How can i answer this question to an atheist??

[ckim121]

I'm currently debating with an atheist in another forum and he has hit me with stuff on evolution that I just can't answer. I was hoping that somebody in here can please explain on how I can refute him.

Here is what he first said:
Those are silly arguments. So you believe in a god because you don't have all of the answers? Not knowing how something works doesn't mean a mystical man created it. Missing link? You don't understand evolution. What, you want to see a human that walked slightly hunched over? It doesn't work that way. It's punctuated by smaller changes that group together for larger changes. That's basic science at this point. We've taken chicken embryos and made single gene changes in them that have had a HUGE impact on the physical features of the creature. They grow a tail, a beak is replaced by a mouth, lose feathers, etc, all with a single gene mutation. Just because YOU don't understand genetics, dna, biology, it doesn't mean there is a creator.

Here is what I said:
Present to us a single transitional fossil and I will believe in this thing that you call evolution.

-From the mouth of Charles Darwin himself regarding transitional fossils. "The most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory..."

And here is his final reply to me:
Did you not read what I wrote, or are you just ignoring it? There is no need for transitional fossils as explained in detail in my above posts. You aren't going to have fish with half a leg and half a flipper. It wouldn't have what it needs to survive or become sexually successful at reproducing. beyond that, if you understand the process of fossilization, you would understand the EXTREME rarity of such a fossil being preserved. It's a one in a million shot that something dies and ends up in the exact circumstances required for fossilization. Beyond that, read my post above about the impact we have WITNESSED from SINGLE gene mutations.


Thanks!

 

[pgp_protector]

Find Evidence to disprove what they are saying.

EDIT:
The Best way to combat misinformation would be to present them with factual information.

 

[gluadys]

I'm currently debating with an atheist in another forum and he has hit me with stuff on evolution that I just can't answer. I was hoping that somebody in here can please explain on how I can refute him.

Here is what he first said:
Those are silly arguments. So you believe in a god because you don't have all of the answers? Not knowing how something works doesn't mean a mystical man created it. Missing link? You don't understand evolution. What, you want to see a human that walked slightly hunched over? It doesn't work that way. It's punctuated by smaller changes that group together for larger changes. That's basic science at this point. We've taken chicken embryos and made single gene changes in them that have had a HUGE impact on the physical features of the creature. They grow a tail, a beak is replaced by a mouth, lose feathers, etc, all with a single gene mutation. Just because YOU don't understand genetics, dna, biology, it doesn't mean there is a creator.

Here is what I said:
Present to us a single transitional fossil and I will believe in this thing that you call evolution.

-From the mouth of Charles Darwin himself regarding transitional fossils. "The most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory..."

And here is his final reply to me:
Did you not read what I wrote, or are you just ignoring it? There is no need for transitional fossils as explained in detail in my above posts. You aren't going to have fish with half a leg and half a flipper. It wouldn't have what it needs to survive or become sexually successful at reproducing. beyond that, if you understand the process of fossilization, you would understand the EXTREME rarity of such a fossil being preserved. It's a one in a million shot that something dies and ends up in the exact circumstances required for fossilization. Beyond that, read my post above about the impact we have WITNESSED from SINGLE gene mutations.


Thanks!

Don't worry about debating evolution. He can probably run rings around you even if you learn enough not to make foolish statements about transitional fossils.

But challenge him on atheism. Challenge him to show that evolution means you must be an atheist.

It doesn't, of course. So go with your strength, not your weakness.

 

[juvenissun]

I'm currently debating with an atheist in another forum and he has hit me with stuff on evolution that I just can't answer. I was hoping that somebody in here can please explain on how I can refute him.

Here is what he first said:
Those are silly arguments. So you believe in a god because you don't have all of the answers? Not knowing how something works doesn't mean a mystical man created it. Missing link? You don't understand evolution. What, you want to see a human that walked slightly hunched over? It doesn't work that way. It's punctuated by smaller changes that group together for larger changes. That's basic science at this point. We've taken chicken embryos and made single gene changes in them that have had a HUGE impact on the physical features of the creature. They grow a tail, a beak is replaced by a mouth, lose feathers, etc, all with a single gene mutation. Just because YOU don't understand genetics, dna, biology, it doesn't mean there is a creator.

Here is what I said:
Present to us a single transitional fossil and I will believe in this thing that you call evolution.

