How to debate a evolutionist part one

Share this page!

This will be a compiling of many hours, and several years of debating evolutionists online and running 3 forums on the subject. If the creationist is going to be any good at representing God and His creation, then he will have to learn the evolutionists tactics, and mindset in order to be effective in debating. And when evolutionists act bad during a debate it actually reveals more than what is realized.

  • Name calling: Name calling usually happens when the evolutionist actually has no more science to present and therefore needs to stereotype or destroy the creationist’s credibility (AKA attacking the messenger). If the creationist credibility is not intact, then what they say won’t have much bearing. This is because the evolutionist can never be wrong, so to cover for his or her inability to continue on the same level of debate, they resort to these tactics. Because why else do these things if their science can still defend their theory? So name calling is actually a good thing, because it shows that you just out debated the evolutionist and that is all he or she had left to defend their beloved theory. Pointing that out takes the power of name calling away from them.
  • Name calling up front: When the evolutionist starts with the name calling up front in the debate, then you are wasting your time. This upfront name calling is an indication that the debate will be based more on their hatred for you for what you believe more than anything concerning evolution or creation. In this type of situation it is best to just bow out of the debate. This is because it will start out bad and only get worse. The goal of the evolutionist in a debate like this is to get you to react unchristian like then hold that against you and never let you forget. Even up to posting what you said or did on several blogs and websites. That is why it’s best to bow out because they will control the debate with this tactic and you will never get a word in edgewise and the thread will become derailed.
  • Stereotyping: Stereotyping such as saying you are a flat earther etc… Is just another tactic that shows the evolutionists weaknesses. To get mad at stereotyping or name calling is to give the control of the debate to them. To point out that this is not science and that you are disappointed that this is the best they can do gives you the control of the debate. Losing your cool to act unChrist like is never an option. Either you, as a believer in Christ, enter into the debate with the intent of being a good representation of Christ, or to what point do you debate?
  • Carrying it to far: If you find it easy to push the buttons of the evolutionist you are debating, and they just get more mad with each post (which can be funny sometimes). It’s best to apologize and just bow out. This is because quite a few evolutionist have huge egos that if bruised they will hold a grudge. One that can lead to internet stalking. Now you might think that the laws that exist will protect you. But that is not the case. And if you do bring someone to court, you pay the fees that can exceed 100,000 dollars. And if you lose they can sue you for defamation of character and use the case you lost as evidence costing you even more money. And if they live in another country, you might as well forget it. International court system cost twice as much, and the laws that govern it are different.
  • Defusing the question instead of answering the question: Defusing the question is not the same as answering it. Instead the evolutionist will try and make your question sound unimportant. Saying things like: That does not matter. Or that’s not a problem for evolution. What you need to do at this point is make your next post only on what does not matter, or what’s not a problem and ask why do they use a cop out excuse instead of not scientifically answering the question? At this point you can watch them squirm to answer you.
  • Never take pride in what you believe: No debate on any forum is going to change the whole world’s view. Your debate is just a speck that can reach a few people for Christ (like a small ministry). Taking pride in it makes you react badly and will put what you say on the same level as the evolutionists you debate. And your pride will set a bad example of the God you represent. It is okay to get frustrated and make your debate opponent answer your questions. It is not okay to take out that frustration through words that would be the will of the flesh. If you cannot control it, back out. There is no shame where there is no pride.

Here are some other things you need to know about debating evolutionists:

