DivineOb

Greetings,

I have been attending a Campus Crusade for Christ apologetics group at my school (UCSD). I've been going to try to defend atheism and nonbelief, and tomorrow is the first meeting on Evolution / Creation. Though we haven't really talked about this topic before now, I know the leader is a YEC, and probably most of the other people in the group are as well. Anyway, what topics do you think I should bring up / evidence I should show at the meeting? The things I had in mind are

That chromosome picture showing the similarily between humans and three primates
Correcting common out of context evolutionist quotes
Inefficiencies in human / animal 'design' (such as rabbits needing to eat their own feces etc) (also, I remember there was a thread from a bit ago about sightless cave dwelling critters).
Discussing the truth about Australopithecines (I'm sure I'm going to hear that the skeleton was found skattered over a huge area) and Archaeopteryx
Debunking Hovind's $250,000 offer
Examples where DNA similarity is not predictable based only on the appearance of animals (ie, comparing shark, dolphin and mouse DNA).
Explaining the difference between a scientific theory and 'just a theory'

Anything else I should bring up? Any good examples of these things which I might not have thought of? What is the best single piece of evidence against a young earth which can't just be brushed off with 'the flood did that'?

RufusAtticus

You should focus on presenting the evidence for evolution. However, be prepared to counter creationist false-hoods and miscoceptions.

faded_Glory

The concordance of old ages from radiometric dating using different methodologies.

See here

fG

Strawberry

You could explain how human vertebrae are more likely than four-legged mammal vertebrae to suffer serious injury because the human backbone evolved as a quadruped backbone and turning such a structure into a biped backbone puts heavy stress on the vertebrae that they were never designed to handle.

Also, four-legged mammals carry pregnancies more easily because their muscles have evolved so that the fetuses hang directly from the backbone above. Human fetuses still hang from the backbone like quadruped fetuses do, but since humans stand upright, the fetus isn't supported as well and pregnancy can be very uncomfortable for the mother, putting pressure on the internal organs and sit below the womb (such as the bladder) and additional strain on the backbone. The muscles supporting the human womb should actually be hung from the rib cage for maximum efficiency. (Of course, xtians may blame this on the Fall from Eden.)

You could talk about microevolution vs. macroevolution. If they agree that microevolution (change within a species/population that lets it better adapt to its environment without creating a new species), point out that all it takes for macroevolution (evolution that does produce a new species) to occur is a slight adaptation in the reproductive organs of some members of the species that prevents them from interbreeding with other groups. Once the groups can no longer interbreed, the adaptations they acquire may make them progressively more and more different from each other, creating variety of life.

Just my 2 cents, though. Good luck.

Vorkosigan

Point out that according to YEC, all the features of the surface of the earth are less than 6,000 years old and date from after the flood 4.5Kya. So, then point out that the Earth is covered by more than 150 impact craters -- one every 30 years, on average-- some tens of kilometers across. These must date from 4.5 kya, all 150. And the environmental effects must be devastating and will be continuing today. So where are the environment effects? And where are the records of this event?

Vorkosigan

Dr.GH

"Inefficiencies in human / animal 'design' (such as rabbits needing to eat their own feces etc) (also, I remember there was a thread from a bit ago about sightless cave dwelling critters). "

I would skip the topic above.

I would add the notion that creationism is bad theology. Read up on The Creationists Ronald L. Numbers, Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism, John Shelby Spong (Spong is very taken with himself, but the book is ok), and The Bible Unearthed ... Finkelstein and Silberman

tgamble

Make sure they're really good ones. Sarfati's quoting on missing supernova's is one of the more dishonest examples.

Quote:

Inefficiencies in human / animal 'design' (such as rabbits needing to eat their own feces etc) (also, I remember there was a thread from a bit ago about sightless cave dwelling critters).

I wouldn't bother with that. They can blame it on Adam's sin or something.

Quote:

Discussing the truth about Australopithecines (I'm sure I'm going to hear that the skeleton was found skattered over a huge area) and Archaeopteryx

You could point how some call it a bird and others call it a reptile. Are cretinists still useing the Lucy knee joint lie?

Quote:

Debunking Hovind's $250,000 offer

Wouldn't bother with that. People who are stupid enough to take Hovind seriously aren't likely to be convinced anyway.

Quote:

Examples where DNA similarity is not predictable based only on the appearance of animals (ie, comparing shark, dolphin and mouse DNA). Explaining the difference between a scientific theory and 'just a theory'

They'll probably dismiss that as a common designer argument. The "only a theory" crap has been disowned by AIG. They've replaced it with the even worse, "it's not good enough to be called a theory"

Quote:

Anything else I should bring up? Any good examples of these things which I might not have thought of? What is the best single piece of evidence against a young earth which can't just be brushed off with 'the flood did that'?

Anything can be brushed off with "the flood did that." It's in GOD'S WORD so it MUST be true! You could point out that it was Christians like Buckland and Sedgewick who tossed out the flood myth as an explanation. Point out some of the more dishonest examples of YEC arguments (moon dust) and some of the more stupid (oldest tree, human population growth etc.)

I wouldn't bother with bad design arguments. They'll see it as an attack on God and dismiss it as a punishment for sin anyway.

Best thing to do IMO, is point out some of the problems with a global flood, especially the sorting explanations that creationists dream up (why arne't ALL flying creatures found in the top layers? Is it just a coincidence that mammals don't appear before reptiles and there's a lovely series of transitional fossils between the two?) Point out some of the more dishonest creationists tactics. Gish's bullfrog proteins (and related claims), the selling of that pamphet years after Gish admitted it had errors. If they start to see how dishonest and deceptive creationism is, they might be more open to learning about real science.

Point out some transitional forms, especially tne ones between reptiles and mammals which Gish claimed (still claims?) couldn't exist because they couldn't chew and hear at the same time.

Undercurrent

I'm going to go against the flow here and suggest that you forget about evolution and just point out the rediculousness of creationist arguments. Particularly where creationists don't mind using two arguments that contradict each other so long as they both contradict evolution, and where the creationist argument falls with even the slightest bit of thought. It would be good to get some actual creationist literature for this purpose, and then just take it apart.

Creationism is not a scientific debate, it is a political one -- make it clear that the scientific community doesn't rail very hard against creationists, not because they can't answer their concerns, but because they consider them loons on the fringe with ridiculous conspracy theories and some political clout.

MrDarwin

The YE in YEC is their achille's heel. Attack it with gusto. The concept that the earth is only about 6,000 years old is not only utterly ridiculous, it is based on badly flawed arguments in the first place.

The worldwide flood is another ridiculous idea, with no basis in fact except for the Genesis myth. Be sure to point out that (1) a worldwide flood does not invalidate an ancient earth, and (2) a worldwide flood does not invalidate evolution. There is no ulterior motive whatsoever for geologists to say there was never a global flood, except that it simply didn't happen.

Doubting Didymus

I wish you good luck, and I hope you know what you're in for. Creationists arguments are bunk, but the act of debating itself is notoriously difficult. Creationists fight dirty. I wouldn't want to be in your shoes. I'll stick with a medium that allows time to think, and to look up references.