Debating with a creationist

[Rwandrall]

The best thing to do is to follow Richard Dawkins' advice: debating with them will make them feel like this is a matter up to debate. It's not. Just arguing with them means they win since it makes them feel like they have a point, it gives them credibility.

Best thing to do, tell them that Evolution is a fact, that Creationism is bullcrap, and that there is not even a need for discussion on the matter.

You can't convince them anyways.

[bjhulk]

(6th February 2011 17:43)The Omnissiunt One Wrote:  Scientifically illiterate as I am, I need some help arguing with a rather smug creationist whom I've encountered on the blog of the Mail journalist Peter Hitchens (brother of Christopher). Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.

He wrote to me: 'Identifying a pattern of relationship linking all living creatures does not imply a necessary cause, such as common ancestry, for that pattern. Remember, Darwin did not invent classification: the creationist Linnaeus did a century earlier. Linnaeus included humans amongst the primates. That is because classification is consistent with common design. So what we need is evidence to support common ancestry as a true explanation of this pattern. Fossils of common ancestors and transitional species would be a start. Do you know of any? Limitless artificial selection that breaks the boundaries of genetic homeostasis would need to be demonstrated too. Do you know of such an experiment? And it goes without saying that we should never, ever find “a peculiar chunk of DNA in the genomes of eight animals - the mouse, rat, bushbaby, little brown bat, tenrec, opossum, anole lizard and African clawed frog - but not in 25 others, including humans, elephants, chickens and fish.” Oops.

Even if there was [sic] any evidence to support the common ancestry hypothesis, that does not mean that common ancestry arose as a result of natural selection acting upon random mutations. Common ancestry could be the result of front-loaded design or even guided evolution. So that means, atheists also need evidence that natural selection acting upon random mutations can transform a single-celled common ancestor into a human being. And where did the single-celled common ancestor come from? Atheists need to provide a naturalistic explanation for that too because if God just put it there then that destroys their entire worldview which revolves around the conviction that there is no God.'

Thanks in advance,
Omnissiunt One

It's the thoughts that count, not the bodies. Thoughts aren't created by our brains but our brains process the created thoughts from God. Man has always been given thoughts according to his created existence that separates him from any other animals. The brains of monkeys still don't process their thoughts in the same way as humans because we're different and we've always been different.

Bodies can change as we can see in this world today. I've seen tiny heads and huge heads on humans. I've seen big hands and tiny hands. Some people are very ugly and some are beautiful. We have tall humans and short ones. Some are fat and some are skinny. It's amazing how much different God made us all.

If you want to discuss evolution, then first tell me how an atom was made and how they come together to form our bodies. You people always talk about bones but you never talk about what they're made of so you don't have any proof until you understand how the atoms were made and who made them.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

(8th February 2011 11:44)bjhulk Wrote:  It's the thoughts that count, not the bodies. Thoughts aren't created by our brains but our brains process the created thoughts from God. Man has always been given thoughts according to his created existence that separates him from any other animals. The brains of monkeys still don't process their thoughts in the same way as humans because we're different and we've always been different.

Bodies can change as we can see in this world today. I've seen tiny heads and huge heads on humans. I've seen big hands and tiny hands. Some people are very ugly and some are beautiful. We have tall humans and short ones. Some are fat and some are skinny. It's amazing how much different God made us all.

If you want to discuss evolution, then first tell me how an atom was made and how they come together to form our bodies. You people always talk about bones but you never talk about what they're made of so you don't have any proof until you understand how the atoms were made and who made them.

Well, from one ignorant creationist to another, I suppose.
So you have evidence for all of this? I can get evidence for evolution spanning all the way back through antiquity - through collected and dated fossils, the study of anthropology, research of human genetics, evolutionary genetics, and so forth.
So... until you recieve the banhammer for preaching on one or more of your other threads, I would be entertained if you could come up with conclusive and tested evidenced that humanity was created in their present state by a creator at any point in time in the past.