Professor defends evolution and uses several fallacies
Learning how to debate an atheist often requires learning their tactics. Below I will list the tactics and provide some memes that can be used to combat them when you run into them while debating.
1) The girl mentioned what Darwin said in his book. So the professor does not like what he hears so he denies this was said. This tactic is called: Destroying the messenger in order to destroy the message so you don’t really have to address the message to the degree that they should.
2) He questions the claim that evolution is just a theory. Another atheist tactic which is called Semantics aka a Play on words. The problem with semantics using the word theory is that a theory is neither a truth or a lie. This is because with a theory nothing has to be absolute. And you cannot define what a truth is of a lie because to have either without absolutes is a oxymoron.
3) Comparing several theory that everyone can “see”, observe and can be repeated daily along with it’s effects, to another that over 99% cannot be seen due to time constraints. Example: Gravitational and germ theory. The 2 do not compare to evolution because the claims made about evolution are in the 10’s of thousands. While the other theories have less then fifty and do not have the same problem of no observation due to time constraints.
Evolution is more comparable to theories like the Big Bang, abiopgenesis etc… Which also have a lot of assuming, and a problem with no observation due to time constraints. And does not require someone defending it to use what’s known as a divine fallacy. Where you want something to be true so bad, that you;ll compare it to something that is, then claim that these 2 things are the same. This one has several fallacies that apply.
4) The evolution is a fact not a theory claim. Facts require truth. And truth requires absolutes and observational evidence where the claims made can be observed. Example: If you dig up a bone and date it. Then observe it and make claims to what it is. That;s about all there is to observe.
But when you claim that it evolved, ate certain foods, lived a certain way etc… You then make the evidence and claims a interpretation. And you can’t prove or observe a interpretation. Because if you could, the interpretation would not be needed.
5) Next he is referring to experts as if experts are infallible. That’s another fallacy. And he is using partisan sources as well.
Here is a video that demonstrates how biased atheists are. It does not matter how educated you are, the only evidence you are allowed to find is evidence that supports evolution. Not only did the guy below find creation evidence, but he got published on it and was fired for it.
6) Now he goes into a salesman rant. Where he using the argument that because the smartest and very best people in science agree and research all this, that this makes it all true. Well the question I would ask is: Are they all atheists? Of course he will say: Christians are allowed in science. Which I would respond: In the ratio of 99% compared to 1% right? And when do they get to talk about their beliefs in science, and when is this ever approved of?
6) The critical argument. LOL, I laugh every time I hear it. Oh we are so critical on ourselves. Nope, if you were critical you would have a panel of non-biased people making sure decisions were not based on the majorities worldviews of the evolutionist group which is 99% atheists. And you would also allow several ideas to run along side of evolution in competition to keep tabs on all claims.
But instead only one theory is allowed to run the race, and only one theory is allowed to win the race.
If evolution were the name of a horse in a horse race. It would be the only one allowed in the starting gates, the only one allowed to run the race, which would always insure it to be the only one allowed to win and never be beaten. And that how evolution is allowed to be top dog theory because nothing is allowed to challenge it because nothing is allowed to be researched that would ever challenge it? If you disagree, send me a message and name 10 things allowed to Challenge evolution. It should be easy if evolution were falsifiable like all theories are supposed to be< I;ll post the list on this page if any atheist can come up with it.
7) Then he goes into the human skull evolution idea. As if the skull alone explains the whole body aka how it looked and how evolved the human was aka a whole bunch of assuming. But skulls proving evolution is easily debunked. Picture below shows how.
Yep, it’s just that easy. If I dug up graves at a crematory I bet I could line up some skulls of all those humans and find some that make it look like we evolved from primate, to human. Yet they would all be human skulls but that does not matter does it?
Debating atheists is a mind and word game more than an evidence game. You have to learn how to play if you want to keep up. Learn what all the fallacies are, learn the tricks and tactics. Learn how to expose and combat extreme biases.