  • Because they usually belong to a group of evolutionists who debate creationists YECH (young earth creationist haters). They will take everything you post that they cannot answer and have their friends help them answer it by posting what you say on one of their forums to be dissected. You are basically debating 5-10 evolutionists at one time even though you will never see them. This is usually the reason why their answers always look good. Up to ten people helping them can make things look that way. But then again it also shows that it takes that many evolutionists to debate one creationist. Ironic.
  • They like to take the words micro and macro and say or imply they are exactly the same thing. The reason this is done is because micro-evolution is observable. Macro-evolution is not. So to make macro sound like it’s proven and observable they will say it’s the same thing. Things like: Micro to infinity = macro. Or given enough time anything can happen.
  • The “time excuse” is their form of the “God did it” excuse they often complain about when we say: God did it. The time excuse is used when things are not observable. Time excuse is also used as a board type answer to imply that time answers everything concerning evolution. Their famous phrase: Given enough time evolution can change anything into anything.
  • They love to join Christian forums under false world views. Claiming “agnostic” or “theistic evolutionist” allows them to play both sides. But you can always tell which side they are on because when they are cornered, evolution will always be their choice.
  • There are those who love to evangelize for evolution (convert to their belief). You can always tell who these people are because they will find someone who is not sure about creation, and they will try to befriend them and then convert them. Science needs conversion? They will defend evolution as if they were preaching it. In others words, almost all of their posts will sound like a sells pitch for evolution.
  • Evolutionists like to imply absolutes where absolutes don’t exist by saying things like: Evolution is a true proven fact with mountains of empirical evidence. Exalting a theory to a level without providing all the evidence to the claim is an unfounded remark. Just start saying prove it, which is a big order, and they will quit.
  • They love to play cloak and dagger games. They will use different user names at every forum they debate on because they don’t want the creationist to be able to Google their user name and be able to find out who they really are at their own forums, and that they are militant atheists (atheists whose goal is to rid the world of Christians). As long as they can use that deception and hide in the shadows, they will role play worldviews to see which one gives them the best angle to promote their agenda. This is also why they have user names that are not even a word in most cases. That’s so when they are Googled, it goes to a dead-end.
  • They often will try to make your evidence live up to standards that they cannot make theirs do. Two standards that are needed to learn the definitions of are: Scientific method. Empirical evidence. And make sure that you learn them from credible sites. Once done you will find that these two things cannot be met on several levels by evolutionists who defend their beloved theory.
  • Peer Reviews. This is a favorite that the evolutionist like to hit a creationist over the head with constantly. The fact of the matter is, the only peer review paper they will accept is one done by another evolutionist who thinks like they do. That’s like going to a court where the judge has been bought off to rule against you. From their end it would be like doi
    ng a paper that has to be peer-reviewed by creationists. How would they feel? Would they think they will get a fair shake? No more than a creationist should from getting peer from an evolutionist. What this basically boils down to is bias. They know a evolutionist will “never” approve a creationist paper as to the main reason they will bring this up.
  • The common ancestor idea. When you say that they claim that we evolved from chimps, they will deny this and say that we share a common ancestor. The object of doing this is to get the creationist to quit beating their dead horse. The idea of man coming from chimps has had so many holes shot in it, they don’t want to deal with it anymore. So if they can get you to agree to “common ancestor” idea they get you to quit pointing out their mistake. And by the way, what do they keep comparing our DNA to? Chimps right? Ironic isn’t it.
  • Evolutionists like to only answer the parts of your post that they can. They will skip the rest in hopes you won’t notice. There are 2 ways to counter this. 1) Keep pointing this out until they address them. 2) Start doing the same thing until they point it out and just say: That’s the way you were debating. And of course they will say: Where did I do that? And you show them. To make things easier it’s best to make the list of what they skip as you go on your pc. Then you can just copy and paste.
  • Reversing the burden of proof. When you ask them for evidence as to show proof, they will often twist the question back in your direction and make it sound as if the burden of proof is upon you. Don’t let the evolutionist do this. Just point out that when they meet your criteria you will meet theirs and that you asked first.

What I find ironic about all this is that there has to be so much deception to prove what is deemed to have been already proven.

Share this page!

 

 

 

YouTube

 

 

 

FaceBook Feed
Comments Box SVG iconsUsed for the like, share, comment, and reaction icons
Good Fight Ministries
Good Fight Ministries

Joe Schimmel’s Testimony

Blessed Hope Chapel
Wed. May 22, 2019 – Wednesday Night Bible Study led by Pastor Joe Schimmel.
... See MoreSee Less

Comment on Facebook

Thank you for sharing Pastor Joe!!

Ark Encounter
Ark Encounter
Veterans receive free admission on Memorial Day (May 27)!

Veterans receive free admission on Memorial Day (May 27)! ... See MoreSee Less

Comment on Facebook

Ruthann Blizzard Michael Blizzard

Uh, that's not nearly enough manpower for a ship that size.

See ya'll next weekend! Can't wait!

