Heated debate on evolution with brother

[Iroscato]

Avoid the subject at all costs. You're never going to convince him, he's never going to convince you. It's a totally pointless and potentially damaging exercise.

[pocaracas]

He's not going to believe a source coming from an atheist author who he perceives to be "liberal". Francis Collins is about the only scientist I know to point him to as an example of someone who is not an atheist, but who understands and accepts evolution as science understands it. His views on science are totally skewed and messed up. He's a business man and an engineer. He is very opinionated, very good at solving problems, very good at managing money, planning ahead, and coming up with innovative approaches to business and engineering, but he's ignorant as can be about science, and very attached to his own opinions. There simply is no wiggle room there. He thinks he's so smart, and right about everything.

hmmm...
"opinionated"?
"intelligent"?
"thinks he's smart and right about everything"?


Well, the solution is clear: you just need to tell him that he is clearly wrong. Any blonde chick can understand his mistake.
That he can't is a product of brainwashing at its finest. (no, don't tell him this bit... we're working on insulting his intellect)

1. So, mister smart and right about everything... and very religious... Christian religious... tell me, Jesus was born a Jew, pretty much like John the Baptist... ah... but which kind of jew were they?
Pharisee?
Sadducee?
Essene?


2. The evolution of the god (lol, evolution.... see what I did there?)
2.1 What was the main characteristic of the Mesopotamic god "Anu"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anu

---

is the earliest attested Sky Father deity. In Sumerian religion, he was also "King of the Gods", "Lord of the Constellations, Spirits and Demons", and "Supreme Ruler of the Kingdom of Heaven"

---

2.2 What was the main characteristic of the god of Israel "El"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_(deity)

---

Ēl (...) is a Northwest Semitic word meaning "god" or "deity", or referring (as a proper name) to any one of multiple major Ancient Near East deities.

For the Canaanites and the ancient Levantine region as a whole, Ēl or Il was the supreme god, the father of mankind and all creatures.
[...]
Before El's revelation with the name of Yahweh, it is said in Genesis 14:18–20 that Abraham accepted the blessing of El, when Melchizedek, the king of Salem and high priest of its deity El Elyon blessed him.
[...]
According to The Oxford Companion to World Mythology,

It seems almost certain that the God of the Jews evolved gradually from the Canaanite El, who was in all likelihood the "God of Abraham"... If El was the high God of Abraham—Elohim, the prototype of Yahveh—Asherah was his wife, and there are archaeological indications that she was perceived as such before she was in effect "divorced" in the context of emerging Judaism of the 7th century BCE. (See 2 Kings 23:15.)[31]

---

2.3 What was the main characteristic of the Jewish god "YHWH"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh

---

was proclaimed as the creator of the cosmos and the true god of all the world.

---

2.4 And the christian god? Everyone knows he's "the father", right?


3. Why do people kneel and worship an all mighty, all loving entity? Why would that god care about worship? Is god vain? Does he require it? Or do the people in charge of the religion require it?
Why would such a god care about what people write about him?
What is the difference between belief in the existence of this god and following the rules of a religion which follows this god?
What is the difference between a god and a religion?
Would you follow the concept of a god, not as described in any religious text, but as you yourself came to understand it through proper reasoning, even if it flies in the face of the religion you were taught to believe in?
Why would such a god care about evolution? He can do anything... he can set things up so that evolution happens... he can set things up so that no evolution is required.... he can do anything he wants... but why make fossils of creatures that seemingly cannot be found among the present-day fauna and flora?

[Amarok]

I'll give two predictions for the price of one.

I think my debate with mystical knight and your exchange with your brother are going to be quite similar.

I don't think sending him info will change things.

If he's a genious i can only assume he knows how to access information online possibly better than me and a lot of other people here who know about evolution.

But I'm curious, what did he say about dinosaurs, the HIV virus, the fact that if every extinct animal existed with every living species all at the same time it would be a bit crowded on earth. Were there any nuances to the conversation?

There was not really any nuance. He said he believed that "adaptation" had occurred, as if that carried any weight. He's simply ignorant on this topic. I'm done worrying about it. He's a moron in this domain.

That generally the way with creationists they will accept bits and pieces that they can't refute but then move the goalpost or will stop the evidence from leading to it's logical conclusion or they will create an" alternative explanation" for the evidence (crap that allows them to deny the evidences rational conclusion). It's really futile to debate a creationist and in the end you'll earn nothing but fried nerves and high blood pressure.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

He's not going to believe a source coming from an atheist author who he perceives to be "liberal". Francis Collins is about the only scientist I know to point him to as an example of someone who is not an atheist, but who understands and accepts evolution as science understands it. His views on science are totally skewed and messed up. He's a business man and an engineer. He is very opinionated, very good at solving problems, very good at managing money, planning ahead, and coming up with innovative approaches to business and engineering, but he's ignorant as can be about science, and very attached to his own opinions. There simply is no wiggle room there. He thinks he's so smart, and right about everything.

Seriously, mate - trilobites in a pillowcase. Trust me on this one.

Boru

[Minimalist]

He kept saying that there's no evidence for evolution.

So, as smart as you think he is when it comes to evolution he's an idiot.  Next.

[MyelinSheath]

He speaks to me like I don't know crap. Its one of those situations where he's the one with a higher level of education, I'm the less accomplished one, so it's talk down to me all the time.

I'm going to text him the links to Berkeley's evolution resource as well as talk origins.

Any good videos you might recommend? Not necessarily creation vs. evolution videos, but just videos giving the evidence for evolution?

[Minimalist]

Get him Richard Dawkins "The Greatest Show On Earth."  It's pretty hard reading for a bible-thumper but it is more compelling than some shitty bible verse.

[MyelinSheath]

Get him Richard Dawkins "The Greatest Show On Earth."  It's pretty hard reading for a bible-thumper but it is more compelling than some shitty bible verse.

He'll quickly dismiss Dawkins as an untrustworthy liberal atheist.

[Jackalope]

Get him Richard Dawkins "The Greatest Show On Earth."  It's pretty hard reading for a bible-thumper but it is more compelling than some shitty bible verse.

He'll quickly dismiss Dawkins as an untrustworthy liberal atheist.

Well, he is a liberal atheist by USA standards - but perhaps this suggests another, less direct angle. I would suggest subtly challenging his bias. We all have them, to one degree or another - if he doesn't recognize that... Anyhow, explore his bias. Use the Socratic method. What makes a source credible? Ask him, don't argue with him. Let him talk. As he talks, you'll have more questions. Get to the root of the bias.

He's not likely to learn shit until he learns to read for comprehension outside his worldview.

[Mudhammam]

I tried to offer him recommendations of books on evolution. He said it would depend on the author and who they were/what they stood for etc. as to whether or not he'd accept it. Erroneous reason, but I figured Francis Collins might be a good start. Any books by him you'd recommend?

I remember At The Water's Edge by Carl Zimmer and Endless Forms Most Beautiful by Sean Carroll to be thoroughly enjoyable.

If he's open to reading Richard Dawkins, The Greatest Show On Earth is a classic.