Debate

[LostBattle]

I am part of a debate class at school where the teacher recently asked us to each come up with debate resolutions (argument statements) that you feel passionately about. Another student chose to make his about creationism versus evolution, and he very clearly sides with evolution. As a public school, comments are made against Christians all the time, but I want to know how I can defended my faith better when it comes time to present, because I know this is going to turn into a class discussion. In the past, they've always tossed around "oh, what proof do you have- a 2000 year old book? Yeah, great" all very sarcastically and I want to stand up for my faith but I don't know how to do it without digging myself into a hole or going down rabbit trails I'm not knowledgable on. So far the only statement I have made so far is "How can you risk not believing in God? As an atheist, your outcome is either oblivion because God doesn't exist, or hell because he does and you don't belive in Him. So why pick the option that surely leads you to a bad end when the other is just as available?".

Tips please?

 

[Deluge]

I have some experience in this area, when is the debate?

 

[Deluge]

The first point of attack is going to be to point out the parts where theories are the weakest. Evolution is a fairly strong theory in the sense that there are fossils and natural selection supporting it (to an extent). But the theory of evolution starts off with a living organisms, and shows how they evolved into more complex organisms. My first argument would to be to clear up the difference between micro evolution and macro evolution.

Micro evolution (or natural selection) accounts for the small variations within a species. For example, in a habitat there are red bugs and green bugs. The birds prefer the taste of the red bugs, so soon there are many green bugs and few red bugs. The green bugs reproduce and make more green bugs and eventually there are no more red bugs. This is what is meant by "survival of the fittest". This type of evolution everyone agrees on. It is very important to explain this to everyone. Most people (especially at your age) believe evolution without knowing hardly anything about it. If you can agree with a sensible part of your opponents case, and then disagree with the less sensible part, it will make you look more rational.

Macro evolution is the part of evolution that claims that apes evolved into men. This is the part that we disagree with. To make these leap, they introduce genetic mutations, which is used to explain how entirely new aspects can be added to creatures, rather then just slight changes, such as colour or size. Check out this article on the subject Apologetics Press - Inevitable--Given Enough Time?


My second argument would be pointing out the weakness of the origin of life (mentioned in the previous article). Then, once you have poked a hole in people's confidence in evolution, begin to address the God issue more head on.

Origin of life - ORIGIN OF LIFE—Does evolutionism supply the answers? • ChristianAnswers.Net

And then below are some of my arguments for the more philosophical aspects.

People often try to describe the universe in terms of causes. Like a line of dominoes, one thing happens, which leads to another thing, and another, and this process continues indefinitely. A ball sitting on a table does not roll on it's own, it rolls because it was hit by another ball, which was rolling because someone decided to hit it, etc.. But if you trace this process backwards you will find that there had to be a first cause, some singular cause that is the cause of all other causes. Something that exists outside space and time had to create space and time. You have two choices, either you believe that the ball on the table started to roll by itself, or that someone hit the ball. This thing would have to exist outside of space and time, because it created space and time. It is not made of matter because it created matter, and matter cannot exist with space and time.


The materialist view is that the only thing that exists is matter, which excludes the possibility for a soul, because a soul would be non material. Those that are materialists are also determinists, meaning that they believe everything is predetermined by the physical laws of the universe. For example, if you flip a coin, it's not really a 50% chance heads and 50% change tails. It all depends on how you throw the coin. So you can determine the outcome if you know all the physical laws at work. So if you know how hard the coin was tossed, and how much spin it was given, and how much the air is resisting its motion, you could figure out exactly how the coin could land while it was still in the air. While everyone agrees that this is true for a coin, determinists believe that it is true for our actions. If you opened up a persons head and examined their brain you would see a complicated network of connections. The determinist believes that people work the same way that coin toss does. This means that we are nothing more than the sum of our physical parts, and that everything we will ever do is determined by external influences, just like everything the coin did was determined by external influences. But the problem most people have with this is that we experience free will and consciousness. We feel as though we are not one of the dominoes in a long chain, but that we decide whether or not to fall. You cannot believe in free will without believe that there is more to the universe that merely matter. There must be a supernatural component to each person which allows them to be different from the dominoes or the coin. This is supernatural component we believe is given to us by God, who is himself non material.