Creation Research Society
Creation Research Society
The Role of Epigenetics in Adaptation, Part 1

The following Matters of Fact column by CRS board member Dr. Jean Lightner appeared in Creation Matters, Vol. 23, No. 3, May/June 2018.

Q.  Does epigenetics play a role in adaptation? 
A.  Physiologist: YES! Evolutionary biologist: Maybe…. 

Adaptation, in the sense that we will discuss, can be defined as changes which help an organism become better suited to its environment. It is related to one of the foundational characteristics of life: the ability to respond to the environment. Physiological adaptation relies on epigenetics, or modifications that can affect gene expression. This does not change the sequence of DNA, but allows genes to be up or down regulated to suit the needs of the organism (see Lightner, 2013). 

There are several known mechanisms of epigenetic regulation (Figure 1): 

1) histone modification (including acetylation, phosphorylation, and methylation) 

2) cytosine methylation in DNA 

3) various non-coding RNA molecules (miRNA, siRNA, piRNA, and lncRNA) 

These mechanisms vary in the timeframe over which they typically act, allowing for both rapid changes and more stable, long-term changes. 

Scientists had assumed that these types of changes could not be inherited by offspring. The basis for this was largely philosophical: the Modern Synthesis (aka Neo-Darwinism) was predicated on the idea that the environment could not direct phenotypic change. Instead, the source of phenotypic variation is claimed to be from random genetic mutations; natural selection then reduces or eliminates less fit variants. To support the conjecture that epigenetic changes are not heritable, some scientists pointed to the observation that DNA methylation patterns are reset in pathways leading to offspring (i.e., germ cell formation and fertilization). However, it is now recognized that the reset of DNA methylation isn’t always complete, and it is not the only mechanism involved in trans-generational epigenetic inheritance (Morgan et al., 1999; Rassoulzadegan et al., 2006). 

For several decades now, it has been known that epigenetic inheritance can provide a source of heritable variation. However, it is not yet clear how often it does so, and what role it plays in adaptation of populations. Research has increased on this important topic, but much remains to be learned. One recent review article identified a web of potential interactions. It also pointed out that understanding patterns of natural epigenetic variation, the causes of that variation, and the consequences of it are necessary to adequately address the role it may have in adaptation (Richards et al., 2017). 

Factors influencing epigenetic variation 

In some studies it appears that DNA methylation differences are associated with underlying genetic differences. This raises the possibility of genetic control of epigenetic variability. It is also possible that a stable epimutation (heritable epigenetic change) could be inherited along with the underlying genetic sequence, thus causing the correlation. It has also been noted that epigenetic changes can influence genetic variation, specifically as it relates to silencing transposable elements, whose movement can change the sequence of a gene or its promoter (Richards et al., 2017). 

Some epimutations appear to arise stochastically. If these are stable over multiple generations, then natural selection may affect the pattern of variation. It is also known that environmental factors can effect heritable epigenetic changes, but the pattern and extent of this is not well known. Significant work needs to be done across different species, especially wild plants and animals, before reasonable generalizations can be made (Balao et al. 2018; Richards et al., 2017). 

FIGURE 1. A chromosome is made up of DNA coiled around proteins, called histones. There are three basic mechanisms by which epigenetic changes can be made. First, the tail of the histone proteins can undergo several types of modification (A), including phosphorylation (Ph), methylation (Me), and acetylation (Ac), that can affect accessibility of specific genes. Secondly, cytosine residues in DNA can be methylated (red dot) or un– methylated (green dot), the details of which are represented in section B of the figure. This affects gene transcription (the copying of DNA to make mRNA). Finally, various microRNAs (C) can bind mRNA to prevent synthesis into proteins. All of these mechanisms play a role in changing gene expression without affecting the DNA sequence. (Illustration is from Gómez-Díaz et al., 2012, and is used herein according to the CC BY license. )

Learn more about creation www.creationresearch.org

The Role of Epigenetics in Adaptation, Part 1

The following Matters of Fact column by CRS board member Dr. Jean Lightner appeared in Creation Matters, Vol. 23, No. 3, May/June 2018.

