How to debate a evolutionist part two.

Please read parts one (link) before you read this… Making scientific evidence solely support evolution is more of an agenda and strategy which is not science but is conformism. To make the evidence look like it supports evolution only, the evolutionist scientists “leave out” the information that would leave the Theory of Evolution in question. This page will be compiled of such information which will only touch the surface of how far this goes. The reason for this is because this is done so much that to list all of it would be a website in it self. And who would want to read that much anyway? So this page will consists mainly of the major lists that will give the reader an idea of what is going on. Making people believe in evolution is basically a selling game that most some evolutionists are not even aware of. Example: If you go to a used car salesman, what information will he tell you about the car, and what information will he not tell you in order to make the sale? Only the good stuff. What you will see below is that only the good stuff gets told. The bad stuff they will withhold, and in some cases even deny it. You see once you are sold on something, un-selling you on the idea is much harder.

  • The DNA percentage comparison between Man and Chimps is probably the worst of it all. According to who you talk to the difference can be anywhere from 12% to .2%, and seems to change every 6 months going up and down. But percentages are simple math, right? So why leave out the main number in which the percentage was taken from? It’s because it puts evolution into question. The number the percent comes from is 3 billion.  Knowing that the number is 3 billion (3,000,000,000) makes that percent look bigger, and us as humans not as close to chimps as was implied. The object of the sale was to not allow you to see that. Ask any evolutionist why the main number is hidden, and all you will get is excuses. How well is it hidden? More than half of the evolutionist I ask don’t know that number. They had the idea sold to them and never checked up on it.
  • The immune system problem. Google the “immune system and evolution” to see if any sites address how evolution works around the immune system. You will not find one, instead what you will find is sites on how the immune system evolved. The reason they won’t address this is because the immune system actually fights change. And knowing that animals immune systems are stronger than ours shows that change would be fought even harder in the lower evolved species. Example: If the immune system were weak enough to allow the changes evolutionists claim happened, we would all die from cancer. Why? Cancer is our own cells rebelling against the system by changing. Cancer cells mutate in our systems all the time. Our immune system kills them making it to where most of us won’t get cancer. So if the immune system was weaker back in time, all offspring would be sickly if not born dead. And not many parents would make it to an age to reproduce. Extinction would be favored more so than survival. This would keep life from evolving into things as complex as humans or any other animals that are complex.
  • Interdependent systems in animals and humans. Every system in the human body is dependent upon another system in order to work. There is no explanation on how each system evolved and worked until the other systems evolved to support them. Nor is there any way for evolutionist to tell us in what order did these systems evolved. Their salesman answer to convince us is that they all evolved at the same time. Knowing that each system has a different complexity (a word they do not like), means that no two systems would require the same number of mutations. Which means no two systems would evolve in the same amount of time to even remotely evolved together as implied. So to claim this is to also claim that evolution has perfect timing. Which boarders on intelligence because how does any evolution processes keep time to when to evolve something? Telling time = intelligence.
  • They will claim that time made the layers in the geologic column. Yet they cannot demonstrate the mechanism that causes time to form and “sort” layers. Yet water, like from a flood, will sort sediments into layers when shaken in a glass every time. And because this process can be tested in a lab, and retested with the same results every time. The claim that water sorted the layers from a flood would be empirical, while time “sorting” the layers is not. Age dating is not an absolute which means other possibilities have to be considered. And because evolutionists refuse to consider anything outside of supporting evolution, the belief becomes a form of conformism. Conformism is the main reason evolution is being sold more than it’s being proven. Conformism is not science.
  • Butterflies can only be created. Putting aside the process of what makes a butterfly, and focus on the results. You would think that in the evolution process that the colors on the wings are just colors. Much like colors on the hairs of other animals and insects. But that is not the case. Butterflies have microscopic scales on their wings that work very much the same way a prism separates sun light into colors. The scales reflect light, but only a certain wavelength of that light. Which means it’s not actual color that gives the butterfly it’s beauty, but how it’s wings refracts light into wavelengths of colors. There is absolutely no pressures from the environment that would make such an ability to evolve, nor is there any intelligence in the evolution process that would cause this.
  • The human eye. It’s not so much the complexity of the eye, but the design. How does the process that allowed it to evolve know:

