Can you help me provide various proofs for this science denying Christian?
I was emailing back & forth with a relative who happens to be a Christian. I was having a discussion with him that started out about Christian Meditation where he refused to bother with anything related to it because it was from an “evil Eastern Religion” & that though other religions exist they are all fakes and copies of the “original”.
I then explained to him both the fact that Christianity is basically an “Eastern Religion”, that it was of course not the original & that any good Christian would know that at the very least Judaism predates it, but that a plethora of others predate it with stories/myths that are nearly exact or very similar in many cases with the Christ story.
He came back eventually with a response that sort of made sense & I thought the conversation was over so I simply responded that I got what he was saying & that for a minute there I thought he was one of those science & history deniers. This opened a can of worms because he then responded with the following statements which I’d like to have as many points on as possible with which to engage him with actual proofs that will refute whatever he may have or believe. These points of his are bullet-pointed below.
1)He does believe that the earth is God’s creation & is 10,000 years or less old & that there is a lot of very good science that backs that up.
2)He believes that God created the earth literally in 6 days & says that he could fill pages with young earth science data & statistics but that there are plenty of sources “a click away”
3)He believes that with regard to the theory of evolution there are so many holes you can fly a 767 through them & If you want to talk about the geologic record, evolutionists are forced to ignore Noah’s flood to even attempt to make the record fit their mold, when it may be one of the most provable events in history. Darwin himself said, if they didn’t find a transitional form, that his theory would be hogwash. They’ve been looking for multiple decades and can go on for multiple more because there are none to be found. The isotope/radio-carbon (etc.) dating methods have an extremely unreliable track record. One of the primary reasons, is that there are no known samples with which to calibrate the machines. You tell me, but is guessing the age of your calibration sample what you would consider good science? This “science” also suffers greatly from ignoring the flood because strata that they “believe” are millions (or billions) of years old were only deposited a few thousand years ago, now that will really mess up a calibration!
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
44 Answers
There is nothing that you can provide – nothing! – that will get him to change his mind. You’re better off changing the topic if and when this comes up again.
You’re wasting your (limited) time even trying.
It’s a losing battle. Even if you get him to a point where he has no answer, is backed into a corner, he’ll simply change the religious subject until you get back around to the original subject that you had him backed into a corner in in the first place and it will just go round and round.
I agree with @CWOTUS. You’re expecting an irrational, illogical person to see reason. It won’t happen.
Why does any of this bother you?
If your relative believes this, so what?
Live your life, let them live theirs.
There is obviously a problem when they take their ideas to Washington DC and try to make them law. But even atheistic, left wing collectivists steal their ideas of communal altruism from Christianity and use them as a basis for imposing authoritarian dictatorship.
You can’t beat people who have capricious “beliefs” with an argument. They don’t accept the notion of “argument”.
Do your best. Live your life as you see fit. If it really matters to you, start a revolution.
….And the Earth is flat.
Just walk away.
Life is too short to waste on stupidity.
If you look online, there are tons of “facts” that support the idea that the world is flat. People will see support for anything, no matter what it is. And people who are committed to it will not be swayed. I would just have to settle with the idea that just because there are internet links that agree with him doesn’t make them true. But he’ll just see that as you giving up. The best you can probably hope for is a link and “study” war…
I don’t agree with the other replies that it’s a waste of time. Even if indeed it is futile and absolutely no one is persuaded, you can still learn something in the process. Simply by researching possible lines of arguments, and going to science sources to help you form arguments and rebuttals, you’ll likely learn something you hadn’t known previously, and even learning how to form an argument and engaging someone who disagrees with you. is, I think, of some intellectual benefit.
Since it is a relative, I’ll suggest perhaps trying to be more tactful and patient if you do go ahead—unless it’s a relative you don’t like.
2 Peter 3:8 “With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.”
You cannot apply time for God the same way we judge our own time.
