/sci/ - Science & Math

bump

Examples are not arguments. Also, what quotes from the Bible are they using to disprove evolution?

>>2110357
Unfortunetly knowing your science like a pro doesn't mean you can win debates about the subjects. Your opponents will do shitty little things like change the subject when they're losing, use personal attacks, lie, etc.

Youtube is full of creationism vs evolution debates, and some scientists who are quite good at kicking ass. (‪NatCen4ScienceEd‬‎
, AndromedasWake‬‎, AronRa‬‎, BrilloTampon‬‎, C0nc0rdance‬‎, ‪‪cdk007‬‎, dprjones‬‎, JaguarJ0nes‬‎, ‪‪‪potholer54‬‎, Potholer54debunks‬‎,‪‪‪Thunderf00t‬‎.)


Watch the videos. Learn the strategys. Creationists only have about a half dozen failed arguments they repeat constantly anyway.

>>2110374
Things like "adam and eve named all the animals" "god created everything"

and then common comebacks from my standpoint are usually something like "oh that doesn't make sense" usually when I point out something that doesn't agree with the bible

When ever we go over other things such as "the age of the earth" I always win because of Radiometic dating and such, they have nothing on that, and other things such as "if the universe was created 6000 years ago, then how come galaxies millions of light years away can be seen by our naken eye, they wouldn't be visible yet if it was only 6000 years ago"

They usually quote the book of Genesis.

"Everybody who has studied the topic in depth has come to the conclusion that natural selection is the correct explanation. They know more about it than we do."

The bible is not historically accurate and invalid as evidence.

>>2110394
and although I make it sound simple like "adam and eve named the animals" they skew it with other "large" words and such to make it sound like its making more sense, but a summary of it is just "adam and eve named all the animals"

>>2110396
>The bible is not historically accurate and invalid as evidence.

Yeah this. What the fuck school do you go to where the bible is a factual authority?

>>2110397
Try to counter their arguments by discrediting their sources.

There is a huge image that pretty much throws a huge wrench in a lot of the bible. A good example is that God told Adam and Eve not to eat the apple that contained the knowledge of good and evil, correct?

Then how would Adam and Eve know to follow the word of god if they did not yet have knowledge of good and evil? They did not know what they did was wrong, so how could god possibly expect them to follow his words?

Its a rather large hole. Other examples like that can be found throughout the bible, and that stems from the fact that its been edited over thousands of years by hundreds of different authors. I doubt even half of it is the same as it was when it first materialized.

>>2110357
the bible is not considered historically accurate by any legitimate body and is not evidence of anything, the fact that your opponents are using it at all makes me want to stab someone

>>2110405
the school doesn't even matter, the entire debate club thing is just made up of these heavy christians who have been indoctrinated into believing that their beliefs are completely true, I can't keep them all off me because there are so many, I think like 25-30 people are. Why? I have no idea

>>2110394
>Things like "adam and eve named all the animals" "god created everything"
That's nice and all, but how everything started is not evolution.

>"oh that doesn't make sense"
That's no rebuttal. If they cannot elaborate on why it does not make sense, then it's nothing more than obfuscating that they have nothing.

>"if the universe was created 6000 years ago..."
Unproven assertion/Loaded question. The only thing that they base that 6000 year number on is the Bible and theologians. Furthermore, arguing about the initial conditions does not disprove evolution. See my image above.

Fucking Christian apologists, they're the scum of humanity.
Honestly? I would quit the debating club, if only because I feel like throwing up when I have to communicate with Christian apologists.

1. Write a book claiming you are God
2. tell them you are god, and show them the book
3. They must accept it because the book is proof that you are god, and the reason the book is proof is because you are god.
4. ??????????????
5. PROFIT!

>its hard to fight the evolution debate when you've got people that disregard everything you say and refer to the bible

You should disregard anything they say that can't be proven by reproducable experiment (probably everything).

>for the "position in terms of skill" I am dead last because I cannot keep up with these bible faggots over evolution debate

Sounds like they are reeling off a large number of weak arguements to try and swamp you. Do not try to "keep up with them" as that will dilute your case.

Make them move at your speed by sticking to a simple arguement (by which i mean a few points with strong supporting evidence). Repeatedly point out you are quoting reproducable findings while they cannot even show that "God" exists. Switch the burden of proof to them and demand evidence for any statement they make.

>>2110395
appeal to authority

it is true but still... some faggot will point out the fallacy

>>2110414
Yeah it does matter, a debate is moderated.

>>2110437
The faggot would be pointing it out wrongly. The Appeal to Authority, outside of the strictest debate rules, is more generally Appeal to Inappropriate Authority (given they're allowing the Bible as scientific evidence, it's certainly not the strictest debate rules). Making an argument based on the authority of the person, rather than the strength of their position is the problem: If you say he is correct because he is a Scientist is wrong, but saying he is correct because he is well versed in the subject and has some well reasoned material to add to the debate is not (Otherwise, are you not posing an argument based solely on your own limited authority on the matter?)

