To the professor's credit, she did change the topic from "intelligent design vs. big bang" to "creationism vs. evolution."

I feel for you bud. I'd like to think that I could argue any either side of just about anything. However, at what risk? Creating a fundamentalist christian or muslim would make me ill.  Maybe you can argue it from a non-religious non-biblical/koran account. The risk is lower and the argument would be the same.  Just make up your own Creationism theory, the christians and muslims don't have the market cornered on making up stuff and calling it evidence. Why should you?  

Concede, as there is nothing from a scientific basis to support creationism. Or do the Flying Spaghetti Monster version and hope the Prof has a sense of humor.

Tell the professor this would be like defending Geocentrism against Heliocentrism or "The Stork Theory" against human reproduction. How do you defend an indefensible position - does she expect you to use pseudoscience and lies like the actual ID asshats use?

I noticed it's only a "possible" topic. I would rail against it to the prof before it even gets decided, as it is not science at all - it's a debate between science and mythology. Would a history professor allow a debate on whether the Holocaust was real and force people to defend the position it was made up?

I'd say the students will have to choose the least blatant fallacy.  That is to say, some of the arguments are just stupid, and some rely on easily spotted fallacies.  They need to try to find one that has a really subtle fallacy -- like a really good equivocation.  Those are often really hard to spot if they're done well.

Or... and this might just screw up the "spirit" of the debate, but it might be the strongest argument they could make -- change the meaning of creationism!  You could do it with a clever equivocation at the beginning.  Start talking about creationism with the assumption of intelligence behind creation.  Admit the obvious existence of evolution (!) and try to find the kind of creator who would have set such a thing in motion.  The logical conclusion will be deism.  You'll end up with a creator that either set things in motion and left or stayed but doesn't interfere, or that destroyed itself in the process of creation (that might be a really funny conclusion to draw).  If you wanted to get really creative, you could end up with the conclusion that there was a creator, but that it didn't necessarily have to have consciousness or intelligence.

In other words, use equivocation to back door your way into naturalism by rendering the creator impotent.

Yeah, actually, take it even one step further. The creator was the big bang itself thus destroying itself in the creation process, but setting the wheels of everything, including evolution, in motion.

Good luck and keep us up to date on this. Intriguing.

   Maybe I should start a new thread on this topic.  It came up on Wendsday on the podcast.  The PROOF of evolution is at your finger tips;  and her finger tips.   Try to pick the right moment during the debate to point this out.

    Since the first Cro-Magnon's emerged in African  males and females (like it or not feminists) have had a strict division of labor.   Men hunted --- Women  gathered.   Men made tools and used them;  for the first 150,000 years (give or take a few days) they flintknapped, then used only flint heads to skin animals and cut up the meat:   NO handles just the heads;  try it once  just to see the wear and tear on your index finger ---  then extrapulate that over a 200,000 year time span.

    50,000 years ago (give or take a few days) Cro-Magnons discovered the fine art of leverage & fulcrums but it still caused a lot of wear and tear on the index fingers. They still  had to make the handles and levers to go with the flint heads.  Females did not (the lazy b......) females gathered by filtering grain heads & beards through their hands very efficient but no great strain on the fingers,  cooking and holding a baby didn't cause any  stress on the fingers either.

   Sewing might cause stress and wear but that didn't come along untill 25,000 years ago.  Intense -- industrial strength type  sewing  by hand didn't come along  untill the 14th century.  FAR  too late to effect our modern hands.

    The end result of this 250,000 year old evolution of human hands by way of division of labor is............... TA  DAH!!!!!!!!!!

 Go look at your hands.      

     Females:   Index finger and ring finger are equal in length---or damn effing close to it.

     Males:    Index finger is markedly shorter then the ring finger.

     If you do not believe me then do your own research, compare any male/female hand of any age anywhere you can find them.

     I await   to be proven wrong.

Haha, the self-sacrificing creator is a good one. What would be even funnier is if the two creationists ended up on the side of evolution, as the professor pointed out to me, and had to defend evolution themselves. 'Course they might just try to opt out on the basis of their religion. That could get ugly.

No, they don't, since the tenant of religion is not science but, rather, faith. The bible isn't science or logic but it manages to keep a strangle hold on people, some VERY smart people. No, they don't argue science, they argue faith. And, sadly, they are successful an awful lot of times! I'd just need to throw a rock to find a Christian. I'd need a pretty strong arm to throw one to find an atheist.  I don't like it, I just call it as I see it. Someday, perhaps in my lifetime, it'll be different which is the reason to keep trying!

