How to Debate an Evolutionist (if you must) (page 2)

Darklighter

All a creationist must do to end a debate with an evolutionist is say:

"By george! I think you're right!"

Jeremy C

My number one warning to Christians is this: do not let evolutionists lead you into endless arguments that will only serve to waste your time where it can be better spent elsewhere. We know from the Bible that “we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.” (Ephesians 6:12) One of the tactics of the enemy is to get you to waste your time. So please keep this in mind as you pick your battles. We need to know when to “shake off the dust” and move on (Mark 6:11). Not only is there other ministry work you may be being held from, I also consider lost family time is often not worth the limited benefits a forum may bring to God’s kingdom.

I find it interesting that many Christians accuse evolutionists of being arrogant and condescending; while the above statements from the link are every bit as arrogant and condescending as something that might come from the mouth of Richard Dawkins.

One who must broadbrush evolutionists into the group of "the rulers of the darkness of this age", and "spiritual hosts of wickedness" are not approaching the subject from a stance of humility or a sincere desire to persuade others. Resorting to ad hominem attacks on those who disagre with you reveals a level of immaturity, self-indulgence, and smallness that can be found in any junior high school debate. Debates are about substance; not bumper sticker slogans.

This method of argumentation (refusing to acknowledge any honest sincerity with dissenters) is sophomoric; and is one of the favorite methods that was used by groups like the Chinese Communist Party, and the Watchtower.

Satanus

'arguments that will only serve to waste your time'

Since creationists generally end up getting cut off at the knees, perhaps you would consider arguing here a waste of time. Also, slowly, inexorably, many believers and creationists are slowly moved towards the atheist/evolution side of the field, as their week arguments are demolished time and again.

S

stillajwexelder

even the pope hinted that some evolutionary forces are at work

RAF

How to Debate an Evolutionist (if you must)
Agree to desagree ... cause how will you debate to prove creation ? ... O_O !!!
(anyway evolution do not exclude the other theory ... So ...)

Midget-Sasquatch

How to Debate an Evolutionist?

I'd say the best way is to use current data, and consider the entire body of evidence.Using appeals of authority to statements made by scientists and texts from a few decades back or positions that are selectively "evidence based" isn't entirely persuasive.

Evolution (what is being debated) is essentiallly a naturalistic version of history

This definition should be brought out early. Since it is in a sense a reasonable statement it should be easy to get people to agree to what its saying....then build from there to try and contrast history and science....ergo evolution is not scientific. Of course the definition must be broad and not minimalist (i.e. changes in allele frequencies) so that any uncertainty in some fields of research like abiogenesis can be harped upon to try and discredit the whole concept.

Do you see why its important to be insistent on certain definitions? Otherwise the whole house of cards topples. Great debaters aren't necessarily more accurate than others..just more adept at trying to make the other side's argument appear weakly based.

MissingLink

Freakin' hilarious!!

Let me get this right - The best way to debate an evolutionist is to avoid discussion. That really is the only way creationists don't look stupid - by keeping their mouth's shut.

Brilliant!

reniaa

I still have a problem with the common ancester(Ancient ape if we must lol) equalling ape in one direction, human in the other! it seems very contrived still, and why doesn't the common ancester still exist? Ape cannot be such a big a leap not so many difference from the original given the millenia time-frame and human must be a massive leap we can can reason etc have developed so many hundreds more complexities in the same time-frame.

I think Darwin himself did believe we descended from apes but that doesn't work as scientifically, if the ape exists the human exists the inbetween stages should exist too but they don't so the above new theory was developed, were a common ancester is introduced that can be conveniently killed off, but like I said it doesn't explain things really, it sound more like someone has done the cognative dissonance thing to evolution to make it still fit.

The scientists have hit a brick wall of that of one animal type been unable to become another and they know it and the more we get deeper into the differences between one species and another at the gene level the more holes appear in the evolution theory.

I wouldn't be surprised if the evolution theory isn't disproved by the very science that apparently once proved it eventually.

besty

I wouldn't be surprised if the evolution theory isn't disproved by the very science that apparently once proved it eventually

That would be a happy day for all scientists - dawkins et al included - it would mean a better theory had become accepted by the community and therefore a huge advance in the knowledge accumulated over the last 150 years.

In the meantime the consensus is with evolution, broad church as that is.

The scientists have hit a brick wall of that of one animal type been unable to become another and they know it and the more we get deeper into the differences between one species and another at the gene level the more holes appear in the evolution theory.

I'd rather drive down the difficult and dangerous road to knowledge and progress than reverse down the river into the murky mists of mysticism on the hypnotic hovercraft aka creationism

PrimateDave

Frankly, debate on this subject is now rather pointless as it has been done to death with both sides claiming victory. Let's face it: people will believe in what they want to and will find reasons to believe it and information to support that belief. I once believed in Creation, and nothing could have persuaded me to change my mind until I decided to change it. Now I "believe" in Evolution, but it is not a system of belief that requires 100% certainty. I've learned to let go of Fundamentalism, whether Christian or secular.

Dave

How to Debate an Evolutionist (if you must)

Share this