Best way/evidence to show evolution to a young earth creationist

[AceofSpades]

My mom offered to give me a chance to have a conversation/debate with her about evolution. It won't take place till after december 10th because that's when I get back from school.

What evidence do you think I should show her that would be understandable and convincing to a layperson that currently is a 6,000 year old earth, 6 days creationist?

thanks

[keith123]

why do you believe in evolution?

[Prodigy54321]

www.talkorigins.org (http://www.talkorigins.org/)

I don't know of the level of intelligence of your mother, and I hope you don't take this as an insult, but it could prove to be tricky if she, like most creationists (specifically YECs), is not well versed in the art of thinking logically.

It seems that,as far as making your argument convincing to an antievolutionist is concerned, refuting the criticisms of evolution can be done fairly easily and clearly..but then again, creationists still continue to use the same ridiculous arguments, so I guess they're not so clear to them /images/graemlins/tongue.gif.

but talkorigins.org has refutation after refutation of creationist claims...

I'd say that's a good thing to focus on of she's going to bring these types of things up...and I'm guessing she probably will if she can use google and can type in anything to the effect of "creationism" or "criticisms of evolution" or "evolution vs. creationism" or something.

[ALawPoker]

Ask her, if we were created, why we would be created with things like tonsils or an appendix (which most sane people understand to be evolutionary leftovers).

EDIT: Quick reply. Ignore the RE: keith.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
My mom offered to give me a chance to have a conversation/debate with her about evolution. It won't take place till after december 10th because that's when I get back from school.

What evidence do you think I should show her that would be understandable and convincing to a layperson that currently is a 6,000 year old earth, 6 days creationist?

thanks

[/ QUOTE ]

If you cant beat a YEC in a debate you should kick your science profs in the balls. Or read a book. Sorry this isn't more helpful but destroying your mom in an argument is like the simplest thing ever. Bonus points if you can win without making her cry.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Ask her, if we were created, why we would be created with things like tonsils or an appendix (which most sane people understand to be evolutionary leftovers).

EDIT: Quick reply. Ignore the RE: keith.

[/ QUOTE ]

This will definitely not work. God works in mysterious ways, dontcha know.

I gotta think the geological evidence is the most convincing, because even though they can refute all the dating procedures, you can then paint them into a corner of being a Luddite who must necessarily reject all science. Give her the choice between those two options.

[hmkpoker]

Use this (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=4318615&page=) argument. You won't get anywhere with evidence, and logic is sufficient.

[Borodog]

Ask her if she believes God is a liar. In other words, if God created the Universe 6,000 years ago, why did he create it with every indication that it is approximately 15 billion years old? For example, why would he bother to create light in transit from stars and galaxies that did not exist at the time they appear to? The vast majority of astrophysical objects appear to be further away than 6,000 light years (6,000 lightyears is only around 1/16th the diameter of the Milky Way), so why create light "fossils" from objects that did not exist?

The same can be said of geological evidence. There are numerous dating techniques that overlap with each other and corroborate each other that agree that the Earth is billions of years old. Why would God "lie" to arrange for them all to agree and appear to indicate the Earth is 4.55 billion years old?

There are processes that are ongoing that can be measured that indicate the Earth is very old, for example plate tectonics (continental drift) can be measured via laser and satellite measurements, while the ocean floor contains a record of evidence of millions of years of the same exact mechanism. Why would God lie and put that record there to make it appear that the Earth was millions of years old if it weren't?

Why would God bother to specially create all of life in a nested hierarchy that is exactly what you would expect to see if all life were related by common ancestry and descent? And why would he bother to make sure that you get the same "tree of life", the same nested hierarchy, if you look at molecular evidence (DNA) versus phenotypic evidence (anatomy & behavior)?

Is God supposed to be stupid? Who is the better Creator, a Creator who has to put every molecule of Creation into place by hand, or the Creator who can write a few simple equations out and have Creation erect itself? Is God a brute, or is he elegant?

If you want the Word of God, I suggest that you don't look in a 3,000 year old book written by men; I suggest you consult the Creation itself, because if God can be said to have any Words at all, he has written them all over His Creation, and His Message is quite clear.

Your mother does not need to abandon being a Christian to abandon a literal scientific interpretation of Genesis. The Bible is not a manual for repairing automatic transmissions, nor is it a treatise on economics, astronomy, physics, geology, biology, nor any other science. The people who seek to put the Bible ahead of the world itself as the primary source of scientific knowledge make fools of themselves and a joke of their faith.

