A look at a typical Atheist / evolutionist debating skills or, lack there of.
I've been studying and debating this subject for past 19+ years, even since Richard Dawkins released his book, the God Delusion. That’s a bit of a story that I may get into more detail on another post. For now, I’ll just say that when debating someone that believes in evolution, they are consistent in their lack of an intelligent response.
When I decided to take the time to look at what the arguments are for evolution, I was concerned that I’d find scientific evidence for evolution, and I’d lose my faith. I asked evolutionist where to start and they pointed me to various websites, YouTube content creators and my favorite, ‘high school’ biology books.
Well after years of study, I can tell you that to this date, I haven’t found, or had any empirical scientific evidence supplied for what is commonly called ‘fish to man’ evolution.
All their arguments are 100% speculation, supposition, conjecture, hypothesis, and downright wishful thinking. What most of their arguments are, are inferences from adaptation, sometimes called micro-evolution, to macro evolution over LONG periods of time.
While I don’t engage too much with evolutionists on Facebook, sometime there is a good opportunity to spread seeds. As Christians we are supposed to spread seeds and proselytize. Even if the person I’m engaging with doesn’t take a second look, there are many that may pass by and see the debate for themselves, and maybe a seed may grow.
“Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.” 1st Peter 3:15
Because I look at a lot of science on Facebook, articles like this pop up on my timeline.
This reminds me of the multiverse argument. There is so much overwhelming evidence that the universe is finetuned, that would indicate there must have been some intelligence in its creation. New arguments like this one are not theories to prove a scientific hypothesis. Arguments like this one are only to give a new argument for ‘there is no God.’
Notice right away that they must identify Roger Penrose as a Nobel Prize winner? That’s an attempt to give his speculation some credence. Yes, it is 100% speculation and nothing more. Just another attempt to disprove God.
This is called a logical fallacy.
“An argument from authority, also known as an appeal to authority, is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone uses an authority figure's opinion to support an argument instead of the authority's reasoning. This type of argument is often used to make an argument seem more credible because people tend to believe experts. However, arguments from authority can be flawed and illogical.” Google AI.
Over the years I’ve discovered there are several statements (not arguments) they make to prove their theory. This is not an exhaustive list and I’m sure I’ve missed a few.
1. Evolution is a fact.
2. There is no evidence for God’s existence.
2. Where did God come from? Who Created the creator?
3. God doesn’t exist because he permits evil
4. Pick up your Nobel Prize you’ve proven God.
5. Christianity arose from an ancient bronzed-aged goat-herders and ignorant people who didn’t understand science.
6. We’re all connected to a common ancestor. Homology.
7. The fossil record proves evolution.
8. Micro is the same as macro over LOTS of time.
9. You don’t understand evolution.
10. The overwhelming scientific community (consensus) believes in evolution.
I’m sure there are more that can be added to this list. As we’ll see in this thread, a few of these points are made.
As I assumed, there would be a Christian stating the obvious.
“In the beginning, God created.”
Of course he’s attacked by the standard comments. I like the ones asking for ‘scientific proof’ yet when asked for ‘scientific proof’ for evolution, they never show any.
As you can see from this post the reactions. 758 people thought it was funny. No surprise. One comment caught my eye.
Frank Best states;
“…and when they put these "beliefs” on public display, they are also entitled to the ridicule they receive.”
To which I respond,
“So instead of an adult conversation, you're advocating "ridicule" Sound very mature Frank.”
Frank responded with this comeback.
"...see my previous post above: you're entitled to your beliefs, but when you put them out on public display, you're also entitled to receive the scorn and ridicule from others."
Hey, I didn't make the rules.”
There are no rules that state you must scorn or ridicule someone that posts something you don’t believe. Again, that’s showing a lack of maturity.
I respond with,
“Maybe you didn't but you endorsed them. How intellectual of you.
An adult would engage in conversation and not resort to "scorn and ridicule"
Besides, I can play that game too with your 'beliefs' in evolution,”
Yes, evolution is a belief system. You must believe that one thing can change into another, or that new information can be entered into the genome to create a new organ for example. None of this is observable, which is a prerequisite of it being called science.