 

[Tintin]

Natural selection and fossils actually support a biblical creation, not an evolutionary worldview. I suggest websites like Answers In Genesis and Creation Ministries International. They're well-known and have many credible scientists and theologians in their team. Their websites are also very easy to use.

 

[Channa]

He Lostbattle!

I wanna agree with Tintin: the evolutiontheory doesn't have to gainsay each other. You should watch this movie, called the Genesis code (the trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2p4Cs_QkwsM) Apart from the clichelovestory part, it is a great movie. It makes clear that we don't have to disagree with the evolution. I hope the debat will be good

I'll be praying for ya,
God bless, channa

 

[Deluge]

Here is a good resource about fossils,

"The worldwide flood rapidly buried millions of plants and animals, creating the right conditions for fossils to form. Typically when an animal dies, it decomposes or is scattered by scavengers over time. However, the fossils found in sedimentary layers were buried instantly. Fossils such as fish eating or giving birth appear to have been frozen in time without warning. Fossilized jellyfish must have been rapidly buried because their soft bodies float and decay within hours of death. The top mile of the Earth's surface is covered with sedimentary layers full of fossils that could not have formed by a slow and gradual process." - Fossils Confirm the Biblical Creation & the Genesis Flood

 

[stabbo]

I am part of a debate class at school where the teacher recently asked us to each come up with debate resolutions (argument statements) that you feel passionately about. Another student chose to make his about creationism versus evolution, and he very clearly sides with evolution. As a public school, comments are made against Christians all the time, but I want to know how I can defended my faith better when it comes time to present, because I know this is going to turn into a class discussion. In the past, they've always tossed around "oh, what proof do you have- a 2000 year old book? Yeah, great" all very sarcastically and I want to stand up for my faith but I don't know how to do it without digging myself into a hole or going down rabbit trails I'm not knowledgable on. So far the only statement I have made so far is "How can you risk not believing in God? As an atheist, your outcome is either oblivion because God doesn't exist, or hell because he does and you don't belive in Him. So why pick the option that surely leads you to a bad end when the other is just as available?".

Tips please?

Give Me An Answer

 

[Calmador]

For weakening the evolutionary argument:

Here's the argument...

Dinosaur flesh has been found

Dinosaur flesh should've decayed if the flesh is millions of years old like the evolutionary world-view says

But, dinosaur flesh hasn't decayed

So, the evolutionary world-view isn't true or at least doubtful.

- That's the end of the argument

I think I can improve the argument. But, I think this argument is not only good but also interesting for an audience of your age-range. Also, here's some videos that talks about dinosaur flesh being found:


News report of T-rex dinosaur flesh

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWNz4w4B3VA

Biologists Mark Armitage finds Triciratops dinosaur flesh and gets fired for it. Here's his story...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2gVwzEUaPE

For an attack argument for creationism:

The argument of design, here's the argument...

We can see that things like computers, watches, cars... etc. etc. have design and we can reasonably say these things have a designer.

In the same way, we can see that human beings also show design and we can reasonably say human beings have a designer.

- That's the end of the argument


... I looked for a video that explained this well... and this is the best so far... He says it in a straightforward and easy way to understand.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sP63mfn0gg



I'll check back on my post later... God Bless you, I'll be praying for you.

Try to keep it simple... It's better to have a few strong arguments or points... than many badly explained points.

I'd like to know more details about your debate. When is the debate? How much time will you get to tell your argument? What are the rules of the debate?

Much love sister, I'll check back later

 

[Calmador]

Just to help you with one of the videos...

The video I posted that is for the design argument... It'll help if you skip to 7 minute part of the video. And you can end watching at the 9 minute and 46 second mark.

To get to the point... Although... watching the whole thing will give you more details about other arguments for creation.

Either way, I recommend you focus on a few points.

 

[Percepi]

"How can you risk not believing in God? As an atheist, your outcome is either oblivion because God doesn't exist, or hell because he does and you don't belive in Him. So why pick the option that surely leads you to a bad end when the other is just as available?"

If the debate is about creation and evolution, this question serves literally no purpose in the debate. It's off topic and serves as an ad hominem.