In my humble opinion, the best thing you can do when called upon to defend religion in a debate is to do so exactly as a theist would, or better if possible. The opposition will rip you apart, yes(or at least, one would hope so). But ask yourself, would you prefer to deliver a message to all observers that your position is unteneble, or would you prefer to score high marks in a single debate?

Creationism isn't the slightest bit scientific. How would it be falsifiable? What predictions does it make? Where is any evidence (criticisms of evolution aren't evidence for creationism and all so far are utter bullshit anyway. ) If you try debating with some of the actual scientists here, for example deludedgod, you will resemble the guest of honor at a bukake party.

Wait... you have to study to be able to stand up to ridicule?  If creationism can stand up to evolution, why are you just standing there taking it?  Where's your dissertation proving evolution wrong?  I mean... geez... if you've studied that much, surely you can explain a few basic things to me.  I'm not going to mock you or curse at you.  I'm just going to ask you very basic questions about evolution, and ask you to refute them.

1)  Explain in one or two paragraphs the differences between eukaryotes, prokaryotes, and archaea.  Please describe the primary methods used by evolutionary biologists to determine the approximate date of the eukaryotic revolution.   Explain in several paragraphs the most notable evidence in support of the eukaryotic revolution.  Explain the evolutionary significance of the eukaryotic revolution in terms of accumulated complexity.

Once you have proven that you understand what you're refuting, please provide your documented evidence against it, offering an alternative theory explaining the evidence.

2) Please explain briefly the process by which nucleases catalyze the hydrolysis of phosphodiester bonds.  Explain the significance of restriction endonucleases.

Having explained the significance of these events for evolutionary theory, please offer an alternative explanation for the obvious result of them.

3) Explain briefly why non-homologous recombination frequently leads to chromosomal translocations.  Explain the basics of why this is evolutionarily unstable.

Having explained this, offer an alternative hypothesis for the dominance of homologous recombination.

4) Finally, the most simple one of the bunch.  Please list and explain the [EDIT: Got ahead of myself.  I'm looking for the three principles of natural selection.]  Having explained them, offer an alternative hypothesis that parsimoniously explains the data.

You're on, bucko.  First, I'll need to know what I'm debating against.  Please give me a complete synopsis of your theory that parsimoniously explains the data accumulated by evolutionary biology in the last fifty years or so.  This will, of course, necessitate that you actually know the data.  I'll be looking for you to first explain evolution in great detail so that I know you know what you're refuting.

Evolution is 100% certain.  Evolution does occur.  We have seen it first hand.  We have seen, firsthand, one species turn into another species.  (I bet you didn't know that.  Here's the article:  http://ecoworldly.com/2008/10/07/scientists-discover-fish-in-act-of-evolution-in-africas-greatest-lake/ )  We have mountains of genetic data from thousands of species that confirm the predictions of the theory of evolution.

Kiddo, I was a Christian and a creationist.  I know all about it.  I could probably argue your side better than you could.  It's just... I read science books and I'm guessing (tell me if I'm wrong) that you don't.

Ooh, ooh [ raises hand, flails wildly in chair ]

I KNOW THIS ONE !!! I just learned it last month !

Can I answer, can I answer ??!

[ bites tongue quickly to prevent blurting ]

Hrmmm... an unused,       mocking.

You mean like, funny strange or funny ha-ha. I don't always complain about christians,by the way. And as far as christians being intolerant ?  Well, I say it's their right to be intolerant if they want to be.

Ahhh, but what about the Creationism BUCKS, huh ?

Or are you gender biased?

That's a little joke deer.

Ewwww, yucky. Are there gonna be bones and guts and stuff inside there ???

I'm sorry.... I'm ROFL so hard that I don't even know where to begin with this one.

I understand you. Once, when I was but a child of seven, I was an almost teenager but since I still believed in the tooth fairy, santa, jesus, fsm and wonko the magic elf, those pesky adults told me I must stop trying to drive cars and go out on dates.

Of course, then years flew by and I became an almost rationalist...  but thank goodness I studied and examined all the holy books so I can safely say I almost believe in all those great powerful beings. Whew !

Thanks for visiting RRS, and have a great life !

I'm really puzzled here. What is there to study? Do you have any peer reviewed scientific sources to study?

I guess it's kind of cruel to gang up so maliciously, but some people just beg for it.

