How to debate a evolutionist part one

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.

FaceBook feeds

 

Comments Box SVG iconsUsed for the like, share, comment, and reaction icons

15 hours ago

Ark Encounter
The Living Quarters on Deck Three look so comfortable!

The Living Quarters on Deck Three look so comfortable! ... See MoreSee Less

Comment on Facebook

I tried to take a nap but they wouldn’t let me

Love it when I was there in April 2019 and my 3yr old great grand son was so interested in everything he saw. Plan on returning for a family reunion. 😍

Hamm has got the best living quarters.

Loved it there when we went.

Y’all do remember they were in a flood for 40 days......Meaning not a smooth ride so that means no comfort

Hermosísimo 👏 Si aún no lo has visitado, no te demores es mejor y superior q disney para pasear con la familia y crecer en sabiduría ‼️

Beautiful ❤...just voted for Ark Encounter

Kelsi St John

Cool

One of the beautiful rooms on THE ARK.

I loved this section of the Ark!

Amy Engelbrecht Ott we've been there!!! Our little road trip was so much fun! Looking forward to 2020 Trip

Is that a true replica? Or a modern version of how it might have been?!!

They are gorgeous!

Beautiful and very edifying park! Breathtaking! And the buffet is incredible! We had the very best pot roast ever!

Comfort came when that flood stopped not because they had a cushion on board

View more comments

20 hours ago

YecHeadquarters
10 million still up for grabs. No one can do it because evolution is not true. ~ Issac 

Quote: Was Life a “Happy Chemical Accident”???
(How a careless remark by Richard Dawkins on NPR led to the largest Origin Of Life prize in history)

In 2005 I heard Richard Dawkins on NPR radio station WBUR Boston. A caller asked where life came from.

“Life was a happy chemical accident!” he replied.

Dawkins was an endowed professor of the “Public Understanding of Science” at the University of Oxford.

I was astounded that a professor in charge of “Public understanding of science” would proclaim that life is a “happy chemical accident.”

Is that even a scientific statement? What is science, anyway?

From Online Dictionary:

SCIENCE: 1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.

2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

If you cannot test it, reproduce it, falsify it, observe it, validate it from first principles, model it, simulate it on a computer or validate it mathematically… then it’s not science!

If life is something that happened literally accidentally, perhaps only once in the history of the entire universe… then in order to accept that theory, we have to abandon the scientific method.

Because none of our experience confirms the hypothesis that *accidental* events create nanomachines, or genetic codes, or cells, or anything similar.

I was so disappointed with these low standards of proof that I created a technology prize to find a definitive answer.

This led to the $10 million Evolution 2.0 Prize for discovering the Origin of the Genetic Code.

I announced the prize at the Royal Society in Great Britain on 31 May, with Oxford professors Denis Noble and Paul Flather.

Denis Noble is one of the professors who reviewed Dawkins’ PhD application at Oxford. He’s 83 and sits on the judging panel for the prize, along with Harvards rock star Geneticist George Church.

Denis is a Fellow of the Royal Society and holds a Commander of the British Empire medal from Queen Elizabeth.

14 years later, I have to thank Richard Dawkins, in part - especially his flippant attitude towards the practice of empirical science - for inspiring me to create this prize.

It’s time for us to put this question on solid scientific footing.

Read the Financial Times story about the $10 million USD Evolution 2.0 Prize here:

www.evo2.org/ft

10 million still up for grabs. No one can do it because evolution is not true. ~ Issac

Quote: Was Life a “Happy Chemical Accident”???
(How a careless remark by Richard Dawkins on NPR led to the largest Origin Of Life prize in history)

In 2005 I heard Richard Dawkins on NPR radio station WBUR Boston. A caller asked where life came from.

“Life was a happy chemical accident!” he replied.

Dawkins was an endowed professor of the “Public Understanding of Science” at the University of Oxford.