More importantly, the debate concerning creation and evolution must be based on fact. Arguing that someone should accept something as true because it might be true or because consequences are dire if they're wrong doesn't actually prove a single thing.

The problem I ALWAYS see in debates between evolution and creationism are the following:
1. Creationists never show any understanding of what evolution actually is during debates. This is apparent when they ask questions about things evolutionists don't support. One example is "If evolution is true, why don't we have half duck half alligators?" Such a question is absolutely ridiculous because it fails to consider how evolution works.

The first thing you need to do is study evolution. Don't JUST look at creationist sources - read BOTH sides of the discussion. Creationist sources will tend to answer questions that might seem convincing, but when you look into the other side you'll find that the question does have an answer that is completely ignored or lied about by the creationist source. (I know, creationists are going to claim the opposite to be true, but it wouldn't hurt to look into both sides).

2. The other problem creationists have is that they don't actually support creationism through science. They have double standards. They criticize evolution for not being supported by science, but they don't use science to back up their own claims. And when creationists do attempt to use science, it's pretty ugly...

You'll also have to find actual science supporting creationism. But keep in mind that a lot of what people think is science, isn't. Again, creationists will say evolution isn't science but you'll notice a pattern if you study from both creationist and evolutionist sources.

I won't actually debate the validity of evolution, but I can tell you that every source posted thus far has been debunked time and time again. The only way you will know this is if you actually study evolution from a non-creationist source.

Who knows? Maybe you'll study the pro-evolution sources and still conclude that creationist arguments make more sense. But I guarantee you'll lose the debate if you only look at the creationist sources.

For example, let's look at the claim that non-fossilized T-Rex flesh was found. No, it wasn't.

I'm assuming the linked video was referring to the 1990 T-Rex find. If I'm wrong, please find better sources.

Here's a video that debunks the spewed misinformation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgpSrUWQplE

The actual scientific paper that was published found that the dinosaur was 90% covered in fossilized skin. The remaining 10% being fossils that showed no trace of remaining skin fossilized or non-fossilized. Nowhere in the linked new broadcast did the woman say they found non-fossilized skin! (In fact, she never said a thing about the age of the fossils.)

Furthermore, hemoglobin was not found within the bones. What was found were hemoglobin breakdown products.

Some soft tissue was found inside the fossils though. This is an astonishing break through because it's quite rare. I'm not sure if we understand why some organic materials can survive inside of fossilized bones, but I know we can't assume this proves fossils to be young. In every case, these finds were found inside of well preserved fossilized bones. We do not know the rate in which bones become fully fossilized, if there even is a standard rate.

As for Mark Armitage, it appears he was fired for publishing his finds, then making claims that weren't in the publication. He would post a find in a scientific journal without mentioning the age of the find, then use that research to argue for a young Earth. This is an intentional fabrication of data in which vital information is left out so that he can use incomplete data to support his arguments in which the missing data contradicts his claims.

University sued after firing creationist fossil hunter : Nature News & Comment

I'm sure there's more to the story but that's all I could find in such short notice.

These are just some examples of how you can miss a lot of important information if you only focus on creationist sources. And, honestly, the people you debate will have to understand creationist sources if they want to get anywhere as well. If they only focus on evolutionary sources, they will risk misrepresenting creationist points or using arguments that are well understood within the creationist community.

I won't get into a debate here about evolution and creationism. I provided two examples in which you'll miss important key points if you only focus on articles supporting your argument. All I'm saying is that you need to actually study both sides.

 

[Calmador]

If the debate is about creation and evolution, this question serves literally no purpose in the debate. It's off topic and serves as an ad hominem.

More importantly, the debate concerning creation and evolution must be based on fact. Arguing that someone should accept something as true because it might be true or because consequences are dire if they're wrong doesn't actually prove a single thing.

The problem I ALWAYS see in debates between evolution and creationism are the following:
1. Creationists never show any understanding of what evolution actually is during debates. This is apparent when they ask questions about things evolutionists don't support. One example is "If evolution is true, why don't we have half duck half alligators?" Such a question is absolutely ridiculous because it fails to consider how evolution works.