“All logical arguments can be defeated by the simple refusal to reason logically.” – Steven Weinberg
@josie I often have discussions and debates (just for fun) with this particular relative and his wife. The reason it is important to me on any level is two fold. A- I enjoy these discussions and debates back and forth because even if he chooses to remain a religious quack who denies science, history & ancient language, I myself still learn from the process of researching and debate. I wouldn’t say I’m bothered even, though in general people who deny reality or refuse to do their research on a subject before coming to a conclusion are quite bothersome to me.
So here’s what I’ve found over time – it’s much more likely that those with such ridiculous views are capable of understanding logical arguments, they just don’t care to. They’re happy in their intentional ignorance and don’t want to have it changed, so they don’t respond to logic, or proof, or even common sense.
@Kropotkin Thanks! I see that there’s someone out there in the world who thinks like me on at least one level. My primary place of learning tends to be through the process of debate &/or “philosophical” discussions. I always learn something new, get to hear other points of view & then am able to run around researching the hell out of things to learn even more. I enjoy that process and method of learning for myself.
I used to engage in exchanges like that fairly often, mostly on Facebook, and mostly not with the intent of changing the original person’s mind. I did it for the benefit of any younger/less-set-in-their-ways people who might also be reading what we were writing. I have a really hard time letting inaccurate shit sit around ‘in public’ without rebuttal. I’ll still do it on occasion, but I’m more likely to say “I know I can’t convince you”, now. Especially if there aren’t any other people who might be influenced by the exchange.
If you’re really serious about responding to his nonsense with facts, I’d start by saying you realize you’re not going to convince him, but if he’s interested, here is the data blah, blah, blah. I’d go with Wikipedia links, because they’re generally easy enough to understand and list a lot of references. Here’s one to get you started: Scientific age of the earth.
@augustlan thanks – that helps at least to get me started on my own process of learning even if he may perhaps refuse to do so.
One of the problems with his response is they’re all in the negative. They give you nothing to refute. How do you respond to “there are so many holes you can fly a 767 through them”? All you could do is quote people saying the opposite, which he could easily deny. Or “a lot of very good science that backs that up” with regards to the age of the earth, you can’t do anything with that statement until he actually shows some ‘good science’ to refute. What you need to do is get him to present his evidence, then you can have an argument. For instance, again, have him actually give you a ‘hole’ that you can look up.
For you own edification and maybe a start, since he brought up transitional forms, there are a ton of distinct forms between humans and apes, such as (in reverse order), Homo rhodesiensis, Homo erectus, Homo habilis, Australopithecus, Ardipithecus, Pierolapithecus, and so on, all of which are between us and apes. Auggie’s link on the age is also good, we have geology, physics, chemistry, and somewhat biology that all backs that up.
“Darwin himself said, if they didn’t find a transitional form, that his theory would be hogwash.”
Tell your friend to take a good long look in the mirror. He should dedicate his body to science.
I feel this is a lost cause because a person like this wants (and maybe needs) to believe this for their own reasons, whatever they may be. However, I do feel that you should defend yourself and your beliefs against such people if they continue pushing you though, but I’m not sure how you would go about this because of what I’ve mentioned above. I’m done debating the undebatable myself.
@Paradox25 Somebody needs to debate such folks publicly, because they are pushing hard to replace science curricula in the public school system with young earth creationism. If they can’t achieve that, then their next best strategy is to voucherize public education and privatize it, leaving it to religious institutions they control. A 2012 Gallup Poll found that 46% of Americans now believe in Creationism.
@ETpro 46%, Yikes! I know, and many are aggressive with their agenda. However, you know how the religious intolerance card gets played in America, so it’s difficult to even counter this situation without being criticized and called all types of vile names.
@Paradox25 You may have noticed that I do get called vile names. I can take a lot of criticism rather than sit by and watch the American Taliban convert my beloved country into a theocracy. Hell, we’ll be back to holding inquisitions and burning witches if the religious extremists among us get their way.