1) What size it should be and where to put it?
2) That clear fluid is required to fill the eye?
3) What pressure to keep the fluid so the eye will stay inflated and not become damaged (too much pressure stops blood flow, to little and the eye shrinks)?
4) What angle to make the lens that would have to match the size of the eye?
5) How to focus that lens?
6) That the image would have to be upside down and the vision center of the brain would have to correct that?
7) That each eyeball would have to follow the other when the person looks to the left or right, up or down?
8. That a blood vessel needs to be in part of the vision center area to filter out UV rays?
9) That rods and cons are needed to see in the day and night?
10) That vision has to be processed in milliseconds. Example: If it took just 3 seconds to process what you see, then you could not hit a baseball. You could not drive a car because if one pulled out in front of you and you did not see it until 3 seconds later. You already hit it.
etc…

  • The human heart… The human is not only by design, but because it is essential for life it has to be in working order when it supposedly evolved. No chance for trial and error until it evolves correctly. Here is a list of a few things that has to be exactly right or the life dies.

1) The muscle of the heart has to be a type that never grows tired. So it’s different from every other muscle in the body. If this type of muscle was not used in the supposed first evolution attempt offspring would die in less than 24 hour. And no genes of what was needed next would be passed on to correct this.
2) The heart valves have to be in place to keep blood flowing in one direction.
3) The heart valves have to be made just so, so that the opening and closing section of it does not damage blood cells. If not this will cause the body to send blood clots out which are deadly because they cause everything from strokes to organ damage by cutting off blood flow. So the heart valve has to be right the first time, or death will occur.
4) The heart rhythm has to be just right as well. Wrong rhythm and the heart will not pump enough blood for the life to survive. Wrong rhythms can also cause extreme high or low blood pressure which is deadly as well.
5) The speed has to be variable that responds to the body’s need for oxygen.
6) In order for the tireless muscle to work for the heart, a balance is needed in the body of:  Potassium, calcium, magnesium, CoQ10 enzyme, and adequate blood supply for oxygen. If any one of these things are off, irregular heart beat and heart damage can occur and death can be the result.
etc…

  • The origins of life. Abiogenesis is implied to have proven that life was created from dead matter. No life has ever been created from dead matter. This one problem in itself disproves evolution because it disproves that life arose naturally then evolved. If life cannot happen naturally, then a Godless evolution cannot happen either. Why is that important? Evolution is solely based on non-intelligent Godless creation of life from dead matter. So when life cannot be proven to have arisen any other way than a God filled creation, then by default evolution is proven wrong.
  • The blood brain barrier (BBB). The BBB filters out almost all harmful chemicals that can do damage to the brain. Without the BBB the brain could not develop and would be damage. Intelligence for survival would be impossible with a damaged brain therefore life would die. So the BBB would have to be fully functional the first time or life dies.
  • The pancreas. The pancreas puts out insulin which is very important for survival. But, to much and life dies, to little and life dies. Anyone with diabetes knows this very well because they have to deal with regulating what their pancreas cannot.

There are also support mechanism of evolution that have problems. Such as what they claim takes millions of years yet in recent years has been proven wrong. More of the selling of time that evolution requires in order not to put evolution into question. More of what evolutionist won’t tell you so that you will believe.

  • Oil takes millions of years to form, or does it?
  • Coal takes millions of years to form, or does it?
  • Blood, tissue and DNA will not last millions of years, or did a million years pass?

More to come….

How to debate a evolutionist part one.

This will be a compiling of many hours, and several years of debating evolutionists online and running 3 forums on the subject. If the creationist is going to be any good at representing God and His creation, then he will have to learn the evolutionists tactics, and mindset in order to be effective in debating. And when evolutionists act bad during a debate it actually reveals more than what is realized.