The first thing you need to do is study evolution. Don't JUST look at creationist sources - read BOTH sides of the discussion. Creationist sources will tend to answer questions that might seem convincing, but when you look into the other side you'll find that the question does have an answer that is completely ignored or lied about by the creationist source. (I know, creationists are going to claim the opposite to be true, but it wouldn't hurt to look into both sides).

2. The other problem creationists have is that they don't actually support creationism through science. They have double standards. They criticize evolution for not being supported by science, but they don't use science to back up their own claims. And when creationists do attempt to use science, it's pretty ugly...

You'll also have to find actual science supporting creationism. But keep in mind that a lot of what people think is science, isn't. Again, creationists will say evolution isn't science but you'll notice a pattern if you study from both creationist and evolutionist sources.

I won't actually debate the validity of evolution, but I can tell you that every source posted thus far has been debunked time and time again. The only way you will know this is if you actually study evolution from a non-creationist source.

Who knows? Maybe you'll study the pro-evolution sources and still conclude that creationist arguments make more sense. But I guarantee you'll lose the debate if you only look at the creationist sources.

For example, let's look at the claim that non-fossilized T-Rex flesh was found. No, it wasn't.

I'm assuming the linked video was referring to the 1990 T-Rex find. If I'm wrong, please find better sources.

Here's a video that debunks the spewed misinformation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgpSrUWQplE

The actual scientific paper that was published found that the dinosaur was 90% covered in fossilized skin. The remaining 10% being fossils that showed no trace of remaining skin fossilized or non-fossilized. Nowhere in the linked new broadcast did the woman say they found non-fossilized skin! (In fact, she never said a thing about the age of the fossils.)

Furthermore, hemoglobin was not found within the bones. What was found were hemoglobin breakdown products.

Some soft tissue was found inside the fossils though. This is an astonishing break through because it's quite rare. I'm not sure if we understand why some organic materials can survive inside of fossilized bones, but I know we can't assume this proves fossils to be young. In every case, these finds were found inside of well preserved fossilized bones. We do not know the rate in which bones become fully fossilized, if there even is a standard rate.

As for Mark Armitage, it appears he was fired for publishing his finds, then making claims that weren't in the publication. He would post a find in a scientific journal without mentioning the age of the find, then use that research to argue for a young Earth. This is an intentional fabrication of data in which vital information is left out so that he can use incomplete data to support his arguments in which the missing data contradicts his claims.

University sued after firing creationist fossil hunter : Nature News & Comment

I'm sure there's more to the story but that's all I could find in such short notice.

These are just some examples of how you can miss a lot of important information if you only focus on creationist sources. And, honestly, the people you debate will have to understand creationist sources if they want to get anywhere as well. If they only focus on evolutionary sources, they will risk misrepresenting creationist points or using arguments that are well understood within the creationist community.

I won't get into a debate here about evolution and creationism. I provided two examples in which you'll miss important key points if you only focus on articles supporting your argument. All I'm saying is that you need to actually study both sides.

^^^ Ignore the Percepi sister

Sis, this is for you and anyone reading this... I'm going to show what's wrong with what he says...

Firstly, if you notice he's wording. You'll notice he doesn't know how to think properly.

He used the word "ALWAYS", "never," and "any" in the following:

"The problem I ALWAYS see in debates between evolution and creationism are the following:
1. Creationists never show any understanding of what evolution actually is during debates. This is apparent when they ask questions about things evolutionists don't support. One example is "If evolution is true, why don't we have half duck half alligators?" Such a question is absolutely ridiculous because it fails to consider how evolution works. "

Coming off that word-usage, you can begin to see why anyone should be a bit more skeptical about his reasoning. After reading that, I'd ask myself... "REALLY... always and never??? Creationists (ALWAYS) never show "any" understanding of what evolution actually is???? I'm very doubtful about that claim.

Next, he tells you to look at both sides and to see what they say. I recommend you don't because of the character and culture that their group has... it's one of anger, prejudicism and hate towards Christians, and have a philosophy that is by default materialistic... That means they believe that everything is materialistic... And that means some of they may never even consider God to begin with so trying to even have a conversation to them is often pointless. Sister, I'm trying to break down what I'm saying. Do you understand what I just said? I think it's sort of hard to understand.