-From the mouth of Charles Darwin himself regarding transitional fossils. "The most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory..."

And here is his final reply to me:
Did you not read what I wrote, or are you just ignoring it? There is no need for transitional fossils as explained in detail in my above posts. You aren't going to have fish with half a leg and half a flipper. It wouldn't have what it needs to survive or become sexually successful at reproducing. beyond that, if you understand the process of fossilization, you would understand the EXTREME rarity of such a fossil being preserved. It's a one in a million shot that something dies and ends up in the exact circumstances required for fossilization. Beyond that, read my post above about the impact we have WITNESSED from SINGLE gene mutations.


Thanks!

If you have to argue based on knowledge, then do not argue on what he knows, but on what you know.

You may take offense instead of defense on what you don't know much. It is hard to answer questions in science. For example, you may ask why this and why that, or should it be this or should it be that, in respond to his final reply. It is not hard to do that.

You may pray and try to argue based on wisdom. If so, his knowledge would become useless.

At last, do not expect to win the argument. The purpose of arguing is to educate yourself.

 

[mark kennedy]

I'm currently debating with an atheist in another forum and he has hit me with stuff on evolution that I just can't answer. I was hoping that somebody in here can please explain on how I can refute him.

First of all he already has the evidence that God exists and knows what God is like to some extent:

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse. Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. (Romans 1:19-21)​

Here is what he first said:
Those are silly arguments. So you believe in a god because you don't have all of the answers?

Neither does he.

Not knowing how something works doesn't mean a mystical man created it.

Assuming that God did not act in time and space isn't an answer either.

Missing link? You don't understand evolution.

Here you are confronted with two assumptions and neither of them are scientific. One is universal common descent and the other is that if you don't make the assumption that life evolved from purely naturalistic causes then you are not thinking scientifically.

The scientific definition for evolution is the change of alleles in populations over time. Ask him for the scientific definition of evolution and then start discussing the detailed specifics of how, for example, a bacteria grows a nucleus to house the DNA and finally to develop into animalia cells.

Trust me when I tell you, he does not have an answer.

What, you want to see a human that walked slightly hunched over? It doesn't work that way. It's punctuated by smaller changes that group together for larger changes.

Nonsense, ask him what the molecular mechanisms were that caused the human brain to triple in size 2 million years ago. If he says random mutations he is wrong.

That's basic science at this point.

Make him define science, it literally means 'knowledge'. I he does not know that then you have him beat.

We've taken chicken embryos and made single gene changes in them that have had a HUGE impact on the physical features of the creature.

First ask him for the published results and then ask him why his name is not on it. Now in the event that his name does appear in the paper ask him what knocks out genes have to do with major transitions from simple cells to more complex.

He really should be reminded that he does not have the answers he thinks he does.

They grow a tail, a beak is replaced by a mouth, lose feathers, etc, all with a single gene mutation. Just because YOU don't understand genetics, dna, biology, it doesn't mean there is a creator.

Genetics is forever finding out how much we don't know about how things work. It doesn't mean there is not a creator either.

Here is what I said:
Present to us a single transitional fossil and I will believe in this thing that you call evolution.

-From the mouth of Charles Darwin himself regarding transitional fossils. "The most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory..."

Darwin proposed that if it were impossible for an organ to evolve from precursors then his theory would break down. My answer to that is the human brain. Feel free to PM me if you need the specifics.

And here is his final reply to me:
Did you not read what I wrote, or are you just ignoring it? There is no need for transitional fossils as explained in detail in my above posts. You aren't going to have fish with half a leg and half a flipper. It wouldn't have what it needs to survive or become sexually successful at reproducing. beyond that, if you understand the process of fossilization, you would understand the EXTREME rarity of such a fossil being preserved. It's a one in a million shot that something dies and ends up in the exact circumstances required for fossilization. Beyond that, read my post above about the impact we have WITNESSED from SINGLE gene mutations.

EXACTLY! A single gene knock out does not translate into the sweeping assumptions they are making.

Thanks!

Emphasis that last point and he will start talking in circles. It's called inductive reasoning where you make a general conclusion about a large set based on things observed in a subset. In other words he is jumping to conclusions.

You don't need any help with this, you have the right idea. You just have to nail this guy down on some specifics.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Is he pressing you, or you him? If he is pressing you, flee. If you are pressing him, stop (then flee).

owg

 

[The Barbarian]

Here is what I said:
Present to us a single transitional fossil and I will believe in this thing that you call evolution.

