Ive been battling this bible fag i know irl for a few weeks and this week im going to try and crush him with examples...

Oh yeah, agriculture and domestication have shit to do with evolution. Evolution is change in the allele frequencies in a population over time. Cultural evolution is not evolution. Neither is any other form of "evolution" (like cosmological or whatever). They're just stupid terms for non-scientists.

The deaf have sign language but you make a valid point. Im curious to know what their inner dialog consist of.

Your right its cultural evolution.

dont even try OP

the problem with debating creationists isn't that you have some kind of lack of knowledge about the facts, it's that both of you are starting from very different given understandings about what constitutes evidence and how to interpret that evidence

if you actually want to change their mind, you need to step them back and make sure you're both on a shared common ground about: what is a theory, how do you judge theories, how are theories descriptive of reality, and what each of your criteria are for rejecting a theory. if you don't do that, you're just going to spend your time talking past each other.

Some apes to my knowledge can also communicate with language when taught a language, just not spoken language since humans require the Broca area to produce spoken language which other apes do not have.

This.
At best you can link agriculture and domestication with evolution by way of the selective pressures they applied and the mutations they favored, such as the relatively recent introduction of lactose tolerance.

True, those they are going to have huge impacts on environment, selection, and differentiation.

You should keep the debate simple.

Like tell him that there are dozens of dating methods and they give consistent results when you compare them against each other. There is no reason why counting tree rings (these go like 14000 years back or something) would give you the SAME wrong result as radiocarbon dating if one or both methods were faulty. Same goes for a dozen other radiometric dating method (as they often overlap with at least some other method). Then there's thermoluminence and racemic dating and that magnet thing and OSL and whatnot. If even one of them gave wrong results we would know when other methods would give conflicting results.

After you have established that time lines are accurate, ask him why there was no multicellular life for majority of Earth's history and why we can't find mammal fossils from 500 millions years ago or humans from before first primates or birds before dinosaurs.

Then ask him what all the 20 human relatives (species) are who have died out (over 1000 individuals I think, so it's not about just a few forgeries or mistakes). Ask about Homo erectus.

Ask why DNA can tell us time of last common ancestor between species and why it so well matches with fossil findings.

There are neutral mutations that change a nucleotide in a gene but not the amino acid that sequence makes (because multiple nucleotide sequences are translated identically). There's no reason why you should be able to construct phylogenic trees using these differences if species don't share common ancestors.

Also, learn the difference between "evolution", "the theory of evolution", and "common descent". He probably has no problem with evolution, only some problems with the theory and huge problems with common descent.

This one is not emotional and does not instantly close off soon as he hears things he doesn't like. Im not trying to destroy his faith, only take him down a notch as hes a pompous self righteous judgmental mouth piece.

I will refer to it as mans ascension rather than evolution.

What does the reality of genetic engineering tell us about evolution? Could it be that 'others' have a bit further advanced in this art?

I don't know exactly what you're trying to argue, but the fact that you're aggregating information on Veeky Forums means you're wrong.

1. The National Institute of Sciences is on one side of the debate: Big Bang Cosmology, Abiogensis, Evolution and Natural processes.

2. Same is true for the International Academy of Sciences.

3. Those that disagree so far have used disproven forms of sophism called fallacies, cognitive biases, flawed heuristics and forced narrative matching.

4. Science does the opposite; it looks at evidence first, performs tests, and states honest conclusions.

5. Religions contradict each other and we have sciences that explain the concept of religion, it's origins and why people are addicted to it.

6. Fin.

Hey, retard.
That apologist nonsense of "but another intelligent could have" has already been debunked.
Look shit up before you fuck up and repeat shit you've heard because you think it's clever.
It rarely is.
talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

>K'leetus my friend, how should we employ our new Advanced Genetic Engineering (tm)
>We'll take it to an uninhabited planet and use it to convincingly hoax billions of years of natural evolution!

see You're not gonna get anywhere unless you use the Bible to show him how he's a fucking heretic for believing in young-earth creationism. Atheists are way worse at convincing Christians of believing in evolution because they think they can brute force it with muh science, when you really need to melt them towards it by pointing out the Bible in no way suggests a 6000-year-old earth

1. The National Institute of Sciences has been wrong on multiple issues in the past. Religions exist (including Christianity) whose teachings do not conflict with some non-empty subset of the issues you've listed. Further, the position of the National Institute of Science is that evolution is a theory, not a proven fact.

2. The same is true for the International Academy of Sciences.

3. Those who disagree do so using the mechanisms you've listed only under your own subjective labeling, not any objective standard.

4. Inductive sciences make broad generalizations from a limited set of evidence. Religion can be seen as an inductive science which makes broad generalization from a limited set of personal experience.

5. Contemporary scientific theories contradict each other, and, furthermore, the current state of science is far from proving many of its most widely applicable theories. Religion explains the concept of the man who is addicted to his own conclusions, though the deductive engine underlying science and the inductive engine underlying religion both may contradict him.

6. Principium, as you are light-years away from single-handedly ending this debate.

Which dating methods? All of the common ones make assumptions about time to reach closed forms.

Excelsior!

Biblefag has already agreed noahs ark, and the tower babel are bull shit in previous discussions. Showing signs of melting.

Assumptions are irrelevant when the results are the same regardless of used method.

Suppose we make an assumption about the speed of light being constant or some other law of nature or observation. Maybe radioactve carbon had a different half-life in the past. Doesn't matter because we can count tree rings. And we can count sediment layers. And ice core layers. And we have historical writings. If one of our assumptions was flawed, it wouldn't affect every method the same way and thus the results wouldn't match. Therefore the probability of every method giving the same erroneous date is next to impossible.