The atheist movement is about belittling/demonizing, outright hatred towards God and Christians, and materialism (a philosophy that doesn't give God any chance). When you read what they say and perhaps you have... You can see it clearly. In other words, you shouldn't allow those kind of minds to teach you anything.

I think you're better off learning evolution from Christians.

Next he talks about the usage of science between atheists and Christians. Firstly, evidence is not exclusive to the sciences. There is philosophical evidence, historical analysis which produces evidence, and scientific evidence as-well. Science is easily materialistic, that means... science has the philosophy that everything is material. Science's philosophy is to assume reality is material. Hence, the demand for a purely scientific view-point is inappropriate when considering God who is not material. There's an example below which shows how ridiculous it is to have purely scientific mind-set when considering God..

Also, another difference you should know is that I think it's safe to think that Christians in general are more so rationalists, while on the other hand, people who are both atheists and evolutionists will probably be empiricists.

Rationalists focus more on rationale/logic.

Empiricists focus more on experimentation/science.

Ironically, Christians are criticized for not being logical, when in fact... that's more so where we come from... rationale/logic.

Anyways, like I said earlier, atheist-evolutionists believe that only physical matter exists. In other words, they tend to be materialists. A materialists person simply believes that only material exists. How can you even try to talk to a person like that about God.

It sort of seems like this..

I say, "God...

atheist-evolutionists says, "only matter"

I say, "But, the design argument..?

atheist-evolutionists says, "No, only science" (material-viewpoint)

I say, "Yeah, but science only talks about material, you have to be a bit philosophical with an idea such as God.."

atheist-evolutionists says,"No, only science" (material-viewpoint)

So, do you see the problem? No room for the possibility of God or treating such a concept of God in the proper context. When you speak of God, you must be a bit philosophical because science is limited to material. And as you probably understand, God is beyond material.

Notice, I'm not saying all atheist-evolutionists, but this is a trend of how things go sometimes.

Lastly, he mentions you can get more of the details by looking at both sides. Granted, he may be correct. However, like I said above, the culture of atheists-evolutionists is based on materialism (a philosophy that doesn't even give God a thought) and hatred towards Christians. I'm not saying atheists-evolutionists can say some things that are true. However, it's not wise to learn from them.

I've been around this community enough to understand their culture. I joined the atheist club, interacted with them for years online, and met them in real life, and spoken to atheists. My assessment of their culture as a group comes from those experiences. The major bulk (majority) of atheists-evolutionists are basically the thugs/criminals/low-lives of the intellectual world, for a lack of better words. Be careful about how much time you give them and when speaking to them.

 

[Percepi]

Coming off that word-usage, you can begin to see why anyone should be a bit more skeptical about his reasoning. After reading that, I'd ask myself... "REALLY... always and never??? Creationists (ALWAYS) never show "any" understanding of what evolution actually is???? I'm very doubtful about that claim.

I mean it, I literally haven't seen any creationists who understand what evolution actually is. If they do, they make arguments suggesting they don't. This is because most creationists have this mentality that because they have "the truth", it doesn't even matter if they understand evolution or not because they know it's wrong.

Next, he tells you to look at both sides and to see what they say. I recommend you don't because of the character and culture that their group has... it's one of anger, prejudicism and hate towards Christians, and have a philosophy that is by default materialistic.

Evolution is not based off of hate towards Christians. In fact, many Christians accept the theory of evolution to be true.

Oh hey, you're one of those people who doesn't know squat about evolution. That didn't take long. You criticize me for making the claim creationists never know what evolution actually is, but then you tell the OP to NOT study evolution actually is and to assume it's wrong.

Guess what, if the OP wants to assume evolution is wrong, fine. But that doesn't mean OP shouldn't learn about what evolution actually is.

That means they believe that everything is materialistic... And that means some of they may never even consider God to begin with so trying to even have a conversation to them is often pointless. Sister, I'm trying to break down what I'm saying. Do you understand what I just said? I think it's sort of hard to understand.

I'm sorry, but not only does none of this have anything to do with evolution, but you're being a hypocrite. First, you tell the OP they shouldn't even learn what evolution is actually about. Then, you criticize atheists for not even taking into consideration the idea that God exists (newsflash, most of us have).