[BPA234]

Start by trying to prove creationism to your self, then rebut.

[DougShrapnel]

If boro's excellent post fails. Be prepared to listen to why your mother wants to have this discussion with you. I have a feeling it's a trap. If it is to convince you to believe in God, you may want to opt out, or be prepared to understand her POV first. She has alot of vested interest in the earth being 6k years old. Understand that you changing her mind is going to be a long road. Slow is fast with people. Take your time, converse, enjoy life, respect. Understand that there was a point in time when you did not understand evolution, do not get angry. You might not win the argument but it might make for a pleasent conversation. Convince her that genesis is just a parable if the bible is indeed divinely inspired.

[Borodog]

Doug touched on an excellent point that my wife made clear to me about a year ago. A good relationship with your family, friends, coworkers, etc. is more important than being right or convincing them that you are right.

I am often a complete ass online promoting and defending my positions, but this is because essentially, none of you people matter. If I cared about my relationship with Propertarian or Moorobot, for example, I would certainly be more circumspect in my tone, and probably wouldn't discuss controversial issues at all.

In short, don't damage your relationship with your mother over something as ultimately meaningless as how old she thinks the world is.

[Skidoo]

Start by presenting the evidence an apparently 15 billion year old cosmos couldn't have been created 60 seconds ago and work up from there.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
In short, don't damage your relationship with your mother over something as ultimately meaningless as how old she thinks the world is.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's probably a good idea to keep in mind.

My second cousin knows I believe in God, but I don't give much literal credence to the bible, and he's constantly trying to get me to convert. But this Thanksgiving he brought along some indisputable proof that evolution did not occur. According to an article in a little pamphlet he had, Darwin confessed on his deathbed that the entire theory of evolution is false. Only his nurse apparently heard the confession, and she happened to be a Christian, so the entire scientific community dismissed what she had to say. Faced with that kind of irrefutable evidence my response was "wow that's fascinating, I'll have to think about it." What's the point?

I think one thing a lot of you guys on this board miss, is that you probably know more about science, evolution, anthropology, and cosmology that 90% of the western world, and probably more than 98% of the rest of the world. Over the last 50 years information has been coming in at a faster and faster rate, and people haven't kept up with. It's not that they're stupid and you're so smart - it's more like you're on dsl and they're still working with a 56k dial-up.

Sociologists tell us that the process of discarding long held beliefs takes three generations. The first generation encounters the new paradigm, the next generation debates it, and the third generation accepts it. Change and acceptance takes time - Einstein was still working in a patent office 4 years after he published his theories.

[surftheiop]

If god were to create a tree dont you think he would put rings in it?

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
If god were to create a tree dont you think he would put rings in it?

[/ QUOTE ]

If God Created Adam, do you think He Created him with scars?

[madnak]

I've had success in the past with explanations of rocks. Talk about the differences between igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary rocks. Talk about how long the deposition of sedimentary rocks takes, about the general patterns in the fossil record, about just how deep some of the fossils lie. Talk about how all the rocks "fit together" like a giant puzzle. Then go over some dating methods very briefly, and explain that their results all end up being the same.

I'm not sure if it will work for you. But I know that sometimes, the "how did they get under there?" question can cause creationists who've never thought about the issue to question their position.

Edit - Okay, I'm going to leave this here, but uh... Boro's thing is a better bet.

[theblackkeys]

[ QUOTE ]
Ask her, if we were created, why we would be created with things like tonsils or an appendix (which most sane people understand to be evolutionary leftovers).

EDIT: Quick reply. Ignore the RE: keith.

[/ QUOTE ]
Doesn't the appendix cleanse the blood or protect us from disease? (one of those, not sure)

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
I've had success in the past with explanations of rocks. Talk about the differences between igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary rocks. Talk about how long the deposition of sedimentary rocks takes, about the general patterns in the fossil record, about just how deep some of the fossils lie. Talk about how all the rocks "fit together" like a giant puzzle. Then go over some dating methods very briefly, and explain that their results all end up being the same.

I'm not sure if it will work for you. But I know that sometimes, the "how did they get under there?" question can cause creationists who've never thought about the issue to question their position.

Edit - Okay, I'm going to leave this here, but uh... Boro's thing is a better bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

My brother was arguing that some creation scientist has shown that you can bury an animal's body (say a frog), expose it to pressure and whatnot, and then when carbon dated it will test as being 100s of thousands of years old.