GTFO brainlet.

Evolution is a process which is a fact/observation. "Change in the allele frequencies over time."

The theory of evolution (ToE) is a scientific theory that describes the mechanisms of evolution (it can never become a "fact"). It will always be a theory and nothing else (no matter how true or false or accurate it is). "Just a theory" is such a stupid argument that online access should be forbidden from people making that.

The essence of the debate is whether common descent happened (and if it did, how much of it happened via known mechanisms and whether sky fairies had any part in it). Some creationists also have problems accepting that complexity could come about using known mechanisms of evolution. Some might accept that it could but it just didn't happen.

you cant just base that off of human babies, he's going to talk to you about how other species dont have verbal communication but understandings.

Evolution is a theorized process. The changing of alleles is not evolution, but mutation. Mutation can be used as direct evidence of adaptation and selection, neither of which nearly any religion would refute. If you still assert that mutation, adaptation, and selection are simply the mechanisms of evolution as the genesis of life, point me to the irrefutable proof that it is true. Point me to the statements by the National Institute of Science's position that evolution, as the theoretical beginning of human life or life in general, is the truth and has been proven indisputably.

You can't claim that a theory both is and is not fact to suit your own argument. By the same line of thought, I can claim that the philosophy of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or any other religions are theories that can similarly never be shown to be "fact." In any case, the fact (note this word) that there are religions whose philosophies are compatible with the strictest of evolutionary theory, including common descent (the case in which we accept that evolution is true and sound), causes your entire argument to become moot.

I know you want to feel as though you're (non-existent, amirite?) God's gift to the world, come to bring euphoric enlightenment to the masses living in the dark that is religious thought, but perhaps you would do much better to remove your fedora, sit down, and shut the fuck up when you feel the urge to give us these lessons so wondrously lacking in critical thought.

Brainlet.

#rekt

>Evolution is a theorized process.
Yes it's a theory. You make observations about facts and then you propose a hypothesis and if the hypothesis is sound and the predictions made by it are true then you've got yourself the makings of a theory.
>The changing of alleles is not evolution, but mutation.
Mutation, alongside genetic drift, natural selection and gene flow through various means is a component of evolution.
He is also referencing the change in allel frequencies, as opposed to the change in allels so it's not really isolated to just mutation. Mutation also can't really be used as evidence for selection.
>irrefutable proof for something
No such thing for anything that's not outright defined as being true. If you can't theoretically prove something to be false then it doesn't really mean anything when you prove it to be true.
>has been proven indisputably
You can always dispute a theory. That's why they exist.

>You can't claim that a theory both is and is not fact to suit your own argument
He never actually does claim that it is a fact. He claims that things we observe about it, such as mutation, are facts.
>By the same line of thought, I can claim that the philosophy of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or any other religions are theories that can similarly never be shown to be fact.
You wouldn't be using the scientific definition of a theory to do so.

When someone tells you that you're wrong on such simple things as a definition of something, maybe you should spend 3 seconds with Google to check it out before you start whining?

There's nothing theoretical about the process of evolution. Every fucking time you have a kid, evolution happens. If you are a stupid creationist or some shit like that, maybe your definition of evolution is along the lines of "rocks to people" but we're talking about the scientific definition now. Sure, there are many definitions but none of them include a theoretical process of any type.

Mutations are a mechanism described by the (Modern Synthetic) Theory of Evolution (it's also a common observation) and it does cause a change in the frequency of alleles (thus evolution). But it is not the only mechanism of change. A mutation is not evidence of selection. Natural selection is a mathematical construct that automatically follows when there are mutations in a genetically reproducing population in a space-limited ecological system.

Genesis of life has nothing to do with this topic. It's a completely separate subject concerning only chemistry of abiotic molecules.

I have no idea why you are so concerned about National Institute of Science as it is nothing more than a nigger organization (I'm not even kidding, go read their "About us") and not some authority on evolution ("evolution" as a search phrase gives only 5 hits on their site anyway and those were mostly not about biological evolution). Maybe you meant National Academy of Sciences?

Theories are NEVER facts. They are theories. Theories can be true or false or something in between. Them being theories says nothing about their validity. Google "Scientific Theory" and read about it.

Why bother?

This, op. You can't win an argument, especially if you come from a hateful I'm-going-to-prove-you-wrong attitude. You'll do quite the opposite. You'll make the person defensive and feel hurt and attacked. If anything you will make him both a more committed advocate of his position, and you will make him learn to hate all proponents of science and evolution because of the hurt you gave him.

You realize that arguing with a fanatic is pointless right? My boss is always talking about how he debates "flat-earthers" on facebook. Its like arm wrestling a downs 3 year old and bragging about how strong you are. Your bible fag friend is mentally ill, just leave him alone, he won't change his mind.

Okay OP
1. You're rude. The Christian of whom you speak is unlikely to be a cigarette or a bundle of sticks.
2. Start here...
ACTUALLY READ
"On The Origin of Species By Means Of Natural Selection" (1859) by Charles Darwin (1809-1882)
Quit trying to make things up when you don't even understand the fundamental source material.

Have a blessed day
>better yet. Invite the aforementioned Christian to read "Origin of Species".

I don't have the patience to read your entire post, but given its' length I think you are putting way too much time/effort into this.

...

>look at my ability to create circular logic and make fun of myself for it

>what is a a strawman

Asian eyelids.
Laryngeal nerve.
Appendix.