How to turn a creationist

[Osterbaum]

Ok so I've got a good friend who happens to be a god fearing creationist. Now, she isn't without hope, because I've sensed some doubt in her and she happens to be quite a cool dudette.

Now so I've begun the process of turning her to the correct way of seeing things. But I would appreciate any advice you could give me on how to do it in the most efficient way possible. Now this is a semi long term project, so there is no rush. This is important because of reasons. And also because there is a beer in it for me if I succeed.

I've already sort of started by making her somewhat upset today about god and whatevs. So, if you need any more info just ask and otherwise gimme some good tips. I know you guys can do it.

PS.
she's hawt

[Terex4]

Start this around 2:10
You can start from the beginning, but depending on how interested she is (or isn't) that may not hold her attention long.

[Seil]

correct way of seeing things

You're wrong.

Not that I'm a hardwired catholic, not that I go to temple, church, ritual or seance, but as soon as you start believing your theological opinion is the correct one and judging or educating people based on it, you're as bad as those that you're against.

In my books, at least.

[Shyria Dracnoir]

Originally Posted by Seil

You're wrong.

Not that I'm a hardwired catholic, not that I go to temple, church, ritual or seance, but as soon as you start believing your theological opinion is the correct one and judging or educating people based on it, you're as bad as those that you're against.

In my books, at least.

Seil has a point. Stick to convincing her of the veracity of evolution from a scientific and factual standpoint (like you'd teach it in a science class) than from a theological one. Don't try to tear down something she honestly believes just because you don't like it, especially if she's never used it to lash out at people in a similar fashion.

[Azisien]

But you should tear it down because it's stupid. Try telling her she's stupid! That always works!

[Kim]

Originally Posted by Shyria Dracnoir

Seil has a point.

No, he doesn't.

[Loyal]

Arguments presented as simple statements of obvious fact are persuasive. It works for theists, right!

In seriousness, no argument should be made under the assumption that (a) the other party knows the things you do, or (b) they necessarily are privy to and/or remember every similar argument you've made in the past. Which brings me to my point.

If Oster's creationist friend is showing signs of doubt already, the scientific-and-factual route is probably the way to go. I doubt there's much merit to be gained in arguing from a theological standpoint unless you're secretly a major in that sort of thing, in which case you likely wouldn't need our help to begin with. Point out the erroneous assumptions, about the world, made by creationists years ago, and why they are false. Point out the erroneous assumptions, about the world, made by creationists even today, and why they are false. Imply a pattern about the ever shrinking bubble of ignorance, as I've heard it called.

Your goal here is to make her understand that we humans not yet understanding how something works does not mean that a God must be responsible for it. Rather it means we simply do not yet understand how that something works.

Just a start. Will require some research but I can only imagine you are prepared for that.

[Shyria Dracnoir]

Explain why you don't feel this way, Liz.

I'm not saying he shouldn't tell her she's wrong, he just needs to know how to approach the subject without being condescending. Acknowledging modern evolutionary theory as scientific fact does not automatically have to conflict with a belief in a higher power. Just cite the reasons why we can trust the scientific theory behind evolution (observeability, testability,) based on our understanding AND examples of how this does not need to contradict her beliefs as a Christian. I'm not sure which denomination Oester's friend belongs to, but there are some specific examples I pulled through Wikipedia.

Originally Posted by United Methodist Church webpage

Science and Technology —We recognize science as a legitimate interpretation of God’s natural world. We affirm the validity of the claims of science in describing the natural world and in determining what is scientific. We preclude science from making authoritative claims about theological issues and theology from making authoritative claims about scientific issues. We find that science’s descriptions of cosmological, geological, and biological evolution are not in conflict with theology. We recognize medical, technical, and scientific technologies as legitimate uses of God’s natural world when such use enhances human life and enables all of God’s children to develop their God-given creative potential without violating our ethical convictions about the relationship of humanity to the natural world. We reexamine our ethical convictions as our understanding of the natural world increases. We find that as science expands human understanding of the natural world, our understanding of the mysteries of God’s creation and word are enhanced.

Source

Originally Posted by Episcopal Church Catechism of Creation, Creation and Science

Does the Bible teach science? Do we find scientific knowledge in the Bible?

Episcopalians believe that the Bible “contains all things necessary to salvation” (Book of Common Prayer, p. 868): it is the inspired and authoritative source of truth about God, Christ, and the Christian life. But physicist and priest John Polkinghorne, following sixteenth-century Anglican theologian Richard Hooker, reminds us Anglicans and Episcopalians that the Bible does not contain all necessary truths about everything else. The Bible, including Genesis, is not a divinely dictated scientific textbook. We discover scientific knowledge about God’s universe in nature not Scripture.

Isn’t evolution just a theory?

Theories are not mere guesses or hypotheses, as people often suppose. When enough evidence supports a hypothesis that has been created to explain some facts of nature, it becomes a theory. A theory is a well-established concept that is confirmed by further scientific discoveries and is able to predict new discoveries. The Big Bang theory and cosmic evolution are confirmed by discoveries in physics ranging from the smallest known particles of matter to the processes by which galaxies are formed. Biological evolution is a web of theories strongly supported by observations and experiments. It fits in with what we know about the physical evolution of the universe, and has been confirmed by evidence gathered from the remains of extinct species and from the forms and environments of living species.

Source

[akaSM]

[rpgdemon]

First, Seil is right.

Second, tell her that it may not be that the universe was literally created 6000 years ago, but that the entire thing is possibly metaphorical. I mean, think back to when the books of the Bible were being written, they didn't need a scientific explanation of what was going on. They just needed to know that the universe was made, things happened, et cetera.

For the same reason there are no dinosaurs in the Bible, there's no evolution: It's irrelevant in terms of the greater picture. One day to God might be a million years to us.

It's not to say that God doesn't exist, because he used evolution to populate the world, and make sure that's clear.

The above is, incidentally, my own belief on why the Bible says seven days, instantly created. It didn't need to be scientifically accurate, it just needed a quick background, to have understanding of what came next, and to answer where the world came from. Heck, it even got the order right, for evolution.