How to Debate an Evolutionist (if you must)

hooberus

This thread is primarily directed to Biblical creationists and other non-evolutionists here (as such no or limited responses will be given to evolutionist posts here). Please if you are a non-evolutionist attempt to refrain from debating evolutionists here on this thread, as they will likely try to derail any learning, or exposure of their tactics. I will try to avoid debating here but instead posting information in a series of posts.

I consider myself to be an informed Biblical creationist and probably one of more experienced creation/evolution issue debaters to have been on this forum. This thread should help you to learn evolutionist tactics as well as from my mistakes, and the mistakes of others.

Principal #1. Watch out for Distraction. Be cautious about entering into lengthy debate. Read this warning:

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/christian_warning.htm

Read it again:

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/christian_warning.htm

If you must debate:

Try to refrain from lengthy discussions if possible (see above warning!). Its probably best instead to reference highest quality creationist resources avaialable online (and avoid time consuming banter) with evolutionists. I recommend the following be referenced to so that lurkers will at least know that informed responses are available for those who are genuinely interested.

The Creation Research Society http://www.creationresearch.org

International Conference on Creationism http://www.csfpittsburgh.org/icc.htm

Understand that evolutionists here are generally are not evidence based (as they almost always imply) but rather are world-view based (though they will appeal to certain scientific facts to support their worldview). There is nothing wrong with being world-view based, nor with using valid evidence from science to support a worldview, however many persons claim to be "evidence" based, and in reality are ultimately world view based instead. Their attitude gives it away! The fact that most evolutionists here are not evidence based is reflected in the often vicious attitudes that they often express toward anyone that questions their belief system (no matter how well informed the questioner may be).

The evolutionists own ignorance of the creation/evolution issue. Strange as it may seem most of the evolutionists here (and especially the ones who lecture others about "their ignorance of the subject") are themselves very ignorant about creation and even evolution, (though this doesn't stop them from speaking). Examples will be given.

hooberus

Evolution (what is being debated) is essentiallly a naturalistic version of history . In this story people descended from lower animals such as ancient apes, which themselves supposedly descended from other animals. Such as scenario places creatures such as reptiles, amphibians an even fish in mans ultimate direct ancestral tree. This scenario ultimately starts in the origin of life from non-life. Evolutionists will frequently deny much of the above and claim that evolution doesn't teach that people came from apes, etc. and especially that evolution and the origin of life are completely separate. However it wasn't always this way:

"Evolution comprises all the states of development of the universe; the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments. Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous. Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic matter, and man is a product of the evolution of life."

Theodosius Dobzhansky Science, 155:409-415, 1967

"The origin of life was necessarily the beginning of organic evolution and it is among the greatest of all evolutionary problems."

George Gaylord Simpson opening sentence chapter 2 "The Meaning of evolution" 1949

Today even specific "evolution books" such as "What Evolution Is" by Ernst Mayr have relatively lengthly sections on the origin of life (see chapter 3 of his book), with no demarcation between it and "evolution".

And of course its either explicitly (or implicitly) included in evolution in many textbooks. (picture from yecheadquarters)

alt

Despite the above if a CREATIONIST mentions the issue in an evolution debate it the following frequently occurs- We are told that "it is not a part of evolution theory" or worse that we are guility of "ignorance" or even "dishonesty." The fact is that "evolution" can include many different things from the minimalist "any change in alle frequencies" to possibly also include things such as universal common ancestry, amphibians descending from fish, humans descending from ancient apes, even to the origin of life itself. One of the real reasons for the insistence by many evolutionists today that it must be "excluded" is really in response to the scientific difficulties that have been revealed, and not to any empirical necessity that it be excluded as "not being a part of evolution".

hooberus

"Evolution doesn't teach that people came from apes!" Evolutionsts often say. They may then state something like "instead it teaches that people share a comman ancestor with the apes"

The problem with this is that the "common ancestor" was itself an ape, and evolution teaches that we did indeed come / descend from it.

"On this subject, by the way, there has been too much pussyfooting. Apologists emphasize that man cannot be a descendant of any living ape - a statement that is obvious to the verge of imbecility - and go on to state or imply that man is not really descended from an ape or monkey at all, but from an earlier common ancestor. In fact, that earlier ancestor would certainly be called an ape or monkey in popular speech by anyone who saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey are defined by popular usage, man's ancestors were apes or monkeys (or successively both). It is pusillanimous if not dishonest for an informed investigator to say otherwise." George Gaylord Simpson (prominent evolutionist)

Galileo

Evolution doesn't teach that people came from apes!

I understand your desire for this to be a debate tutorial and not a debate thread in itself, so let me just correct you on this. Evolution doesn't teach that people came from apes. Trying to argue this point with an evolutionist will immediately show you as someone that is ignorant of the subject. If you wnat to use the terminology "ancient apes" this might not be objectionable, so long as you're clear on what that means. Evolutionary theory teaches that in the distant past, humans and modern great apes had a common ancestor that shared some traits similar to modern apes and some traits similar to modern humans. Saying that humans descended from apes is akin to saying that you descended from me, since at some point we both had a common ancestor. It is simply factually wrong.

hooberus

I understand your desire for this to be a debate tutorial and not a debate thread in itself, so let me just correct you on this. Evolution doesn't teach that people came from apes. Trying to argue this point with an evolutionist will immediately show you as someone that is ignorant of the subject.

See Simpson quote later added to my previous post.

hooberus

Evolutionary theory teaches that in the distant past, humans and modern great apes had a common ancestor that shared some traits similar to modern apes and some traits similar to modern humans.

The alleged common ancestor of humans and modern apes was even more "primitive" than the modern apes which supposedly descended from it. Therefore what (non-modern ape) specific "traits similar to modern humans" could such a creature have possessed?

drwtsn32

I agree that it is not entirely accurate for evolutionists to say "man did not evolve from apes." However, I do not believe they are trying to be deceptive. That specific response is usually made when a creationist says "If man evolved from apes, why are there still apes?" The point being that we did not evolve or descend from modern apes.

Galileo

The alleged common ancestor of humans and modern apes was even more "primitive" than the modern apes which supposedly descended from it. Therefore what (non-modern ape) specific "traits similar to modern humans" could such a creature have possessed?

As per your stated reason for this thread, I'm not going to debate this point. I was merely trying to help you form the best argument you could. If you want to waste your time continuing to argue a point on which you are factually incorrect, be my guest. If you want to debate this specific point, then one of the multitude of other threads on evolutin would probably be a better place to do it.

startingover

In the link about Christian warning, it says this:

One of the tactics of the enemy is to get you to waste your time.

Do you honestly think that is true? If so, you are still living in WT land.

yourmomma

creationists make people who believe in God and the Bible look like ignorant freaks. this stuff pisses me off more than anything.

How to Debate an Evolutionist (if you must)

Share this