The atheist movement is about belittling/demonizing, outright hatred towards God and Christians, and materialism (a philosophy that doesn't give God any chance). When you read what they say and perhaps you have... You can see it clearly. In other words, you shouldn't allow those kind of minds to teach you anything.

I'm sorry, but if there's ANYTHING you don't understand - ask questions about it instead of making assumptions. If you don't understand how evolution is even plausible, try to learn about evolution. Don't just find people who share your views and automatically accept what they say to be true - ask the very people you disagree with what they mean. This is why I'm on Christian chat, because I'm not going to get all my information about Christians from other atheists or the media. I don't have to be a Christian to learn more about what Christianity actually is the same way you don't have to accept evolution to learn what evolution ACTUALLY is.

Calmador is saying it doesn't matter what evolution is or not, it's wrong, and you shouldn't even try to understand what evolution is. News flash, you're entering into a debate. It's not about who's right or wrong but rather the arguments you present. If you don't present facts to back up your position, you lose the debate - it doesn't matter if you're right. This is why you need to understand what evolution actually is, so you can better debate against evolution.

Please, watch this video. It talks about people who make presumptions against atheists, but the message can apply to anything - including assumptions made against Christians.

[video=youtube;8oa_3HC8vdQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oa_3HC8vdQ[/video]

Instead of telling people what they believe, ask them.

Also, another difference you should know is that I think it's safe to think that Christians in general are more so rationalists, while on the other hand, people who are both atheists and evolutionists will probably be empiricists.

Is this why you recommend Christians stick their fingers in their ears and shout "NAH NAH NAH I'M NOT LISTENING"? You're telling the OP they shouldn't listen to atheists, but then you call atheists irrational. Why are you suggesting the OP remain as ignorant as possible? Instead of telling OP to weigh the evidence and to understand both sides as fully as possible so that he can make the most informed decision, you're telling him to assume he's right and to not worry about understanding the things he currently doesn't understand. Again, you don't have to accept something to understand it. You don't have to accept evolution to know what evolution actually is.

Ironically, Christians are criticized for not being logical, when in fact... that's more so where we come from... rationale/logic.

You can philosophically prove just about anything, but philosophical proofs are worthless on their own. If you want to make a philosophical argument, you need to find evidence linking the argument to the real world. Arguing solely from philosophical points would be like talking to "scientists" who claim their hypothesis are true even though they refused to test those hypothesis. That's precisely what you're doing with philosophical arguments.

If doesn't matter what your philosophical argument is, it's nothing more than a hypothesis until you can find a way to apply it to the real world and test it accordingly. Otherwise, it remains an assumption.

Lastly, he mentions you can get more of the details by looking at both sides. Granted, he may be correct. However, like I said above, the culture of atheists-evolutionists is based on materialism (a philosophy that doesn't even give God a thought) and hatred towards Christians. I'm not saying atheists-evolutionists can say some things that are true. However, it's not wise to learn from them.

Just to recap, evolution isn't about hating on Christians or God. Just as importantly, if you want to understand what evolution is, you need to study evolution from those who accept evolution. You don't need to automatically believe what they say to be true, but at the very least you need to understand their arguments so that you can better challenge and enforce your own arguments.

I've been around this community enough to understand their culture. I joined the atheist club, interacted with them for years online, and met them in real life, and spoken to atheists. My assessment of their culture as a group comes from those experiences. The major bulk (majority) of atheists-evolutionists are basically the thugs/criminals/low-lives of the intellectual world, for a lack of better words. Be careful about how much time you give them and when speaking to them.

It sounds like you're projecting your own characteristics onto the people you talked to. Though, I believe it's more likely you're just frustrated when people don't accept your position so you automatically assume the only way someone can disagree with you is for them to be unintelligent thugs of some sort. It's a coping mechanism to deal with the idea that people can actually hold views you find to be entirely wrong.

 

[Siberian_Khatru]

If you don't learn from said advice, LostBattle, maybe you can from the derailing debate at hand. At the very least, it's a fine example of what to refrain from when engaging someone: pride.

 

[Calmador]

If you don't learn from said advice, LostBattle, maybe you can from the derailing debate at hand. At the very least, it's a fine example of what to refrain from when engaging someone: pride.