Q. Does epigenetics play a role in adaptation?
A. Physiologist: YES! Evolutionary biologist: Maybe….

Adaptation, in the sense that we will discuss, can be defined as changes which help an organism become better suited to its environment. It is related to one of the foundational characteristics of life: the ability to respond to the environment. Physiological adaptation relies on epigenetics, or modifications that can affect gene expression. This does not change the sequence of DNA, but allows genes to be up or down regulated to suit the needs of the organism (see Lightner, 2013).

There are several known mechanisms of epigenetic regulation (Figure 1):

1) histone modification (including acetylation, phosphorylation, and methylation)

2) cytosine methylation in DNA

3) various non-coding RNA molecules (miRNA, siRNA, piRNA, and lncRNA)

These mechanisms vary in the timeframe over which they typically act, allowing for both rapid changes and more stable, long-term changes.

Scientists had assumed that these types of changes could not be inherited by offspring. The basis for this was largely philosophical: the Modern Synthesis (aka Neo-Darwinism) was predicated on the idea that the environment could not direct phenotypic change. Instead, the source of phenotypic variation is claimed to be from random genetic mutations; natural selection then reduces or eliminates less fit variants. To support the conjecture that epigenetic changes are not heritable, some scientists pointed to the observation that DNA methylation patterns are reset in pathways leading to offspring (i.e., germ cell formation and fertilization). However, it is now recognized that the reset of DNA methylation isn’t always complete, and it is not the only mechanism involved in trans-generational epigenetic inheritance (Morgan et al., 1999; Rassoulzadegan et al., 2006).

For several decades now, it has been known that epigenetic inheritance can provide a source of heritable variation. However, it is not yet clear how often it does so, and what role it plays in adaptation of populations. Research has increased on this important topic, but much remains to be learned. One recent review article identified a web of potential interactions. It also pointed out that understanding patterns of natural epigenetic variation, the causes of that variation, and the consequences of it are necessary to adequately address the role it may have in adaptation (Richards et al., 2017).

Factors influencing epigenetic variation

In some studies it appears that DNA methylation differences are associated with underlying genetic differences. This raises the possibility of genetic control of epigenetic variability. It is also possible that a stable epimutation (heritable epigenetic change) could be inherited along with the underlying genetic sequence, thus causing the correlation. It has also been noted that epigenetic changes can influence genetic variation, specifically as it relates to silencing transposable elements, whose movement can change the sequence of a gene or its promoter (Richards et al., 2017).

Some epimutations appear to arise stochastically. If these are stable over multiple generations, then natural selection may affect the pattern of variation. It is also known that environmental factors can effect heritable epigenetic changes, but the pattern and extent of this is not well known. Significant work needs to be done across different species, especially wild plants and animals, before reasonable generalizations can be made (Balao et al. 2018; Richards et al., 2017).

FIGURE 1. A chromosome is made up of DNA coiled around proteins, called histones. There are three basic mechanisms by which epigenetic changes can be made. First, the tail of the histone proteins can undergo several types of modification (A), including phosphorylation (Ph), methylation (Me), and acetylation (Ac), that can affect accessibility of specific genes. Secondly, cytosine residues in DNA can be methylated (red dot) or un– methylated (green dot), the details of which are represented in section B of the figure. This affects gene transcription (the copying of DNA to make mRNA). Finally, various microRNAs (C) can bind mRNA to prevent synthesis into proteins. All of these mechanisms play a role in changing gene expression without affecting the DNA sequence. (Illustration is from Gómez-Díaz et al., 2012, and is used herein according to the CC BY license. )

Learn more about creation www.creationresearch.org
... See MoreSee Less

Hidden History of Evolution
Hidden History of Evolution
~ Issac

~ Issac ... See MoreSee Less

Comment on Facebook

Evolution is a lie, based on unsupported assumptions.

Science leads to God
Science leads to God
Had to stop the test, cant have evolution proven wrong. ~ Issac

Had to stop the test, can't have evolution proven wrong. ~ Issac ... See MoreSee Less

180 Movie
180 Movie

Are you one of the over 49,500 views who’s watched “7 Reasons” on YouTube since its release a week ago?

