An Intersting conversation I had with a Creationist friend of mine.

[Cecelia]

Explain to him that he needs to learn what a theory is.

Evolution is a scientific theory.
Creationism is a hypothesis.

Then explain to him that he needs to read sources that aren't creationist craze.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

so could someone point out the flaws in his argument?

Happy to.

1. Explain to your friend that theories are never, EVER proven. Theories are either supported or not supported.

2. Point out that in science, theories are structures of ideas that not only explain existing facts, but have predicative value. Thus, creationism is not, and can never be, a theory.

3. Gladly grant that while we do not (yet) know everything there is to know about speciation, evolution is an observed fact, and has been seen to happen tens of thousands of times, both in laboratory and field environments. In this sense, evolution is a fact so well established that it would be perverse to deny it.

4. Add to #3 that there has never been an observed instance of creation - not one, not ever.

Hope this helps.

Boru

[Ravenshire]

Basically his argument is  "we never see new genes being created, we only see them being eliminated through natural selection"

First get him to clearly define "information." Then ask him to explain, in scientific terms, the mechanism which causes "information" to be lost and the mechanism which prevents information being gained. I'm sure he'll fall back on "'Cuz gawd!!!!!"

[Ravenshire]

Explain to him that he needs to learn what a theory is.  

Evolution is a scientific theory.
Creationism is a hypothesis.

Then explain to him that he needs to read sources that aren't creationist craze.

Creationism isn't even a hypothesis. It's a wild assed guess based on cherry picked evidence and logical fallacies.

[brewer]

Try micro evolution. It happens on a faster time scale.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary...oscales_02

[robvalue]

Indeed. Creationism can never be scientifically proven because it isn't a scientific hypothesis. It can never be tested. It makes no predictions. It doesn't model reality. It doesn't tell us anything. It's just a magical story.

Evolution, on the other hand, has stood the test of time as a scientific theory (which is different from the informal use of the word theory to mean idea or hypothesis). I would advise your friend to just learn more about evolution. Direct him to a user-friendly introduction to the subject, and ask him to read it with an open mind.

I've still never heard anyone who actually understands evolution and then doesn't believe it happens. Evolution happens, there's no question about that. I don't know how anyone can live in the real world and doubt this any more than they would doubt gravity. It's only the theory of evolution that models it that can be criticised and refined.

[Ivan Denisovich]

Creationism is absurd based on god did it. Apart from mentioning it no other arguments are needed as no one proved space wizard existence.

[Eclipse]

I had this very same conversation with a religious colleague of mine and he gave me the same answer "Evolution is just a theory".

He was surprised when I said "Of course evolution's a theory, just as gravitation and relativity are theories, but creationism is at best a hypothesis, at worst a myth".

These people tend not to understand the scientific meaning of a theory. The scientific theory has been peer reviewed, tested, and is based on substantial evidence from many fields of science that supports the theory.

Peer review opens a theory up for testing which allows others to attempt to disprove that theory. If a theory cannot be disproved, it remains the accepted theory until evidence is presented that does disprove the theory. To this day, the theory of evolution remains the accepted theory in the scientific world because there is no scientific evidence to disprove this theory.

Creationism is, lets be kind and call it a hypothesis, based on absolutely no scientific evidence and therefore has not been critically reviewed and tested.

[robvalue]

You can forgive the ignorance regarding the contextual language the first time, because the person has probably never had it explained to them before. They've just heard "only a theory" thrown around by people they associate with.

If they persist with the same equivocation fallacy, then they are being dishonest. If they think they can suddenly disprove evolution in the ten seconds since they found out it actually has been backed by evidence and tested, it's time to drown them at birth.

[maestroanth]

I don't understand the argument of there is no proof of gaining genetic information. He needs to elaborate more because it simply doesn't make sense. How the Hell do homo erectus evolve up to homo Neanderthalis without gaining information? I mean if he believes there is proof of losing information, that's the same as gaining information because information that changing is both depending on your point of view.. Like if you change a byte from 0 to 1 you simultaneously "gain" the 1 while "losing" the 0.

Evolution from my understanding isn't considered a theory anymore.