Debating with a Creationist.

Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes while chimpanzees have 24. This, to said Creationist, is "proof" that evolution is untrue. I know about the 2nd human chromosome being longer, and analogous to 2 chimpanzee chromosomes. How do I explain the merge to him?

Tell him, humans are downgraded monkeys.

OP is a liar, creationists don't have debates.

>>2
But that won't work, since it doesn't challenge his theory that a shift is impossible. And it doesn't help.
>>3
I'm not lying.

>>4

I know, it was a joke (kind of). But as the quote goes, "Debating with a creationist is like playing chess with a pigeon- it knocks over all the pieces, craps on the board, then goes back to its flock to claim victory." It's pretty damn quixotic however you slice it.

And sorry I'm not helping, but I know all of dick about genetics.

>>4

Creationists are religiousfags in bad disguise.

Creationists cannot cope with the fact that we evolved from monkeys. In their eyes humans are special, divine beings, so to speak. Apparently, god created humans in his own image (and that image is not one of a monkey i suppose). Pretty egoistic picture, don't you think?

So you basically attack any of these "points".

>>1
short: You don't.

long: Some time ago I looked up the website for one of the creation science institutes and their standards of evidence are a farce.

It gave me the impression all these people were doing was trying to convince each other they were not living a total lie, with new evidence being carefully filtered before it could be used so it wouldn't contradict the dogma.

It's not that their research doesn't work, it's that it doesn't apply to the real world.

It doesn't matter what you tell the person regarding chromosomes, he'll come back at you with new "facts". At this point it's not science, it's evangelism in a lab coat.

>>7
See here for what I was talking about:
http://www.icr.org/research/index/research_tenets/

They should subtitle it "Creation Science: research into how we would like the universe to work". It's almost cultish, what with avoiding cognitive dissonance and adepts reinforcing each other and all that.

>>6
But that would be dodging the point.
>>7 >>8
Actually, I *know* there is an explanation for our 2nd chromosome being a longer version of the 2nd and 3rd chromosomes of chimpanzees. I knew it before, I just forgot what it is. I know there is substantial evidence that it was a merge, like the vestigial centromere and vestigial telomeres.
So, short: I should.
long: Well, forfeiting in a debate with a creationist is really lame.
I know I won't *convince* that person, and I can deal with any new facts, but I won't debate forever.
So let me rephrase: Why has it merged? Now it's a science question and not a Christfag one.

I'm with the folks who say you're wasting your time.  It is indeed lame to forfeit a debate with a creationist.   But it's much lamer to actually argue with one.  The only thing you can accomplish when you argue with an idiot is to make yourself appear to be an idiot.

Find something more productive to do with your time.  It shouldn't be hard.

>>1
This was on Nova (on PBS) in the last couple weeks - about the court trial in PA with the Dover ISD trying to bring UNintelligent design into their classrooms.  They shot all the bullshit creationist theories to shit, including the one you're asking about.  You can watch it on PBS.org

>Well, forfeiting in a debate with a creationist is really lame.

Is it?

Faith-based views are based on "faith", not evidence. It's not up for debate.

>>1

Only thing you can do to religiousfags is to piss them off. And if it amuses you, do it.
But don't think you will be able to explain them anything. As >>12 said, faith is not up to debate.