We’ve been so encouraged to read the many online comments, such as this one from YouTube:

"This is THE first time I’ve ever cried (quietly flowing down my cheeks and dripping off my chin kinda tears), regarding the abortion I had 9 years ago. I’ve LITERALLY NEVER felt convicted, not once before…And after watching this.. well, yeh.. I’ve just sat here frowning, now my eyes have dried, and thinking to myself, “Wow, what IS happening to me?!”…I’m a feminist, pro-choice (I thought), equality, love and peace to all kinda person. I guess I better think again................. Mind = blown. Thank you for this video."

If you haven't watched and shared it yet, watch "7 Reasons" free on YouTube at 7ReasonsMovie.com
... See MoreSee Less

Ray Comfort has mental retardation ... See MoreSee Less

Pray for Militant Atheist Page.
Pray for Militant Atheist Page.
n case you did not know this. ~ Issac

n case you did not know this. ~ IssacIn case you did not know this. ~ Issac ... See MoreSee Less

Where is the evolution?
Where is the evolution?
Name: Monito del Monte
Status: Thought to be extinct until its rediscovery.
Information: A remarkable, diminutive marsupial thought to have been extinct until one was discovered in a thicket of Chilean bamboo in the southern Andes.
Thought to exist: 55 million years ago.
Reference: http://historysevidenceofdinosaursandmen.weebly.com/living-fossils.html
The fossilised ankle and ear bones are those of Australias earliest known marsupial, Djarthia, a primitive mouse-like creature that lived 55 million years ago. ..a new study in the journal PLoS ONE [http://www.plosone.org/] has confirmed that Djarthia is also a primitive relative of the small marsupial known as the Monito del Monte - or little mountain monkey - from the dense humid forests of Chile and Argentina.
Reference: http://www.create.unsw.edu.au/news/2008-03-25_monito.html
The monito del monte, Spanish for ‘little bush monkey’, named after its monkey-like partially prehensile tail, is a diminutive marsupial native to South America in the Valdivian temperate rain forests of the southern Andes (Chile and Argentina). It is the only extant species in the ancient order of Microbiotheria. ...Genetic studies show that this species retains the most primitive characteristics of its group, and thus is regarded as a “living fossil.”
reference: http://www.eartharchives.org/articles/scientists-uncover-two-new-species-of-elusive-south-american-marsupial/

Name: Monito del Monte
Status: Thought to be extinct until it's rediscovery.
Information: A remarkable, diminutive marsupial thought to have been extinct until one was discovered in a thicket of Chilean bamboo in the southern Andes.
Thought to exist: 55 million years ago.
Reference: http://historysevidenceofdinosaursandmen.weebly.com/…
"The fossilised ankle and ear bones are those of Australia's earliest known marsupial, Djarthia, a primitive mouse-like creature that lived 55 million years ago. ..a new study in the journal PLoS ONE [http://www.plosone.org/] has confirmed that Djarthia is also a primitive relative of the small marsupial known as the Monito del Monte - or "little mountain monkey" - from the dense humid forests of Chile and Argentina."
Reference: http://create.unsw.edu.au/news/…
"The monito del monte, Spanish for ‘little bush monkey’, named after its monkey-like partially prehensile tail, is a diminutive marsupial native to South America in the Valdivian temperate rain forests of the southern Andes (Chile and Argentina). It is the only extant species in the ancient order of Microbiotheria. ...Genetic studies show that this species retains the most primitive characteristics of its group, and thus is regarded as a “living fossil.”"
reference: http://eartharchives.org/articles/…
... See MoreSee Less

Comment on Facebook

Your picture makes it seem like the two species shown are found 55 Ma apart even though they are both modern species. Rather, it was the genus Djarthia (whose exact taxonomic position is uncertain) that occurs in the Paleocene, as noted in the PLOS paper you provided. This graphic is either a misunderstanding or diliberate misrepresentation of the references cited. May I ask what formal training in paleontology the admin of this page has had?

We didn't claim the skulls were from a 55 million year old fossil, it is the references that claim Monito del Monte is regarded as a living fossil and thought to exist: 55 million years ago.

Colby, please stop spamming the contrasts. There is no need to post the same link multiple times, Thank you.

I was just doing a one shot on each post. I didnt even think anyone even looked at this page anymore. I apologize.

Looks like the Colbinator deleted his post 😭

View more comments

Load more