Now this gets interesting with this standard cut and paste response that I’ve seen so many times.
“I don't "believe" in evolution. There is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence in support of the fact of evolution, in multiple fields of scientific study, and it is among the best supported scientific Theories, including over 160 years of non-falsification.
But before I engage with a muppet on a topic you probably don't understand, I will have to subject you to a test of scientific literacy: please define "scientific Theory", if you are successful, then I will invite you to bring forth your best evidence against the Theory of Evolution, and why you think it is a "belief system".
There is so much to unpack here with his first statement.
“There is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence in support of the fact of evolution, in multiple fields of scientific study, and it is among the best supported scientific Theories, including over 160 years of non-falsification.”
He goes right to the typical #10. The overwhelming scientific community (consensus) believes in evolution.
That’s a logical fallacy called argumentum ad populum.
“Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy, also known as the appeal to popularity, bandwagon fallacy, or appeal to numbers, that occurs when someone claims something is true or right because many people believe it:”
He also states; “160 years of non-falsification”
“Falsifiability (or refutability) is a deductive standard of evaluation of scientific theories and hypotheses, introduced by the philosopher of science Karl Popper in his book The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1934).[B] A theory or hypothesis is falsifiable if it can be logically contradicted by an empirical test.” Source Wikipedia.
Here is an example of the flaw in his logic. You can’t disprove something that is only in your imagination to begin with. What he means is they’ve observed bacteria changing and you can’t falsify that, so therefore organs appearing over millions of years are also unfalsifiable because they came from bacteria.
He then states: “But before I engage with a muppet on a topic you probably don't understand,”
Classic ad-hominem. Although in his defense, I’ve been called a lot of names over the years, but never a Muppet. The obvious implications are that I’m being controlled and regurgitating. Projection much Frank?
He then uses point 9. You don’t understand evolution by stating, “...on a topic you probably don't understand.” What’s not to understand? The philosophy is simple really. It’s all in your imagination.
He then asked a question. “I will have to subject you to a test of scientific literacy: please define "scientific Theory", if you are successful, then I will invite you to bring forth your best evidence against the Theory of Evolution, and why you think it is a "belief system".
Well Frank, so glad you asked. I responded with this;
Thank you, Frank, for this opportunity. I understand a scientific theory that is a 'well-supported explanation of a natural phenomenon that's based on evidence, observation, and experimentation.'
I respectfully submit that evolution doesn't apply to this definition since there is no direct "evidence, observation, and experimentation" of fish to man evolution. ALL of the so-called evidence that you may believe in, is inference of adaptation over LONG periods of time.
Also, I'll assume you know what the 'scientific method' is, well, using the scientific method, please list what you believe proves evolution. Remember, it must be observable, testable, and demonstrable.
It's my respectful submission that evolution is a belief system because you must believe that adaptation over long periods of time MIGHT change or create something new.
Well…. I think I summed that up nicely and I was expecting a cordial conversation between two adults. Hehehe….. OK, I was dreaming that it would happen, here is his answer. Again, lots to unpack. Keep it in mind that I’ve given him the opportunity to supply scientific evidence for evolution. Do you think he will?
“OMG stop the presses!!! Joe has overturned 160 years of accepted science. CALL THE FU**ING ACADEMY OF SCIENCES… HE NEED TO BE AWARDED HIS NOBEL PRIZE!!! He’s the only one who finally cracked the evil scientists plot to kill god and rid him from society!”
In his first paragraph, he again goes to point 4 - Pick up your Nobel Prize you’ve proven God. And no, I’m not the “the only one who finally cracked the evil scientists plot to kill god and rid him from society!” I’m just a Christian who asked questions and pants seeds. The list of people that have from a scientific perspective destroyed the philosophy of evolution is long and filled with scientists, philosophers and laymen.
His next paragraph. Again, no evidence was provided.