I was astounded that a professor in charge of “Public understanding of science” would proclaim that life is a “happy chemical accident.”

Is that even a scientific statement? What is science, anyway?

From Online Dictionary:

SCIENCE: 1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.

2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

If you cannot test it, reproduce it, falsify it, observe it, validate it from first principles, model it, simulate it on a computer or validate it mathematically… then it’s not science!

If life is something that happened literally accidentally, perhaps only once in the history of the entire universe… then in order to accept that theory, we have to abandon the scientific method.

Because none of our experience confirms the hypothesis that *accidental* events create nanomachines, or genetic codes, or cells, or anything similar.

I was so disappointed with these low standards of proof that I created a technology prize to find a definitive answer.

This led to the $10 million Evolution 2.0 Prize for discovering the Origin of the Genetic Code.

I announced the prize at the Royal Society in Great Britain on 31 May, with Oxford professors Denis Noble and Paul Flather.

Denis Noble is one of the professors who reviewed Dawkins’ PhD application at Oxford. He’s 83 and sits on the judging panel for the prize, along with Harvard's rock star Geneticist George Church.

Denis is a Fellow of the Royal Society and holds a Commander of the British Empire medal from Queen Elizabeth.

14 years later, I have to thank Richard Dawkins, in part - especially his flippant attitude towards the practice of empirical science - for inspiring me to create this prize.

It’s time for us to put this question on solid scientific footing.

Read the Financial Times story about the $10 million USD Evolution 2.0 Prize here:

www.evo2.org/ftWas Life a “Happy Chemical Accident”???
(How a careless remark by Richard Dawkins on NPR led to the largest Origin Of Life prize in history)

In 2005 I heard Richard Dawkins on NPR radio station WBUR Boston. A caller asked where life came from.

“Life was a happy chemical accident!” he replied.

Dawkins was an endowed professor of the “Public Understanding of Science” at the University of Oxford.

I was astounded that a professor in charge of “Public understanding of science” would proclaim that life is a “happy chemical accident.”

Is that even a scientific statement? What is science, anyway?

From Online Dictionary:

SCIENCE: 1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.

2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

If you cannot test it, reproduce it, falsify it, observe it, validate it from first principles, model it, simulate it on a computer or validate it mathematically… then it’s not science!

If life is something that happened literally accidentally, perhaps only once in the history of the entire universe… then in order to accept that theory, we have to abandon the scientific method.

Because none of our experience confirms the hypothesis that *accidental* events create nanomachines, or genetic codes, or cells, or anything similar.

I was so disappointed with these low standards of proof that I created a technology prize to find a definitive answer.

This led to the $10 million Evolution 2.0 Prize for discovering the Origin of the Genetic Code.

I announced the prize at the Royal Society in Great Britain on 31 May, with Oxford professors Denis Noble and Paul Flather.

Denis Noble is one of the professors who reviewed Dawkins’ PhD application at Oxford. He’s 83 and sits on the judging panel for the prize, along with Harvard's rock star Geneticist George Church.

Denis is a Fellow of the Royal Society and holds a Commander of the British Empire medal from Queen Elizabeth.

14 years later, I have to thank Richard Dawkins, in part - especially his flippant attitude towards the practice of empirical science - for inspiring me to create this prize.

It’s time for us to put this question on solid scientific footing.

Read the Financial Times story about the $10 million USD Evolution 2.0 Prize here:

www.evo2.org/ft
... See MoreSee Less

20 hours ago

Ark Encounter

Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person. Colossians 4:6 ... See MoreSee Less

Never go back to the vomit. Never go back to wallow in the mire! May we never love the very things that nailed our Savior to the cross! 

#Jesus #morethanconquerors #jesusisourhope #Jesusisourvictory #JesusisGod #jesusislord

Never go back to the vomit. Never go back to wallow in the mire! May we never love the very things that nailed our Savior to the cross!