There's a book called Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne. Just read it out loud and you'll win.

>liberal arts major or a philosophy major
>implying philosophy isn't a shitty arts degree

>>2110457
>implying philosophy isn't a shitty arts degree

Haha he's pretending to be retarded, I get the joke

I usually use the argument that logic cannot prove god.

Use your logic to show why the Christian god (easy) or any god (impossible, but these people are dumb) cannot exist.

Any logic they use that points to god is automatically refuted by your claim that god is intrinsically illogical.

This argument shortens debates, because christfags will jump from topic to topic of every stupid little thing they think shows there is a God, and I don't have time for that.

Also, if you can't explain why God is illogical, you deserve your low marks in a debate.

tl;dr Stop arguing FOR evolution, argue against their God.

We shouldn't be figuring out how to beat evangelical evolution disbelievers - their faith beats reason every time.

We need to figure out how to limit their bloated influence and, ideally, oppress them.

>>2110357
My favorite tactic now for the bible literal people is to attack Noah's flood, as it's easily the most preposterous bullshit in there.

First, we know the dimensions of the boat. You can't fit 2 of each species in there, even if you're bringing eggs or some shit. Hell, the beetle species alone would not fit. So we need an /undocumented miracle/ of an extra dimensional space or some bullshit. You think that they would mention that it wasn't just a normal boat Noah built himself. And don't even let them mention bullshit like "Oh, he just brought 2 of each kind, and the rest of the animals split off from there naturally" because that's goddamned "macro" evolution aka speciation.

Second, there are plenty of species with lifetimes less than 40 days. So, in addition to the extra dimsional space, you need to whip out a massive time stop effect to get this working. So, we need /another undocumented miracle/ - this time stop effect.

Third, ask how the hell he distributed all of the animals all across the world. Forget that all of the marsupials are confined to one place and how that's really coincidental. Focus on how one man could live long enough to make that happen (read: he couldn't). So, we yet /another undocumented miracle/. Not just a time stop effect, but something to allow Noah to age for much much longer than is possible, even in the bible, but at the same time function like a time stop to allow Noah to distribute all of the animals across the world in less than, say, 1000 years.

>>2110472
Finally, bring up the cheetah, and how god hates the cheetah. Start with organ transplants. Note that they work only for someone with sufficiently similar genetics. Hopefully they believe in genetics and organ transplants.

Ok. Now bring up that any cheetah can take an organ donation from any other cheetah. It's been done. 20 skin grafts from cheetah to cheetah, as far unrelated as they possibly could find. Note that this is basically unlike, say, nearly all animal species on Earth. Ask why. The answer is that there is little to no genetic diversity in the cheetah. If you believe in evolution and science, the answer is that the cheetah population was reduced to like ~7 at one point in the last few thousand years. They're really in bad shape. The cheetahs are borderline dying out because of their inability to fight of infection, etc.

Now, ask them to imagine what it would be like if all animal species on the planet came from a single pair each. Imagine the incredible lack of genetic diversity. Ask them how the hell we got said genetic diversity. It sure as hell didn't happen on its own aka through natural laws. Instead, god must have created /at least/ 100 more individuals of each animal species. Further note that this last undocumented miracle guts the entire point of Noah's ark. Noah didn't do jack shit. Sure, maybe he saved 2 of each species with the aid of half a dozen undocumented miracles from god, but even then /that's not good enough/. 2 of each species, when left to natural laws, would have observable effects which we could see today, like the lack of genetic diversity in the cheetah. Whether or not Noah did the whole ark thing is irrelevant - either way god would have to create at least 100 individuals of each species to allow the species to survive, and to reach present levels of genetic diversity.

Have them watch this, OP. Its called "Keeping Faith in its Place"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wV_REEdvxo

Good luck man, you're gonna need it when you start arguing with the mentally handicapped again

>>2110357

Read "Inherit the Wind"
???
Never fear creationists in debate again.

Evolution is a fact, you shouldn't have to aruge for it.

Question everything they throw at you

"God did it" is not a good enough answer

The deciding factor will be if the judges are rigged or not. If the team is mostly retards like you say, they probably have a Christian judge too.

I dont understand how people can so easily discredit science when they believe in a book written by other religious faggots, and believe it with such passion. The most often used argument used by creationists that I know is that there are no "in-between-ers" (apparently there is too much of a jump between a chimp and a human, even though we share 98% of our DNA) That fact in and of itself solidifies the fact that evolution has occurred.

Maybe you really are the worst debater. I imagine that you'd have a wider bank of counterexamples and develop better debate skill if your beliefs were indefensible too.

>>2110357
One cannot argue rationally with irrational people.

Read all your responses OP and I really wonder why won't you just quit this debate club? While I hate debate club thing in general I admit you can learn some useful skills from there.

From your description it seems you have learned all there is to learn from this particular debate club.

STEP ONE:
Make a list as best you can about what arguments they are making against your stance. Don't worry, it shouldn't be too long, as these debates tend to just repeat themselves using different language / approaches.
Remember to throw out any that don't directly relate to the topic at hand (in your case, evolution).

