Debating with a creationist

[The Omnissiunt One]

Scientifically illiterate as I am, I need some help arguing with a rather smug creationist whom I've encountered on the blog of the Mail journalist Peter Hitchens (brother of Christopher). Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.

He wrote to me: 'Identifying a pattern of relationship linking all living creatures does not imply a necessary cause, such as common ancestry, for that pattern. Remember, Darwin did not invent classification: the creationist Linnaeus did a century earlier. Linnaeus included humans amongst the primates. That is because classification is consistent with common design. So what we need is evidence to support common ancestry as a true explanation of this pattern. Fossils of common ancestors and transitional species would be a start. Do you know of any? Limitless artificial selection that breaks the boundaries of genetic homeostasis would need to be demonstrated too. Do you know of such an experiment? And it goes without saying that we should never, ever find “a peculiar chunk of DNA in the genomes of eight animals - the mouse, rat, bushbaby, little brown bat, tenrec, opossum, anole lizard and African clawed frog - but not in 25 others, including humans, elephants, chickens and fish.” Oops.

Even if there was [sic] any evidence to support the common ancestry hypothesis, that does not mean that common ancestry arose as a result of natural selection acting upon random mutations. Common ancestry could be the result of front-loaded design or even guided evolution. So that means, atheists also need evidence that natural selection acting upon random mutations can transform a single-celled common ancestor into a human being. And where did the single-celled common ancestor come from? Atheists need to provide a naturalistic explanation for that too because if God just put it there then that destroys their entire worldview which revolves around the conviction that there is no God.'

Thanks in advance,
Omnissiunt One

[OnlyNatural]

Fossils of common ancestors and transitional species would be a start. Do you know of any?

I'm actually taking a course in biological anthropology right now, and there are many fossils of common ancestors, as well as transitional fossils. Is he looking for transitional and common ancestor fossils for all sorts of different species, though, or just for humans?

http://www.transitionalfossils.com/

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

http://www.talkorigins.org/ (If only Mr. Creationist would actually read this website, but he won't)

And where did the single-celled common ancestor come from? Atheists need to provide a naturalistic explanation for that too because if God just put it there then that destroys their entire worldview which revolves around the conviction that there is no God.'

Looking into abiogenesis would be a start. It explores the first origins of life, and whether life can come from inorganic matter. Here's an article and the Wiki.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/0...cleotides/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

[The Omnissiunt One]

I'm actually taking a course in biological anthropology right now, and there are many fossils of common ancestors, as well as transitional fossils. Is he looking for transitional and common ancestor fossils for all sorts of different species, though, or just for humans?

Probably for all sorts, though I'm not sure. Any will do.

[Shell B]

Just reading the title of this thread gave me a headache. I don't know how to help you, as I have never had a rational debate with a Creationist. I just wanted to wish you luck. You'll need it. Of course, you will be right, but the Creationist will never back down.

[downbeatplumb]

In order for the creationist to prove that god created anything he should first prove that there is a god.

We have perfectly good alternative explainations.

Evolution has such a vast amount of data to support it that it is counted as fact by most biologists.

Abiogenesis is harder but some good work has been done in that area, I saw aprogramme last week were RNA was created useing nothing more than sea water, heat and UV lights.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00..._the_Moon/

[OnlyNatural]

Is he looking for transitional and common ancestor fossils for all sorts of different species, though, or just for humans?

Probably for all sorts, though I'm not sure. Any will do.

Okay. Human ancestor fossils I know more about.


http://www.crystalinks.com/lucy.html

'Don Johanson placed Australopithecus afarensis as the last ancestor common to humans and chimpanzees living from 3.9 to 3 million years ago.'

'Lucy (fossil found in 1974) was only 3 feet 8 inches (1.1 m) tall, weighed 29 kilograms (65 lb) and looked somewhat like a Common Chimpanzee, but the observations of her pelvis proved that she had walked upright and more in the manner of humans.'

'One of the most striking characteristics about Lucy was that she had a small skull, bipedal knee structure, and molars and front teeth of human (rather than great ape) style and relative size, but a small skull and small body' (more like a chimp).

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/...-ardi.html

Ardipithecus ramidus: Scientists say the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees, humanity's closest living relative, lived at least six million years ago. Ardi (fossil found in 1992) isn't that last common ancestor but it's the closest to it that they've seen, say paleontologists.'

'In Ardipithecus we have an unspecialized form that hasn't evolved very far in the direction of Australopithecus (like Lucy). So when you go from head to toe, you're seeing a mosaic creature that is neither chimpanzee, nor is it human. It is Ardipithecus," said lead author Tim White of the University of California Berkeley'

'Ardipithecus is described as a small "ground ape," living in wooded areas, and walking on all fours in trees, but on two legs on the ground. Ardi is estimated to have weighed about 50 kilograms and stood about 120 centimetres tall.'

The thing about evolutionary relationships, though, is that we can never be absolutely sure, and there is often contention between anthropologists. Also, we keep discovering new pieces of the evolutionary puzzle, and the date of chimp/human divergence is revealed to be earlier than previously thought. Creationists try to use this to their advantage, claiming that since we don't have 100% accurate information yet, therefore God did it. And yet they claim to 'know' there's a designer god when they have 0% evidence for that... Pretty pathetic, but that's a creationist for you.

[The Omnissiunt One]

Thanks everyone.

[OnlyNatural]

I know that creationists don't believe in evolution, but even some reasonable Christians I've met who accept evolution still talk about how each person is 'created in God's image' (usually accompanied by a smug 'I'm special' kind of expression).

That really makes me wonder... What is God's image exactly? If we evolved, does He look like the chimp/human ancestor, or maybe like a transitional hominin? What about the common ancestor of bats and apes? Or plants and apes? Does God look like pond slime, perhaps? Or maybe like an RNA molecule? Or does God evolve morphologically at the same rate as we do?

Think about it, theists.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Just reading the title of this thread gave me a headache. I don't know how to help you, as I have never had a rational debate with a Creationist.

Me neither, I gave up years ago.

My position today:Evolution is a scientific theory based on evidence. Creationism is a religious doctrine not based on evidence. I reject the premise of the creationist. IE the existence of God as a given.There is nothing I want to debate.

[downbeatplumb]

I know that creationists don't believe in evolution, but even some reasonable Christians I've met who accept evolution still talk about how each person is 'created in God's image' (usually accompanied by a smug 'I'm special' kind of expression).

That really makes me wonder... What is God's image exactly? If we evolved, does He look like the chimp/human ancestor, or maybe like a transitional hominin? What about the common ancestor of bats and apes? Or plants and apes? Does God look like pond slime, perhaps? Or maybe like an RNA molecule? Or does God evolve morphologically at the same rate as we do?

Think about it, theists.

"who made us? in my case god, in your case god knows, but I doubt he's won any design awards" Edmund Blackadder to his servant Baldrick.