The lame excuses of the evolutionists.
Whenever creationists come up with a good debate subject. One that makes evolution not look so good. The evolutionist will pull out what I call: "Their lame excuse bag of tricks". You can tell when you have a evolutionist grabbing for answers out of thin air, when they start contradicting themselves from one thread to another, or one post to another. Don't be shy about pointing this out, for they will surely do it to you. Always leave links to what they said in another post. Why? They will deny it. The trick they will pull out of the lame excuse bag at this point, is to derail the thread. Derailing the thread can be done with one of several tactics:
1) Change the subject (most popular). I call the the cry baby excuse. So it gets the cry baby award: 
2) Make the subject more personal to you by saying: It's up to you to prove it. It's their theory that's being challenged by you, it's up to them to defend what they believe. Make sure to point this out.
3) Call you a name. Most don't. But some are trigger happy in this department. You don't let them get by with it, even if it's just implied.
4) Make a snide remark (popular).
5) Call what you believe a lie, a myth, and in the process call God a liar too.
6) Imply that God uses magic. Like: God poofed it into existence, etc... (popular). Goes along with (4).
7) Categorize you with loonies. Like the flat earthers (very popular). Even though it does not have anything to do with what is being talked about. This is usually done when they become frustrated, or have no answer for the question you just posted. Or maybe something you pointed out about what they said, and what they claim to believe. Like claiming to be a Christian, but in the heat of a debate, call God a liar (whether said or implied, makes no difference).
8) Categorize your evidence with claimed debunked evidence. Never go by what they say about evidence being debunked. I have caught several evolutionists lying about this. Their main goal in making you think evidence is debunked, is to keep you from debating it at all. They only do this with the evidence that is the most dangerous to their belief in evolution. They will even refer you to site either put up by themselves, or friends with the same agenda. Only rely on sites that are actual science sites for info. There are not always truthfull, but they have a higher percentage of truth on their website.
9) Try to make you think it's ok to believe what you want about God, and discard the rest. Like mixing God with evolution. Is it really ok? If you make the comment: Evolution is a religion. They have a fit. But they contradict themselves by allowing evolution to mix with God as a part of creation (theistic evolutionist). About 90% of those who claim to believe this are atheistic evolutionist trying to fool you by claiming to believe in God to some degree. With God, there are no degrees of belief, when the truth is known by the person who is doing this. Then they have believed a known deception. which makes them into liars, and pulls God into their lie. God is not mocked in this manner. And if they refuse to turn to truth, God gives them up to be reprobates (not knowing between right and wrong).
Side note: This is why some evolutionists are impossible to debate. God has already given them up to be reprobates for believing a known lie. so when you debate on that refuses to See even the most simple of stuff, there's a very good chance you are debating a reprobate. And you can never win a debate with a reprobate.
When they make such remarks, and your going to respond to then. Always use the quote option while posting. Why? The quote option locks in what they have said. For if you don't, they can change what they said, and the debate switches from the subject, to who is lying about what was said. Because when you quote what they said, and if they change their post, it will show up. How? They can't change what is written in your post, which means they cannot change where you quoted them. So they get caught red handed if this is tried.
The list above is the most popular tactics. There are many more tactics used. But when you learn to decipher their posts for content, and separate the good from the bad (break down a post). You soon start to see it automatically.
Some examples:
Creationist: Not for the flood. As the sediments would settle. All that died would be covered in just a few hours.
Response: Evolutionist: Not unless deserts and forests can grow up and be covered in just a few hours. The "flood deposits" have layers with forests and above or below in the "flood deposits" are deserts. More magic? (God used magic tactic).
Response: Evolutionist: The point right now would be finding any scientist, creationist or not, who could be convinced your idea has merit and hope of success. (refusal to defend what they believe when challenged by making it sound like you have to prove it).
Evolutionist: So, find one of those "many, many" scientists who doubt Darwin, and ask him to do it. If you can't find one, that might be a revelation in itself.
Nonsense. Some are highly regarded scientists, who do good work in other areas, like geology.
Response: Creationist: So name some of these scientists. And show me their peer views where they were allowed to mention their faith. No one? Show me any peer view paper where faith is even implied? None?
The creationist here also went into more detail with direct questions about names of scientists who are able to express their faith and keep their jobs. The evolutionist refused to answer the question. Why? He has already committed to his answer. To admit there are none, he would have to admit to lying. Lying does not exist where absolutes don't exist either. So the evolutionists is only trying to not be pointed out, he is not worried about being caught in a lie. And he will repeat it again.
So where do evolutionist get this mindset?
And was Hitler involved in believing evolution?
So when you debate evolutionists that are giving you a hard time. Just remember who else thinks the same way they do, and said the same exact things that they are now saying.
Evolutionist say the darnedest things:
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Scientific theories deal with positive evidence, not negative evidence.