I did it for her and anyone else that needs it... not because I was prideful.

 

[Calmador]

I mean it, I literally haven't seen any creationists who understand what evolution actually is. If they do, they make arguments suggesting they don't. This is because most creationists have this mentality that because they have "the truth", it doesn't even matter if they understand evolution or not because they know it's wrong.



Evolution is not based off of hate towards Christians. In fact, many Christians accept the theory of evolution to be true.

Oh hey, you're one of those people who doesn't know squat about evolution. That didn't take long. You criticize me for making the claim creationists never know what evolution actually is, but then you tell the OP to NOT study evolution actually is and to assume it's wrong.

Guess what, if the OP wants to assume evolution is wrong, fine. But that doesn't mean OP shouldn't learn about what evolution actually is.



I'm sorry, but not only does none of this have anything to do with evolution, but you're being a hypocrite. First, you tell the OP they shouldn't even learn what evolution is actually about. Then, you criticize atheists for not even taking into consideration the idea that God exists (newsflash, most of us have).



I'm sorry, but if there's ANYTHING you don't understand - ask questions about it instead of making assumptions. If you don't understand how evolution is even plausible, try to learn about evolution. Don't just find people who share your views and automatically accept what they say to be true - ask the very people you disagree with what they mean. This is why I'm on Christian chat, because I'm not going to get all my information about Christians from other atheists or the media. I don't have to be a Christian to learn more about what Christianity actually is the same way you don't have to accept evolution to learn what evolution ACTUALLY is.

Calmador is saying it doesn't matter what evolution is or not, it's wrong, and you shouldn't even try to understand what evolution is. News flash, you're entering into a debate. It's not about who's right or wrong but rather the arguments you present. If you don't present facts to back up your position, you lose the debate - it doesn't matter if you're right. This is why you need to understand what evolution actually is, so you can better debate against evolution.

Please, watch this video. It talks about people who make presumptions against atheists, but the message can apply to anything - including assumptions made against Christians.

[video=youtube;8oa_3HC8vdQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oa_3HC8vdQ[/video]

Instead of telling people what they believe, ask them.



Is this why you recommend Christians stick their fingers in their ears and shout "NAH NAH NAH I'M NOT LISTENING"? You're telling the OP they shouldn't listen to atheists, but then you call atheists irrational. Why are you suggesting the OP remain as ignorant as possible? Instead of telling OP to weigh the evidence and to understand both sides as fully as possible so that he can make the most informed decision, you're telling him to assume he's right and to not worry about understanding the things he currently doesn't understand. Again, you don't have to accept something to understand it. You don't have to accept evolution to know what evolution actually is.



You can philosophically prove just about anything, but philosophical proofs are worthless on their own. If you want to make a philosophical argument, you need to find evidence linking the argument to the real world. Arguing solely from philosophical points would be like talking to "scientists" who claim their hypothesis are true even though they refused to test those hypothesis. That's precisely what you're doing with philosophical arguments.

If doesn't matter what your philosophical argument is, it's nothing more than a hypothesis until you can find a way to apply it to the real world and test it accordingly. Otherwise, it remains an assumption.



Just to recap, evolution isn't about hating on Christians or God. Just as importantly, if you want to understand what evolution is, you need to study evolution from those who accept evolution. You don't need to automatically believe what they say to be true, but at the very least you need to understand their arguments so that you can better challenge and enforce your own arguments.



It sounds like you're projecting your own characteristics onto the people you talked to. Though, I believe it's more likely you're just frustrated when people don't accept your position so you automatically assume the only way someone can disagree with you is for them to be unintelligent thugs of some sort. It's a coping mechanism to deal with the idea that people can actually hold views you find to be entirely wrong.

There's so much wrong with you're line of reasoning that I'm not going through all of it...

That's still a doubtful statement to make. All a creationist would have to do is understand a tid bit of evolution... like the idea of one organism transforming into another in millions of years for you're statement to be false. When you speak in absolutes in certain contexts, it hurts your credibility.

Next.. I didn't say evolution is based off hate of Christians. I said the atheist culture is in part based on hate for Christians and God as-well.