Ok. Seriously. We’re going to have to go back to definitions my little muppet. Because there is clearly more work to be done. You don’t know what an observation is (what makes it observable),…”
Observation in the natural sciences is an act or instance of noticing or perceiving and the acquisition of information from a primary source. In living beings, observation employs the senses. In science, observation can also involve the perception and recording of data via the use of scientific instruments. Source Wikipedia.
Pretty straightforward. Guesses are not observable. However, this goes into the notion of ‘They Smart, We Dumb.’ This reminds me of Richard Dawkins defending Lawrence Krauss who wrote a book called A Universe From Nothing.
"The nothing that Lawrence Krauss is talking about whether or not it's what a naive person would conceive as nothing or what a sophisticated physicist would consider to be nothing it is going to be something much, much simpler than a creative intelligence." Yes, Richard Dawkins said that. So, in other words the dictionary definition of observation in science, and how sophisticated believers in evolution use two different terms for observation?
He continues;
“you left out the point about Theories having predictive power (what we should find if true) and falsifiability (what would prove the Theory false).”
There is no predictive ‘power’ in evolution theory. How can you predict that the heart came about by millions of mutations over millions of years.
Speaking of the heart, look at this illustration, how can anyone believe that an organ this sophisticated came about without any intelligent direction?
The kind of predictability that Frank is talking about is observable changes in bacteria. But as Dr David Berlinski said, ‘Bugs will remain bugs.’
The evolutionist fallback is because it takes so much time, we can’t observe it.
Frank continues,
“Instead of giving you a thee year crash course in Biology,…”
See…. He smart, me dumb…. I’ve studied many university level books on biology and anatomy. So what? Yes they use the same language from evolution but not one of them PROVES via science that the process of evolution caused boiling soup to come alive (Abiogenesis) and for no reason, blueprint or direction, created what we can observe in biology today.
Frank continues,
I will invite you to look at Chromosome 2 of the human genome: evidence of the genetic link between humans and great apes. This was predicted long before it was found.”
Chromosome 2 of the human genome isn’t evidence of the ‘genetic link’ between humans and great apes. If anything, it’s evidence of a common designer.
Notice how Frank et all leap to this as evidence but will never investigate how did Chromosomes, or DNA evolve from the boiling soup? All of what they have is speculation and wishful thinking.
Stephen Meyers explains a lot about the science of the cell in this video.
I will predict that when I pull apart my John Deere tractor this summer that I will find parts that are very similar and interchangeable with parts I can get at Princess Auto or Canadian Tire. Does that prove that my tractor started out as roller skates?
Frank continues
“Next I’ll invite you to look up the filogeny (SIC) project (a great summary on YouTube by AronRa) for your “fish” to human evidence. As far as experiments, they happen all the time… pick one.”
It’s spelt phylogeny and I’ve watched many of Aron Ra’s videos on this and other subjects.
There was a series of videos where he attacked Kent Hovind. If I remember the video was about 25 minutes long, in which Aron use ¾ of that video to attack Kent personally and not address any evidence for the theory.
As Kent has said many times that phylogeny is nothing more than lines on paper. This is again 100% speculation. (Cue… but the fossil record!!) One part of phylogeny that Aron or any other proponent of this philosophy can’t explain is cladistics.
If you can’t leave the clade, how do you explain what happened after abiogenesis? When did the clades begin?
Frank’s final comment.
“There are at least 27 scientific fields of study that support ALL facets of the Theory of Evolution: Palaeontology, (SIC) Geology, Biology, Chemistry, Virology, Botany, etc. Again, I don’t “have to believe” that evolution happened over a long period of time, all the evidence points to evolution happening over a long period of time you f**king muppet.”
See my comments on argumentum ad populum, ad hominem and a new fallicy called Argument by Repetition.
Today there is so much evidence of intelligent design yet there are many people like Frank that will not ever question or accept the fact that there is a designer. The answer is simple, they won’t accept the fact of an intelligent designer not because of a lack of evidence. No, they won’t accept the fact of an intelligent designer because they don’t want to. By doing so that will interrupt their sinful lifestyle.
As the Bible says, they’re willing ignorant.
