Evolutionists, do you agree that this is the best way to approach a creationist?

Question

Here's the approach: let them explain the theory of evolution. If they got it wrong (as they almost certainly will), then there is no reason to debate. You just tell them that they can't claim a theory to be wrong and in fact not understand it.

Science lovers; agree or disagree?

As for me, I have not yet met a single creationist who truly understands evolution. And my method works well. They get stumped. All that they know about evolution are rhetoric like "survival of the fittest" or so and so.

Answer 1

FYI, science is my favorite topic and biology is my favorite class.  There is plenty of really good info but there is a bunch of junk science in it.

So using your logic, you can't claim to be an athiest because you don't know who or what God is?  You obviously must not know about him or else you won't be athiest.

I am a science lover but you don't have to believe every single little thing.  I pretty much grew up my whole life believing in evolution.  I got high marks and pretty much felt it was absolute truth.  Then I noticed that the higher the biology courses I got(college lvl), the more I questioned the validity of evolution.  I decided to watch creationist videos simply for laughs and to see how someone can be so delusional.  I ended up getting my foot in my mouth and changing my beliefs.

I have only seen a handful of evolutionist who truely understand creationism.

I do believe that evolution was a good theory but when you get to the core, it is a false one.  The good things about theories is that they can be changed and adjusted.  They don't have to be set in stone, cold hard proof.  Don't you just love science? :D

Answer 2

You are of course correct. I just never thought of it that way before. I understand creationism perfectly. Creationism is magic. That's how everything came into being. It simply poofed into existence. God wiggeled his nose like Samantha on "Bewitched" and things magically appeared.

Answer 3

I would like to refer to the following article in a past issue of Time magazine: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/articl...

In this article Richard Dawkins debates debates Francis Collins, who is Director of the National Human Genome Reseach Institute of the NIH.  Nobody knows more about our genetic blueprint than Collins.  Collins is also a devout Christian and creationist.  When Dawkins arguments fail he begins to berate Collins for his opinion and resorts to name callling.

That is basically what Evolutionists do with Creationists.  Why debate the issue at all?  If Collins and Dawkins can't debate it, then who are we to try.  After all, they are just theories.  You can have the theory that a cat will fall out of a tree and hit me in the head.  I might have the theory that the entire tree will fall and miss me completely.  Who is right and who is wrong?

The interesting part is the complex design of the human being.  Certainly, there is too much left to chance to believe that any part of a human could be designed by accident or by natural selection.  The very idea that develop could have happened by accident is refuted by all scientists.  

Long before Darwin, scientists were noting that certain species were segmented to different areas of the globe.  One great historical book on this subject is Krakatoa by Simon Winchester.  Which discusses, not only the volcano, but the discovery of species limited to different continental separations by noted scientists.  When Darwin realized that he might not be the first, or most inclusive on the subject, he published his book.  However, much of his book is based on observation and, as Darwin was not a scientist, gives no possible explanation for his conclusions.

If you believe in God then you believe in Creation.  However, some scientists believe in creation without God.  They believe that in some fashion, a totally random act of combustion released an incredible amount of energy and created matter.  A belief that is totally impossible based on the laws of modern science.

Primary to evolution is proof that species have evolved using the fossil record.  Well, the fossil record shows that species appear and they die off when they cannot compete with other species for room on the Earth.  If they cannot adapt, then they are removed from competition.  This part Darwin probably got right.  But it is adaptation not evolution.  In fact, there is no record that anything has evolved.  There are many different findings of man, however, there is no link between primitive species of man and modern man as there is no link between man and the ape.

It is interesting that the ape's genetic blueprint is so close to ours.  And in the same breath, aren't most animals related in some way?  It is easy to see that if Creation happens in one way for the frog, it happens in the same way for modern man.  Why not?  It makes sense that animals are created in a set way.  That is scientific, not creationist.  The same with plants, microbes and anything else living.

So, I would not go out looking to approach creationists to start a debate.  The weaker debate is for the theory of evolution.  It makes enough assumptions that Collins easily out debated Dawkins.  However, if you are out to deny the existence of God, there are many more firm platforms to stand on.  I would start somewhere else and let the theorists alone.

Answer 4

Depends on your goal I would think...

Clearly the goal of the approach you described is to make yourself feel superior to them...to be able to dismiss their beliefs as incorrect and stupid compared to your own.  If you think that kind of goal has some value, then yes, I suppose your approach would be effective.    

I'm a science lover...and I believe in creation...and I can tell you that your approach would have no impact on me.  If your goal is to have some influence on me and anyone else that believes the biblical account of creation, then assuming we are ignorant and setting us up to reveal our ignorance so you can dismiss our argument as invalid is a pretty stupid strategy...just as stupid as those that do the same thing in the name of creation...assume the other side is ignorant about God, set them up to reveal that ignorance, and then walk away feeling superior and satisfied they they won a debate that never took place!

Depends on your goal...do you want to convince yourself that you're right or do you want to convince others that you're right...your strategy is effective for the former but counterproductive to the latter!

Answer 5

i do understand evolution and abiogenesis better than you i would suppose

since you honestly can't say that abiogenesis is a known process you are either lying thorugh your teeth or don't have a clue what your talking about

don't try to talk down to me about understanding.

get all of abiogenesis right.   understood and mapped out

then tell me how animals give rise to higher life forms since DNA which tells the animal what to make would not over time produce a warm blooded creature from a reptile

not only is this not observed, it is absurd, but you know that, unless you really don't understand your own religion, a religion of science that i in fact practice

Answer 6

Good day,

There were two creations..por de second was bases in Love.. that is why Adam ate de cherry and seen the forbidden things.. good he did cuz I sure do not want to think my wisdom came from a prehistoric ape..

Blessing Bro Enrique T.O.

Answer 7

There's not really such an animal as an "evolutionist" nor "creationists".  Those are merely fundamentalist designations.

They seek to actively cause division in the harmony and unity of the human blanket.  They are agitators at the worst, and at best, they are squeaky gears in a system that is getting ancient.

Answer 8

Since creationism/IDiocy depends on evolution being a caricature of itself, its practically impossible for a creationist to actually grasp the full facts of evolution.

Creationism starts with a massive list of errors about evolution, so, if a creationist managed to learn just how WRONG they are about evolution, its not likely that they'd be able to stay a creationist.

BTW, "evolutionist" is a made up creationist word.

Answer 9

So, no blunt instruments, then?  Spoilsport.

Answer 10

I agree 100%. And I am a creationist.

I am a firm believer in fully understanding both sides of an argument before you pick a side. I think a creationist with a firm grasp on evolution is a lot easier to take seriously than one who does not. It is hard to argue against something you do not understand.

Answer 11

Wait.  You're calling yourself an evolutionist?  I'm sorry.  But haven't those on the other side been criticized for using that term to refer to those who believe in evolution.

Answer 12

I've approached them while chanting "Ia,Ia, Cthulhu Fthagn!" but the only result I got was stupid looks.

In other words: No effect whatsoever.