Of course he couldn't name the person but he was convinced that all dating techniques were suspect because of this one guy's testimony.

My point- it doesn't do much good to interject science into the argument when the creationists/bible literalists discard any science which contradicts their point of view.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
My point- it doesn't do much good to interject science into the argument when the creationists/bible literalists discard any science which contradicts their point of view.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is an important point here that needs to be clarified, because I've seen it multiple times in this thread. People have claimed that it's useless to even have a logical discussion with "creationists/bible literalists" because they "discard any science which contradicts their point of view."

While this is often true, it is also often true that they really have never had the scientific point of view explained to them in a rational way. My wife's mother's family is YEC, and they are all very sharp people. They are not stupid. They were raised a certain way, and they believe certain things. They haven't gone out of their way to investigate the other side of things, to be sure, but they certainly have never encountered anyone able to do the scientific evidence and theories justice. The only exposure they have to the scientific side of things is from 8th grade physical science class taught by some public school boob who has no idea what they're talking about, and couldn't explain astronomy, geology, or evolution to save their lives.

In other words, you never know until you try.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've had success in the past with explanations of rocks. Talk about the differences between igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary rocks. Talk about how long the deposition of sedimentary rocks takes, about the general patterns in the fossil record, about just how deep some of the fossils lie. Talk about how all the rocks "fit together" like a giant puzzle. Then go over some dating methods very briefly, and explain that their results all end up being the same.

I'm not sure if it will work for you. But I know that sometimes, the "how did they get under there?" question can cause creationists who've never thought about the issue to question their position.

Edit - Okay, I'm going to leave this here, but uh... Boro's thing is a better bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

My brother was arguing that some creation scientist has shown that you can bury an animal's body (say a frog), expose it to pressure and whatnot, and then when carbon dated it will test as being 100s of thousands of years old.

Of course he couldn't name the person but he was convinced that all dating techniques were suspect because of this one guy's testimony.

My point- it doesn't do much good to interject science into the argument when the creationists/bible literalists discard any science which contradicts their point of view.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, the much of science is too abstract to be intuitive to many people. That's why I like the rock strata example, because it's very concrete. I know that some creationists have come up with ideas for how a fossil could end up underneath a thousand feet of solid rock, but they're pretty wacky.

[Turn Prophet]

If their faith is sufficiently strong, all your arguments won't matter, because you're coming at the issue from different premises. Like Thomas Paine said, "to argue with a man who has rejected the use of reason is akin to giving medicine to the dead."

That said, best example I've used to make people see that evolution on SOME scale happens is to ask this question: if species are static and there is no evolution, why do we need to continually come up with new strains of flu vaccines?

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My point- it doesn't do much good to interject science into the argument when the creationists/bible literalists discard any science which contradicts their point of view.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is an important point here that needs to be clarified, because I've seen it multiple times in this thread. People have claimed that it's useless to even have a logical discussion with "creationists/bible literalists" because they "discard any science which contradicts their point of view."

While this is often true, it is also often true that they really have never had the scientific point of view explained to them in a rational way. My wife's mother's family is YEC, and they are all very sharp people. They are not stupid. They were raised a certain way, and they believe certain things. They haven't gone out of their way to investigate the other side of things, to be sure, but they certainly have never encountered anyone able to do the scientific evidence and theories justice. The only exposure they have to the scientific side of things is from 8th grade physical science class taught by some public school boob who has no idea what they're talking about, and couldn't explain astronomy, geology, or evolution to save their lives.

In other words, you never know until you try.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately most of my talks of this nature come from my brother. He definitely does not have a broad understanding of even remedial science. He is suspect of anything that you offer that contradicts him. (I realize he is not representative of all Biblical literalists but I'm certain he is not unique.)

An example from this holiday-
He noted that fossils of fish had been found in some mountains. His conclusion was that the only way the fossils could be found in the mountains is if the mountains were all underwater. In other words, the Great Flood.

I said, 'of course the mountains could have been underwater at one point in time. The earth's crust has constantly been in motion, land disappears under the sea and rises from beneath the sea." He looked at me like I was insane. I asked him if he'd heard of Plate Tectonics. A blank look on his face. The mere suggestion that these huge mountains were once underwater WITHOUT God flooding the earth was just unfathomable to him. I thought this was 9th grade science?