Turn it around and ask where the “10000 years” comes from. I asked that once and the answer was so off the wall it convinced me the person was not capable of uunderstanding science.
The answer I was told had quotes like “the number of stars iscountless like the number of grains of sand” and “the largest number they could count was…” “therefore the number of stars is” and “spread them out in a sphere it would take light 10000 years..”.
You get the idea. The guy is not a rocket scientist.
Only a fool argues with a fool.
Mark Twain once said “Never argue with a fool. People might not know the difference,” but I think your last line there beats Mark Twain, @LuckyGuy.
So from now on I’ll be quoting you instead of Mark Twain on the topic.
Never argue with a fool? But I like arguing, and fools are all I have to argue with.
@ETpro I clicked on your first link that led to some Evidence for a Young World and the first thing you see is a picture of a distant galaxy taken by Hubble! I mean, do those guys actually think other galaxies exist in our universe?? They’re really going to accept evidence from a giant telescope that has never even left our solar system?
And then they proceed to talk about things like our own Galaxy (the existence of which can’t be proven, according to Christian Theory—have you ever seen it? Have you ever touched it?) and the rate that the Milky Way rotates!
And they discuss “super nova remnants,” as if they were real, and all kinds of other things that have only been theorized and tested by science and shown to be actual events!
This was my favorite: “The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape.1” Are they toying with the faint possibility that the earth actually could be more than 6000 years old?
The site was silly, of course, they I have to hand it to them. In the 80’s the churches would have been blowing off all the Hubble pictures as hoaxes and fakes. They would have poo-pooped the idea of the possibility that God could have created anything more wondrous than the Earth!
In fact, @Jenniehowell, if you really want to keep arguing with the guy, you might mention something from that very website, only don’t mention that it’s a Christian website. Mention some part of it that he would vehemently disagree with, then send him there, to his “own” people for verification of what you’re saying! It’s a little dirty, because there isn’t anything on the site that I accept as true, but it would be interesting to see his reaction when you point him to a Christian “science” website.
You could compare meditation to the feeling a lot of people get in nature hiking, fishing or whatever gets them centered. As a Christian, I have no idea why anyone would think meditation was evil though.
Because the word has Eastern Mysticism over tones. You think of people sitting Buddah style, burning incense and chanting and thinking hard.
However, if you really sit down and think about it you realize the words “introspection,” or “reflection,” mean exactly the same thing, and those are OK. Unfortunately, some people can’t get beyond the surface and their own knee-jerk reactions. That guy sounds like one of them, for sure.
By the way, when I asked the 10000 year question I did not ask it for the purpose of arguing or changing anyone’s mind. I sincerely wanted to hear what science “facts” they used to come up with the number. He was willing to explain it to me and I was willing to listen. But, l would never hire him to work in a lab that specializes in Carbon dating fossil identification.
I’ll be honest here… I was silently screaming WTF! WTF! while hearing the explanation.
@BhacSsylan & @ETpro thanks! when/if we go further with the conversation I will clarify those things with him in regard to what he believes the holes to be. The thing I established in my response so far is what science & fact are vs. faith & belief and what would establish someone as being a science denier. If he completely disagrees with me on those points then I likely won’t go further with the conversation.
I defined those things for him in order to determine whether his response attempts to defend what I call “fringe scientists” who for political or emotional reasons disagree with the majority of established and qualified scientists (or historians or language experts etc etc).
@ETpro I agree with you RE: the public debate. I think despite who “wins” in regard to one or another effort related to the education system those debates should always continue. I’d rather see people get reality pounded in their heads than Kookiness having a chance to grow and sprout because people of science remained silent. I see nothing wrong with faith or belief but I do see something wrong with pretending when we have proofs of the opposite of the myths people tell themselves in order to feel better.
