Need to prove to my mom that Evolution is real

[puglover]

Tell her to prove the bible is fact.

That's no answer.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

So your saying you know that there's no such thing as God, and you know that He doesn't have the power to create a star however He saw fit?

I'm saying I know that ad hoc arguments are asinine. You can certainly argue Last Thursdayism, but your argument deserves neither respect nor rebuttal.

Did you have any constructive points in this portion of your post? Or was it just blabbering? I'm afraid if there was something constructive here, you'll have to point it out to me, as I'm a bit tired this evening.

I'm sorry you didn't grasp the point. Perhaps I should simplify it a bit for you?

Muddying the waters is a debate tactic used only by those who realize they've already lost.

Do you actually read the titles and opening posts of threads, or do you just click around and post random things? Allow me to show you the topic title, in case you somehow missed it: "Need to prove to my mom that Evolution is real". Gold Eagle apparently believes that he has to prove that "evolution is real" to his Mom - instead of getting annoyed at me for this, why don't you share your opinion with him? (Perferably in a much more polite manner than your last post, if that's not too much trouble)

I'm telling GoldEagle (not you) that the burden of proof does not rest with him. His mother has already made annoyingly stupid and extreme claims. He needs to tell her to back up her points with evidence, or admit her fundamental ignorance of the subject.

 

[Elrohir]

I'm saying I know that ad hoc arguments are asinine. You can certainly argue Last Thursdayism, but your argument deserves neither respect nor rebuttal.

First, how was my original response an "ad hoc" argument? Yes, I know what that means - but really, it was an alternate explanation for the problem presented by another poster. How is portraying a possible alternate explanation an "ad hoc" argument?

If my arguments deserve neither respect nor rebuttal, why are you responding to them? I must admit I am rather puzzled; if they don't even deserve rebuttal, then why don't you show this by not rebutting them? I'm assuming that if you attempt to rebutt this, then you've changed your mind? Or do you do these things even though you don't think you should?

I'm sorry you didn't grasp the point. Perhaps I should simplify it a bit for you?

Muddying the waters is a debate tactic used only by those who realize they've already lost.

Much simpler, thank you. I would agree with your assessment that such a thing is indeed a poor debating tactic, and most often used by someone who thinks he is losing. However, I fail to see how I was "muddying the waters" in my original post in this topic; perhaps you could give an example of this?

I'm telling GoldEagle (not you) that the burden of proof does not rest with him. His mother has already made annoyingly stupid and extreme claims. He needs to tell her to back up her points with evidence, or admit her fundamental ignorance of the subject.

So you were telling Gold Eagle this, right below a quote box with a quote from me? Gotcha.

Why should she be the one to back up her argument? Why shouldn't he be the one? In fact, why should they argue at all? GoldEagle isn't on to answer why this is so important, I would be most interested in finding out when he does come on.

 

[King Flevance]

Science has still yet to prove this. It is called the theory of evolution. It is not a law yet. And as much as some people love to believe it is indisputable so far, there are still a considerable amount of scientists who are out there trying and achieving in some aspects to debunk it.

 

[croxis]

Science has still yet to prove this. It is called the theory of evolution. It is not a law yet. And as much as some people love to believe it is indisputable so far, there are still a considerable amount of scientists who are out there trying and achieving in some aspects to debunk it.

Science education major to the rescue (who is tired and not going to spell very well tonight....)!

Short version: You don't know what a theory is.


Long version:
1) You can't prove anything true in and of itself - you must prove contradictions false.

2) The idea that hypothese --> theory --> law is a common missconception that is flat out wrong. While debate on what these three words *exactly* mean in science can go on for ages, in short it is some form of this:

Hypothesis: A statement made that a scientific experiment tries to prove false.
Theory: A model, a description with predictive powers. Claims can be made with a theory.
Laws: Very fundamental and universal principles in the universe that are generally described with mathmatics.

So, you will never ever see the law of evolution because it is not a short fundamental description that applies to everything. Gravity, thermodynamics, motions, all these are laws because they are fundamental and apply to everything.

Germs are a theory. Atoms are a theory. Evolution is a theory.



Now that I killed that tiresome argument, back to the OT.

Seeing as your mother is taking something on faith it is most likly she will ignore any and all evidence I can list here (and I could list quite a bit). One argument is that if she thinks evolution is wrong she should throw any medication made in the last 50 years away as many of the descoveries that directly or indirectly lead to the development of most of those medications.

Evolution is the foundation of which all of modern biology is built upon. It is *THAT* powerful and *THAT* usefull. Then ask her what medications have been discovered using the Bible that reliably save lives. There is a nice paper published this year which proves that faith healing is false.

 

[Perfection]

I think one of the first things to consider is does she want to talk about it?

If she doesn't then I doubt it's worth jeopardising your relationship over.

 

[cemsity]

first tell her that the word for day used in genisis ch.1 is the same word for Eon, the tell her that evolution was the tool that God used for the creation of the creatures of the world

 

[King Flevance]

Fair enough. I don't understand why atoms are a theory. Could you explain that one for me if you catch this post?