STEP TWO:
Sort these arguments down to their base components (again, many will simply be repeated arguments), and determine what kind of logical fallacy they are making.
Easy example - "If humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"
This would be (I think, its been a while since highschool debate club) a Hasty Generalization Fallacy, because it draws a conclusion off of a small sample or incomplete idea of the topic.
Simply point out how evolution REALLY works to them, be as specific as possible.

STEP THREE:
Do that for every relevant argument they have, own the debate like a boss.

OP.

Tell us exactly what arguments they are making?

>>2110433
>>2110433
>>2110433
>>2110433
>>2110433
>>2110433
>>2110433
>>2110433
>>2110433
>>2110433
>>2110433
>>2110433
>>2110433

FUCKING THIS x119824319314

HEY OP YOU FAGGOT LOOK AT THIS

DO THAT.

1. Call in Hitchens
2. Wait an hour
3.??????????
4. PROFIT

>>2110782
Would work if the opponent was using 100% circular logic, but they're not.
It would also be very, very inflammatory, which you want to avoid.
Argue the facts, stay away from personal attacks and logical fallacies.

Read Origin of Species and some *early* Dawkins books. More importantly, though, write. Think of their arguments, in the form you find most difficult to refute, and write down an argument which beats it. If you can't explain why you disagree with something, you've got no business debating anyway.

BTW,
>>2110408
"good and evil" is a mistranslation. It's meant to mean "everything".

Dude, you know they are idiots, but you also know they believe they are right and you are wrong.

Use your knowledge of their idiocy to anticipate their arguments, and tear them to fucking shreds with your superior intellect and ability to employ reason. You can make great arguments for evolution all day long but it will never be enough to win them over.

Focus secondarily on your argument, and primarily on making fools of them.

If this fails, and it might just fail, just use the time allocated to you do slander and demean them.

God cannot exist within this server *ahem* universe. God cannot have created time. If event a was followed by event b, time would have existed before god; the cause is always before effect; any warping of this principle would suggest blackholes and wormholes leading into time travel and multiverse theory. (However) In the condition that god created time when event a could not be followed by event b, no action by any entity could force or impose any sequential influence on any mass. Therefore, no god.

Considering that god "always was" also implies that there was a "was" to begin with, also a sequential condition. The universe is littered with fluctuations of time.

4262682140830493987474616663 m^2 is the area of the observable universe whereas the area of earth 510000000000m^2, the area of the observable universe versus the area of the earth is a 1.1964298137900500911409707394096e-16 difference. The size of earth is 1/8358200276138224! Why would god devote all his love and affection for this miniscule amount of the universe and "create man in his image" and some other random reason why woman was created (something about a rib). Look at the statistics and evolution theory. I doubt this all knowing god could be accountable for all this unless he be a relentlessly intelligent super (giga) (tera) (peta) computer slash biological futuristic all professioned being who broke wormholes and through in a super molecule and started a bigbang in another universe!

>>2110904
>implying causality is real
>implying God is not omnopotent, omnicsient, and omnipresent

this is a really weak argument and it is full of easily refutable rambling.

>>2110869
I agree with you, but don't try to bolster your argument with fictional characters. It makes us all sound stupid.

God cannot be perfect. Because man is imperfect. A perfect being cannot make something imperfect unless the nature of perfection is imperfection.
Which would make God not perfect. Which you can back up bibically.

>>2111545
>A perfect being cannot make something imperfect unless the nature of perfection is imperfection.

What if man only sees man is imperfect be he himself is imperfect and unable to perfectly see the actual perfection of man?

Or what if God aimed to create an imperfect being and succeeded in that goal perfectly?

>>2111574
WHy would a perfect being INTENIONALly create a imperfect being if the being has a "love for all"?

>>2111574
thats subjective. I resent that.

>>2110357
Evolution is mathematically impossible
http://www.nodnc.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=291

Mathematical Proof that God exist
http://silverstockreport.com/2010/god.html
http://silverstockreport.com/2010/god-comments.html

As long as your opposition don't show this topic on the debate, you and the "THEORY" will be fine.

>hang out with a buttload of weak-minded christians.
>play their games by their rules.
>let them judge the fairness of the game, and your own success at it.
>wonder how to win...

do a gish gallop, and even then you won't win. there is no winning this game so long as you disagree with them and they choose the winner.

www.talkorigins.org has all you will ever need to know.

>>2110357
>its hard to fight the evolution debate when you've got people that disregard everything you say and refer to the bible
>debate
>disregard everything you say

Then they're not debating, now are they?

>>2112228
I rage so hard.
No one believes a fucking whole cell spontaniously emerged. That's fucking proposterous.
Stable amino acids were formed, clustered together, and induces (like a catalyst) chemical reactions, that produces similar products. At some point, it even produced near identical chemicals (RNA-like). Some of these had the property that they formed a film around themselves, that happened to have a protective function. Etc. Untill there was the first cell-like organism.