  • Name calling: Name calling usually happens when the evolutionist actually has no more science to present and therefore needs to stereotype or destroy the creationist’s credibility (AKA attacking the messenger). If the creationist credibility is not intact, then what they say won’t have much bearing.  This is because the evolutionist can never be wrong, so to cover for his or her inability to continue on the same level of debate, they resort to these tactics. Because why else do these things if their science can still defend their theory? So name calling is actually a good thing, because it shows that you just out debated the evolutionist and that is all he or she had left to defend their beloved theory. Pointing that out takes the power of name calling away from them.
  • Name calling up front: When the evolutionist starts with the name calling up front in the debate, then you are wasting your time. This upfront name calling is an indication that the debate will be based more on their hatred for you for what you believe more than anything concerning evolution or creation. In this type of situation it is best to just bow out of the debate. This is because it will start out bad and only get worse. The goal of the evolutionist in a debate like this is to get you to react unchristian like then hold that against you and never let you forget. Even up to posting what you said or did on several blogs and websites. That is why it’s best to bow out because they will control the debate with this tactic and you will never get a word in edgewise and the thread will become derailed.
  • Stereotyping: Stereotyping such as saying you are a flat earther etc… Is just another tactic that shows the evolutionists weaknesses. To get mad at stereotyping or name calling is to give the control of the debate to them. To point out that this is not science and that you are disappointed that this is the best they can do gives you the control of the debate. Losing your cool to act unChrist like is never an option. Either you, as a believer in Christ, enter into the debate with the intent of being a good representation of Christ, or to what point do you debate?
  • Carrying it to far: If you find it easy to push the buttons of the evolutionist you are debating, and they just get more mad with each post (which can be funny sometimes). It’s best to apologize and just bow out. This is because quite a few evolutionist have huge egos that if bruised they will hold a grudge. One that can lead to internet stalking. Now you might think that the laws that exist will protect you. But that is not the case. And if you do bring someone to court, you pay the fees that can exceed 100,000 dollars. And if you lose they can sue you for defamation of character and use the case you lost as evidence costing you even more money. And if they live in another country, you might as well forget it. International court system cost twice as much, and the laws that govern it are different.
  • Defusing the question instead of answering the question: Defusing the question is not the same as answering it. Instead the evolutionist will try and make your question sound unimportant. Saying things like: That does not matter. Or that’s not a problem for evolution. What you need to do at this point is make your next post only on what does not matter, or what’s not a problem and ask why do they use a cop out excuse instead of not scientifically answering the question? At this point you can watch them squirm to answer you.
  • Never take pride in what you believe: No debate on any forum is going to change the whole world’s view. Your debate is just a speck that can reach a few people for Christ (like a small ministry). Taking pride in it makes you react badly and will put what you say on the same level as the evolutionists you debate. And your pride will set a bad example of the God you represent. It is okay to get frustrated and make your debate opponent answer your questions. It is not okay to take out that frustration through words that would be the will of the flesh. If you cannot control it, back out. There is no shame where there is no pride.

Here are some other things you need to know about debating evolutionists:

  • Because they usually belong to a group of evolutionists who debate creationists YECH (young earth creationist haters). They will take everything you post that they cannot answer and have their friends help them answer it by posting what you say on one of their forums to be dissected. You are basically debating 5-10 evolutionists at one time even though you will never see them. This is usually the reason why their answers always look good. Up to ten people helping them can make things look that way. But then again it also shows that it takes that many evolutionists to debate one creationist. Ironic.
  • They like to take the words micro and macro and say or imply they are exactly the same thing. The reason this is done is because micro-evolution is observable. Macro-evolution is not. So to make macro sound like it’s proven and observable they will say it’s the same thing. Things like: Micro to infinity = macro. Or given enough time anything can happen.
  • The “time excuse” is their form of the “God did it” excuse they often complain about when we say: God did it. The time excuse is used when things are not observable. Time excuse is also used as a board type answer to imply that time answers everything concerning evolution. Their famous phrase: Given enough time evolution can change anything into anything.
  • They love to join Christian forums under false world views. Claiming “agnostic” or “theistic evolutionist” allows them to play both sides. But you can always tell which side they are on because when they are cornered, evolution will always be their choice.
  • There are those who love to evangelize for evolution (convert to their belief). You can always tell who these people are because they will find someone who is not sure about creation, and they will try to befriend them and then convert them. Science needs conversion? They will defend evolution as if they were preaching it. In others words, almost all of their posts will sound like a sells pitch for evolution.
  • Evolutionists like to imply absolutes where absolutes don’t exist by saying things like: Evolution is a true proven fact with mountains of empirical evidence. Exalting a theory to a level without providing all the evidence to the claim is an unfounded remark. Just start saying prove it, which is a big order, and they will quit.
  • They love to play cloak and dagger games. They will use different user names at every forum they debate on because they don’t want the creationist to be able to Google their user name and be able to find out who they really are at their own forums, and that they are militant atheists (atheists whose goal is to rid the world of Christians). As long as they can use that deception and hide in the shadows, they will role play worldviews to see which one gives them the best angle to promote their agenda. This is also why they have user names that are not even a word in most cases. That’s so when they are Googled, it goes to a dead-end.
  • They often will try to make your evidence live up to standards that they cannot make theirs do. Two standards that are needed to learn the definitions of are: Scientific method. Empirical evidence. And make sure that you learn them from credible sites. Once done you will find that these two things cannot be met on several levels by evolutionists who defend their beloved theory.
  • Peer Reviews. This is a favorite that the evolutionist like to hit a creationist over the head with constantly. The fact of the matter is, the only peer review paper they will accept is one done by another evolutionist who thinks like they do. That’s like going to a court where the judge has been bought off to rule against you. From their end it would be like doi
    ng a paper that has to be peer-reviewed by creationists. How would they feel? Would they think they will get a fair shake? No more than a creationist should from getting peer from an evolutionist. What this basically boils down to is bias. They know a evolutionist will “never” approve a creationist paper as to the main reason they will bring this up.
  • The common ancestor idea. When you say that they claim that we evolved from chimps, they will deny this and say that we share a common ancestor. The object of doing this is to get the creationist to quit beating their dead horse. The idea of man coming from chimps has had so many holes shot in it, they don’t want to deal with it anymore. So if they can get you to agree to “common ancestor” idea they get you to quit pointing out their mistake. And by the way, what do they keep comparing our DNA to? Chimps right? Ironic isn’t it.
  • Evolutionists like to only answer the parts of your post that they can. They will skip the rest in hopes you won’t notice. There are 2 ways to counter this. 1) Keep pointing this out until they address them. 2) Start doing the same thing until they point it out and just say: That’s the way you were debating. And of course they will say: Where did I do that? And you show them. To make things easier it’s best to make the list of what they skip as you go on your pc. Then you can just copy and paste.
  • Reversing the burden of proof. When you ask them for evidence as to show proof, they will often twist the question back in your direction and make it sound as if the burden of proof is upon you. Don’t let the evolutionist do this. Just point out that when they meet your criteria you will meet theirs and that you asked first.

What I find ironic about all this is that there has to be so much deception to prove what is deemed to have been already proven.

Evolution, problems with first life.

Evolution is about conditions that pressure changes, or what can be referred to as life adapting to it’s surroundings. This poses a problem for the first life that forms. The first life that forms is not inheriting any traits from a previous life. Therefore there is not anything to inherit from adapting. Which brings up the question of how the first life was able to form to live, and survive in it’s environment? It’s like saying that it just poofed itself into being ready to take on whatever came it’s way.

1) First life has has to be able to survive in it’s surroundings.
2) It has to be able to ingest food.
3) It has to be able to process the food it ingests.

Saying that the first life just adapts is like saying you could give your pets sulfuric acid for water and they will just adapt. Unless a process mechanism can be identified as to how the first life formed suited to survive, then the only alternative is creation.