 

[croxis]

From Wikipedia:

In chemistry and physics, atomic theory is a theory of the nature of matter. It states that all matter is composed of atoms. The philosophical background of the atomic theory is called atomism.

It is a theory because it is a model. It proposes that matter is composed of, well, atoms. It is a very very good theory as atomic and subatomic physics are probably the most accurate of all the sciences, alas it is not a law because it isn't a fundamental description that is described. In short matter is not described using math (laws) but with words (theory).


Thats the best I can do in my state, hope someone can explain it better.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

First, how was my original response an "ad hoc" argument? Yes, I know what that means - but really, it was an alternate explanation for the problem presented by another poster. How is portraying a possible alternate explanation an "ad hoc" argument?

Claim: The universe is less than 1 million years old.
Evidence: Physics tells us the stars are billions of years old.
Counterclaim: God created "aged" stars or stars that just look like they're old.

Ad hoc hypothesis, from wiki:

In philosophy and science, ad hoc often means the addition of corollary hypotheses or adjustment to a philosophical or scientific theory to save the theory from being falsified by compensating for anomalies not anticipated by the theory in its unmodified form. Philosophers and scientists are often suspicious or skeptical of theories that rely on continual, inelegant ad hoc adjustments.

In short, the original ridiculous claim was falsified by available evidence. Instead of adjusting your hypothesis to fit the facts, you have added a second, even more tenuous, even more unfalsifiable claim to try and "patch over" the obvious hole in your theory.

Ad hoc theorizing is the tool of people who don't know how to think rationally, much less debate rationally. This is the style of thinking of the people who believe Satan put dinosaur bones in the fossil record to trick us:

Claim: The earth is 6000 years old.
Evidence: all of geology.
Counterclaim: That's just Satan's trickery!

Much simpler, thank you. I would agree with your assessment that such a thing is indeed a poor debating tactic, and most often used by someone who thinks he is losing. However, I fail to see how I was "muddying the waters" in my original post in this topic; perhaps you could give an example of this?

Really, there are no simple, easy, and provable answers to this question, everyone has their own opinions and facts that they like to put forward.

You wouldn't say this if you knew what you were talking about.

Why should she be the one to back up her argument? Why shouldn't he be the one?

She made the original, extraordinary, unsubstantiated claim. Therefore she should be the one to provide evidence.

 

[blargh]

So, my mom and I have been having a big debate...I don't really study/research evolution, so my knowledge is small, but I can overpower my mom in our arguements, but she ends up saying that there weren't millions and millions of years between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. So, I need some easy debate-enders and facts from you guys that Evolution (not necessarily Darwinism) is correct, or at least a much more plausible.

Please don't turn this into a Creation vs. Evolution thread.

Thanks,
-GE

Why bother changing her beliefs? Creation mythology is an inherent part of any religion I can think of. Evolution theory itself is not a component of a belief system of faith. It is a tool used by scientists and for now it works. It is not to be 'believed' in. Doing so brings it to the level of a mythology and in opposition to creationism. Regarding creationism as fact only sets up religion for doubting. The two are not comparable though both are correct if viewed in the correct context. Creation = religion. Evolution = science.

The fact evolution theory has withstood the rigors of the scientific method should be good enough for everyone.

 

[classical_hero]

That's her arlight.

Well then you will have no chance of convincing her. Just look at me.

 

[classical_hero]

The first chapter of the bible is completely wrong. you have the earth, plants, water, and light before there is even a sun.

You can start by telling here that fossils are millions of years old

Surely you are not considering that the sun is our only source of light. Surely you are not saying that we cannot have other sources that help plants grow. Alll the sun is, is a source of light. Light is what is needed, not necessarily from the sun. The reason the sun is so important to us is by the fact that it is gives us just enough light and heat to make our lives comfortable.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

An evidence to convince her of the real age of the universe would be that we can see stars and galaxies many millions of light years far away, so if the universe was created only some thousand years ago, the light from those stars would not have reached us yet and we could not see them.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

But God created light in transit, just so it would look to astronomers like the stars was millions of years old!

I've often found that He is tricky like that.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Then there is not valid argument. I was going to add the big karstic stalagmites and stalactites that needs many thousands or millions of years to be formed but obviously God could have cheated on that one too.

 

[The Last Conformist]

That's the funny thing - creationism tends to turn good ol' God into the Prince of Lies.

 

[Leifmk]

That's the funny thing - creationism tends to turn good ol' God into the Prince of Lies.

"Aren't I a joker? Let's see who believes in Me now..."

(paraphrasing the late great Bill Hicks)

 

[El_Machinae]

Ask her if Jesus can still be the Messiah, even if some of the facts about Genesis are wrong. To prove Genesis wrong, you merely have to show how Genesis 1 and 2 conflict directly.

 

[classical_hero]

Ask her if Jesus can still be the Messiah, even if some of the facts about Genesis are wrong. To prove Genesis wrong, you merely have to show how Genesis 1 and 2 conflict directly.

No they don't. Chapter 2 is just an in depth look at the creation of man, which happened on day six.