How unfortunate. 

Of course you do. You also have to deal with more stress and less resources. It's because you're wrong, and you've been proven wrong. For more than a hundred years. Yet you keep going. If nothing else, I admire your stubborness.

Not to mention about 80% of your own church.

Apparently you haven't spent much time talking to atheists. Or theists for that matter, since that's where the real crudeness erupts.

Far too much to be worth it in my opinion. Seriously, what value do you get from an equivalent to arguing that the sky is red, when everyone and their mother know that it's blue?

There is nothing scientific about creationism. By definition, scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable. The only part of all of creationism that passes this test is irreducible complexity. Unfortunately for you, however, that hypothesis has been proven wrong a billion times over and counting.

I will gladly make a fool of you. Start the topic.

Oh, I have. I never believed it, but I was arguing against young earth creationists years before I encountered the Rational Responders. I'm equipped better for this argument than I have to be, since I already know everything you're going to say and how to refute it.

I wish.

It's fact. Not acceptable. The words have two distinct meanings. I suggest you learn them.

I've been an atheist for 30 years as of 4 days from now. I've got you beat in experience too.

That's a completely different argument. In fact, creationism does not invalidate evolution or vice versa. If this is the angle you wish to work with, then there's not going to be much of a discussion.

You say a majority of atheists. I suppose you have figures to point this out? I don't have figures to point out the opposite, but it would take me less than an hour to provide you with so many demonstrations of theist ignorance and insults that your head would spin. At the same time, I can also point you to hundreds or thousands of logical and intelligent postings by atheists who don't resort to insults.

Some scientist who specializes in astronomy suggesting they switched to creationism is ridiculous as they weren't in the field in the first place. Get a biologist and maybe you'll have something. Unfortunately for you, the number of biologists who believe in creationism equal less than 1%.  

Not true. There were cultures who'd figured out the reality of orbits(or at least a comparable reality to say 1970), centuries before Europeans.

And yet he was still wrong. The Earth doesn't orbit Sol any more than Sol orbits the Earth. They orbit each other around a barycentre, as with all the elements of our solar system.

As shown above, that is not true.

Which proves your hypothesis wrong.

Yep.

Theists ignore standards and make up new definitions in attempts to rescue their failed arguments. That's what I was trying to point out to you.

Obviously.

Then maybe you should study evolution. Then you'd know that our entire medical industry depends on it being right. If evolution were wrong, you wouldn't be able to take 90% of the drugs available. All of our genetic studies would be flawed. Yet none of this is the case.

I hate to disappoint you, but this is probably one of the most frequent posted topics on the board here. We won't be doing anything new.

Same to you.

With humanity,

Vastet.

Meh. I'm sometimes lazy when responding to crazies. So sue me. =D

OK, you have earned the bullshit stamp for that one.

****

*BS*

****

Perhaps you have a degree from the school of “make shit up” but the rest of us have to labor on what is real. And the fact of the matter is that you are making up a grand story about Copernicus that is just not true. Here is what really happened:

Copernicus spent most of his life figuring out what he did but he had the basics down several years before he died. Just the basics though, he spent the rest of his life on the details and he only published shortly ahead of his death.

In fact, he only received the first publisher's copies a couple of hours before he died and to his likely dismay, the publisher (knowing that the work would stir up a hornet's nest of trouble) had added a preface stating that while the “truth” was already well established and beyond questioning, this work had a new method for calculating the orbits of the planets that was far easier and produced correct results with less effort.

OK you first. Stop making shit up and provide real evidence that we can examine. Specifically, you need something that does not come from your ancient book of fairy tales.

Well, that was last semester. So what we really need is an update on what ended up happening.

As far as matters go though, I think that in an academic setting, it is fine to make people defend an idea that they do not really side with. Such should help them to hone their debating skills for when they get out in the real world.

Even so, I wonder what loopholes may have been present in the original assignment. For example, if one has to defend a creation myth, does the assignment specify which one? I suspect that the same goal could be reached by having each side defend a different creation myth. For example, one side has to defend a central African myth and the other a Meso-American myth.

I would probably have grabbed up all the shitty defenses for creationism and present them all. My opponent would shoot them all down and I would say "This is why I'm not a creationist." If my opponent didn't kill all of them I'd finish up for him.

I don't think he comes around these parts anymore.

If someone put a gun to my head and forced me to defend Crapinism, I would tell them to pull the trigger.