@Jenniehowell Amen to that. And since creationism is part of your relative’s belief system, you might ask him to explain this. It’s particularly amusing thanks to the fact that the fellow struck was not badly hurt. Talk about a message straight from a “higher power.”
@ETpro The same pseudoseum funded by public monies. Also, maybe it was Divine intervention.
@ETpro That made me giggle – especially the whole God smites less people these days quote.
@Paradox25 yuck to a public funded museum on creationism but hey… if George Bush has a library then why not pay for more entertainment for the groundlings? hee hee
@Jenniehowell, Thanks. Smite is funny in its own right till you gets yerself smote.
@Paradox25 Aha! Sorry, but I was guessing pseudostem, pseudonym or pseudocoelom; none of which made sense in that context. Not trying to be a spelling cop, just trying to understand your post. :-)
@ETpro I’ve been making my own words up since I was a very little kid. I was tempted to visit the ‘museum’ in Kentucky, out of curiosity I suppose. You can’t laugh or they’ll throw you out I’ve heard.
What’s even scarier were the comments that some of these creationist scientists have made. These are real scientists with respectable degrees and education (one detail in itself that scares me), and they outright stated that if it comes down to the Holy Word being contradicted by strong scientific evidence, that they would side with the Holy Word!
@Jenniehowell The museum was a controversial topic on sodahead, my old internet home. ‘Fiscal’ conservatives seemed divided on the issue of using public monies to support a special interest project, and namely a religious one. I’m not sure how much revenue was brought in from tourists, but that was one of the reasons some museum proponents supported this.
@Paradox25 I suppose for me it would depend on how the museum was presented. There could theoretically be museums for everything. It’s simply a place to go in order to view the perceptions of or ethnological (so to speak) culture of a particular group of people &/or to see interesting memorabilia.
I believe here in the state of Georgia there’s a Waffle House museum. I’ve heard of museums that house extensive bed pan collections – In Oklahoma (or maybe it was Kansas) I remember going to a museum that housed two headed (Siamese) animals that had been preserved by taxidermists. I myself would prefer to look at dinosaur bones, arrow heads & classic cars or better yet is there a porn museum where I can see the history of the porn industry from the cave drawings to the BlueRay & DVD? The creationist museum to me is just another culture different than my own that I could be both entertained by and learn from so I suppose the only major problem I would have is being kicked out for laughing at the wackadoodle-rifficness of it all.
@Jenniehowell The problem is that the museum is presenting itself as a place demonstrating science and history, not culture. Kids are brought there by their parents, and kids are actually believing this stuff. This is causing real problems not only with our educational system, but also concerning politics and culture as well.
That’s the problem, these fundamentalists are not just quietly sitting there praying and leaving others alone, and their agenda is very dangerous. Religiously motivated obscurantism is a serious problem today, as it has been in the past.
@Paradox25 I don’t disagree… It’s too bad that we can’t actually enforce “fact” in our country. I would love to see people getting carted off to spend a bit of time in jail every time they spouted out something that couldn’t be proven as fact. How many preachers, politicians, pseudo-scientists, news reporters etc. would be in jail? It’d sure cut down on the riff raff that I have to deal with every day of my life… I would be willing to bet/wager that 80% of my state would be in jail. How great could that be? We could just toss some steaks over the fence and call it good. hahaha
Since we were talking about fantasy I figured I’d get caught up in my own.
@Jenniehowell I don’t agree with mainstream science on all issues, but I’d prefer to use logic rather than doctrine to present my points. The absolutism of many religions opposes the very fabric and spirit which makes life worth living, and it also doesn’t allow for paradigms to match the evidence.
To all who are worried about it…I don’t think the religious fundamentalists will “win” in the end, as far as our education system and our politics are concerned. In fact, I’m certain of it. I think the last generation of that kind of absurd thinking and philosophy is winding down.
@Dutchess It ispossible to believe the science logically but to keep your faith. It seems our votes are the problem.
Answer this question 
Composing members:
0