#Jesus #morethanconquerors #JesusIsOurHOPE #JesusisourVictory #JesusIsGod #JesusIsLord
... See MoreSee Less

Comment on Facebook

I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. (Romans 7:15) Edited. You will not understand until you know why you keep doing what you do not want to do. Romans will help you understand.

Amen

Amen!🙌 And don't let anyone try to convince you to go back as well. Stand your ground and stay close to Jesus, our True Deliverer.🙌❤

Great post and message. Needed that! Love yall

Amen 🙏🏽

Unfortunately that’s easier said than done sometimes, especially if it’s a habit you’ve had forever.

Amen So True.

Amen!!!

Truth bomb right there.

What a terrifying thing it would be to fall from Gods grace.

Reminds me of some songs. Jesus Lover of My Soul, Came to My Rescue, Victory in Jesus, and so many others. We praise, worship and sing because He came to our rescue so that we can spend eternity with Him. God is Great and Good! 😎

Seem this all to often sadly 😢😢😢

Amen 🙏

Praise our jesus. Isn't he fabulous.

Very True! And frightening if you do!!!

View more comments

Pro Bowl quarterback Aaron Rodgers smears the God of the Bible on a recent podcast show with Danica Patrick.

Can you be a Christian and deny that the Bible is the Word of God?
... See MoreSee Less

Comment on Facebook

Stephen Cates

Trick perspective, God put his son on the cross to give you the way to heaven. Anyone who goes to hell, chose it.

He has been a fake Christian for a long time now.

I have no recollection of Rodgers ever making a born again profession of faith.

Deny Jesus or His Words can't be a Christian

He isn't a Christian

The issue isn't why would a loving God choose to send people to Hell. The issue is why would people choose Hell over a loving God.

He who denies me I will deny before my father and all the angels in Heaven!

View more comments

2 days ago

YecHeadquarters
Scare tactics science. its no more about science truth, or even theories. But how we can scare you into paying more money for things we come up with that will save the planet.😂 Just send 99 dollars to NASA and get our nuke shield clothing today. And for an extra 50 bucks, will build an air cleaner that will stop climate. But you can have a smaller version of this for free with your donation. Send today before the earth ends,

Stayed tuned while we come up with the fix for deadly viruses. Just send more money or we will scare the pants off you. ~ Issac

Scare tactics science. it's no more about science truth, or even theories. But how we can scare you into paying more money for things we come up with that will save the planet.😂 Just send 99 dollars to NASA and get our nuke shield clothing today. And for an extra 50 bucks, will build an air cleaner that will stop climate. But you can have a smaller version of this for free with your donation. Send today before the earth ends,

Stayed tuned while we come up with the fix for deadly viruses. Just send more money or we will scare the pants off you. ~ Issac
... See MoreSee Less

Comment on Facebook

But wait! .....There’s more! 😁 For just $19.95 you can purchase a cow flatulence filter now too! 🐄🎉

what is doom's day clock???

Amen to that! 

#evangelize #sharethetruth #sharethegospel #Jesussaves #JesusisGod #followJesus

Amen to that!

#Evangelize #ShareTheTruth #sharethegospel #JesusSaves #JesusIsGod #FollowJesus
... See MoreSee Less

Comment on Facebook

Agreed

👍🏼👍🏼‼️

Amen!

Hey Chad, been listening to your radio show...liking it,bro! 😀 😀 😀

1 week ago

Hidden History of Evolution

**7 games the militant atheists play**

Learn what they are so you do not get caught up in them ~ Issac
... See MoreSee Less

1 week ago

Science leads to God

**7 games the militant atheists play**

Learn what they are so you do not get caught up in them ~ Issac
... See MoreSee Less

2 weeks ago

Hidden History of Evolution
LOL, now thats funny. And for most atheists that would be worse than burning. ~ Issac

LOL, now that's funny. And for most atheists that would be worse than burning. ~ IssacLOL, now that's funny. And for most atheists that would be worse than burning. ~ Issac ... See MoreSee Less