Also, I didn't tell her not to study evolution. I told her not to study it under atheist-evolutionists who have a hateful and a terrible philosophy for the consideration of the concept of God. Atheist-evolutionists have issues and I won't recommend my 14 yr old sister to be taught by them.

I said, quote "I think you're better off learning evolution from Christians."

Next, it wasn't the people, "atheist-evolutionists," but more so the philosophy that they come from that doesn't consider the idea of God.

I've listened to atheists and it hasn't gone well for a loooooooooong time, in most cases. I'm passing down the wisdom to not bother with such a problematic crowd.

I'm gonna stop here... a lot of your post is based off something that isn't true. I didn't tell her, my sister, not to learn evolution... just not to learn it from the atheist-evolutionist crowd because quiet frankly they are a crude and hateful people.

I should've listened to my own advice. I'm not gonna talk to ya... I just don't see progress in the future.

 

[Percepi]

That's still a doubtful statement to make. All a creationist would have to do is understand a tid bit of evolution... like the idea of one organism transforming into another in millions of years for you're statement to be false. When you speak in absolutes in certain contexts, it hurts your credibility.

Which statement are you referring to specifically?

Next.. I didn't say evolution is based off hate of Christians. I said the atheist culture is in part based on hate for Christians and God as-well.

Originally you said, "Next, he tells you to look at both sides and to see what they say. I recommend you don't because of the character and culture that their group has... it's one of anger, prejudicism and hate towards Christians, and have a philosophy that is by default materialistic..."

I told her to look at both sides of the evolution-creation debate. You told her not to look at both sides of the evolution-creation debate because "their group" is based on anger, prejudice, and hate towards Christians. We're talking about evolution, not atheism.

Also, I didn't tell her not to study evolution. I told her not to study it under atheist-evolutionists who have a hateful and a terrible philosophy for the consideration of the concept of God.

You told her not to look at both sides of the debate. You never distinguished that it would be okay for her to study evolution from Christians who accept evolution. You did say she should learn evolution from Christians, but it's unclear whether you were referring to Christians who accept evolution or accept the literal creation account.

Atheist-evolutionists have issues and I won't recommend my 14 yr old sister to be taught by them.

Atheist-evolutionists and theist-evolution accept evolution for the exact same reasons. So what you're suggesting is nothing more than an ad hominem.

I said, quote "I think you're better off learning evolution from Christians."

I told her to look at both sides of the evolution-creation debate. You told her not to because... then you started talking about atheism as if atheism and evolution are interchangeable. You then said she's better off learning evolution from Christians - but not all Christians hold the same views on evolution. Are you referring to Christians who accept evolution or creationist Christians?

Next, it wasn't the people, "atheist-evolutionists," but more so the philosophy that they come from that doesn't consider the idea of God.

I've listened to atheists and it hasn't gone well for a loooooooooong time, in most cases. I'm passing down the wisdom to not bother with such a problematic crowd.

You may have listened to a lot of atheists but you have already proven you don't listen. For example, you say atheism is based on a hatred of God. No, it isn't. Regardless, this has nothing to do with the debate between evolution and creationism. And if it hasn't gone well, maybe the problem stems from you? Or maybe the conversations did go well but you didn't get what you wanted out of the convo so you say it went bad? Or maybe you really have been unfortunate enough to talk to a few atheists who happened to be jerks.

just not to learn it from the atheist-evolutionist crowd because quiet frankly they are a crude and hateful people.

Actually, most of them aren't crude and hateful people. In fact, you're the one who's showing a great deal of intolerance. Instead of having an informative conversation in which you explain anything meaningful, you tell her not to listen to a word I say because she should automatically assume I'm a crude and hateful person just because I'm an atheist.

I should've listened to my own advice. I'm not gonna talk to ya... I just don't see progress in the future.

You say you don't have time to address all my arguments, but I think you skimmed past most of my points because you know you're wrong.

Your entire point has been, "Don't listen to Percepi, he's an atheist." You tried to claim Christians are more rational than atheists, but you never used any rational arguments against the points I made. All you did was attack me personally while ignoring everything I said. That's a very dishonest tactic. I don't care if you listen to me or not, I'm going to call you out.