students questions.

Say something like:

"Hey [insert name], hows it goin?

It's great you've got into biology, I also have an interest in that kinda stuff. So lets tackel a few of your questions.

I'll start with question 1, I have quite a few reason for believeing in evolution, but the main reason has got to be the fossil record. I don't want to bore you with all the details, but looking at the stages between apes and humans we find a little over 2000 fossils making up about 20 sub-species between apes and humans. Take a look at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html for some cool finds. I know there have been a few fakes, on both sides of the fence, including one homo neanderthalensis, but considering there are over 400 of that particular sub-species its really not big an issue. On the other hand, every single fossil supposedly offering a different view has been proved false.

As for the laws of thermodynamics, well this reall is a stretch. The first law says that energy cannot be created or destroyed, so I really don't see how this affects evolution. Its also irrelavent at the 'time' of the big bang because time literally faded into existance, so the words 'created' and 'destroyed' are meaningless in that situation. Simularly with the second..."

From Alan
FTT Website Designer


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Review and improve my debunking of my gf`s whacko brother

Yeah, Christians misrepresent the laws of thermodynamics almost as much as they do the definition of "theory." :roll:

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Thor
Posts: 42
Joined: 2006-02-25
User is offlineOffline
Review and improve my debunking of my gf`s whacko brother

I should also point out that his questions are a copy & paste job, I've seen them before. So perhaps you could just copy and paste a few answers from talk orrigins.

From Alan
FTT Website Designer


RossCaleb
Posts: 44
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Review and improve my debunking of my gf`s whacko brother

Any news on this?


StopEvangelists
Posts: 51
Joined: 2006-04-14
User is offlineOffline
Review and improve my debunking of my gf`s whacko brother

None yet. I replied to my g/f, not to her brother, because I'm working her down from her literal biblical world. We went through that, and I actually sat through a Xian DVD "The Fossil Record: Evidence for the Bible" (which I highly recommend as a great lecture on how to sound convincing by picking and choosing and using a stream of non-sequitors). At the end, I pointed out the obvious logic errors, and I think she agreed. Then, I gave her a copy of the National Geographic article "Was Darwin Wrong?". Then, we went to a website linked through here that theorized that a fish eye could evolve from nothing in 1800 steps, all of which would be beneficial. Then, she got tired and we had to feed the dogs.

I also threw in the argument that many stars are more than 6000 light years away from us, and god would have had to not only create the stars out there and set them in motion, but also get their light most of the way to earth, too.

We also had a discussion that even if science hasn't postiively answered everything yet, that does not lend evidence for anything supernatural.

Another point we talked about it is that all palentologists and geologists probably arent involved in a vast conspiracy against christianity, and dont lie and make up science and cover for each other just because they are all assholes.

I will probably see her brother next Friday, but I'm not sure if I want to bring it up - he does take really good care of her 90 year old mother, and that is worth more to me than arguing a true whacko to nothingness.

Next stop, biblical errancy.

"Religion is like a badly written contract - most people don't read most (much less all) of it, believe what the other party says, and execute with the best of intentions and naivety."

- Me


Thor
Posts: 42
Joined: 2006-02-25
User is offlineOffline
Review and improve my debunking of my gf`s whacko brother

StopEvangelists wrote:
Next stop, biblical errancy.

Get your g/f a synoptic parallel (NRSV version if possible), and there you have a ready made list of contradictions.

I've leave the social credibility of this liberalisation up to you though.

From Alan
FTT Website Designer


StopEvangelists
Posts: 51
Joined: 2006-04-14
User is offlineOffline
Review and improve my debunking of my gf`s whacko brother

Alan_RRSdesigner wrote:
StopEvangelists wrote:
Next stop, biblical errancy.

Get your g/f a synoptic parallel (NRSV version if possible), and there you have a ready made list of contradictions.

I've leave the social credibility of this liberalisation up to you though.

You'll have to clarify the meaning of a synoptic parallel (NRSV version) for me.

"Religion is like a badly written contract - most people don't read most (much less all) of it, believe what the other party says, and execute with the best of intentions and naivety."

- Me


Thor
Posts: 42
Joined: 2006-02-25
User is offlineOffline
Review and improve my debunking of my gf`s whacko brother

Matthew, Mark, and Luke share a remarkable amount of verses. 600 of Marks 661 verses are paralleled in Matthew, and about 75% is in Luke. Matthew and Luke also share some content that Mark doesn't have. The result is that you can put the corresponding passages side by side and clearly see the contradictions.

For example, if I look up the Calming of the storm, I have three different passages each in their own collumn. Matthew 8:23-27, Mark 4:35-41, Luke 8:22-25. So looking down, I see Mark says the deciples took Jesus into the boat, but both Matthew and Luke have decided to say that Jesus got into the boat first (suggesting authority). From this we have a small insight into Matthew and Lukes evangelists agenda at attempting to represent the person of Jesus.

The synoptic I ordered to day is this one - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0840774842/002-7921925-9413653?v=glance&n=283155

From Alan
FTT Website Designer