You've let him do a little bait-and-switch on you. He can't disprove God, so he wants you to think that if he disproves creationism, God is also false.

It's a highly successful ploy by atheists. Don't let him do that.

This is precisely why the false doctrine of creationism does so much damage to our faith. It does exactly what atheists want it to do.

 

[juvenissun]

You've let him do a little bait-and-switch on you. He can't disprove God, so he wants you to think that if he disproves creationism, God is also false.

It's a highly successful ploy by atheists. Don't let him do that.

This is precisely why the false doctrine of creationism does so much damage to our faith. It does exactly what atheists want it to do.

Hey, you do not compromise evil with less evil. Once you admitted evolution, atheist wins, no matter you are TE or not.

 

[gluadys]

Once you admitted evolution, atheist wins, no matter you are TE or not.

If that is what you believe, you have already let the atheist win. You have agreed that science can disprove God.

 

[juvenissun]

If that is what you believe, you have already let the atheist win. You have agreed that science can disprove God.

I am not thinking much at this time. But this seems to be one of the best argument I ever see. I think my argument was bad.

 

[Biblewriter]

I'm currently debating with an atheist in another forum and he has hit me with stuff on evolution that I just can't answer. I was hoping that somebody in here can please explain on how I can refute him.

Here is what he first said:
Those are silly arguments. So you believe in a god because you don't have all of the answers? Not knowing how something works doesn't mean a mystical man created it. Missing link? You don't understand evolution. What, you want to see a human that walked slightly hunched over? It doesn't work that way. It's punctuated by smaller changes that group together for larger changes. That's basic science at this point. We've taken chicken embryos and made single gene changes in them that have had a HUGE impact on the physical features of the creature. They grow a tail, a beak is replaced by a mouth, lose feathers, etc, all with a single gene mutation. Just because YOU don't understand genetics, dna, biology, it doesn't mean there is a creator.

This is fiction. A small genetic change cannot produce such things. They can only happen with drastic changes in the genetic sequence.

Here is what I said:

Present to us a single transitional fossil and I will believe in this thing that you call evolution.

-From the mouth of Charles Darwin himself regarding transitional fossils. "The most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory..."

And here is his final reply to me:
Did you not read what I wrote, or are you just ignoring it? There is no need for transitional fossils as explained in detail in my above posts. You aren't going to have fish with half a leg and half a flipper. It wouldn't have what it needs to survive or become sexually successful at reproducing. beyond that, if you understand the process of fossilization, you would understand the EXTREME rarity of such a fossil being preserved. It's a one in a million shot that something dies and ends up in the exact circumstances required for fossilization. Beyond that, read my post above about the impact we have WITNESSED from SINGLE gene mutations.


Thanks!

If fossilization is a one in a million chance, then there should be billions of fossils of transitional forms. But there are not.

But I agree that you should argue on your turf, not on his. Stick to what you know. Point out what you know he does not know.

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

Why are you bothering talking to an athiest evolutionist? All you'll get is the usual smug, patronising, 'holyer than thou' like the evolutionists on this thread, saying you can't argue with their superior science.. let them get on with their delusion; that's what makes them happy.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Or you could just ask him if he understands what the gospel is, and has indeed rejected the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. If he affirms this you need to be very careful of this person.

owg

 

[daydreamergurl15]

I'm currently debating with an atheist in another forum and he has hit me with stuff on evolution that I just can't answer. I was hoping that somebody in here can please explain on how I can refute him.

Here is what he first said:
Those are silly arguments. So you believe in a god because you don't have all of the answers? Not knowing how something works doesn't mean a mystical man created it. Missing link? You don't understand evolution. What, you want to see a human that walked slightly hunched over? It doesn't work that way. It's punctuated by smaller changes that group together for larger changes. That's basic science at this point. We've taken chicken embryos and made single gene changes in them that have had a HUGE impact on the physical features of the creature. They grow a tail, a beak is replaced by a mouth, lose feathers, etc, all with a single gene mutation. Just because YOU don't understand genetics, dna, biology, it doesn't mean there is a creator.

Here is what I said:
Present to us a single transitional fossil and I will believe in this thing that you call evolution.

-From the mouth of Charles Darwin himself regarding transitional fossils. "The most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory..."

And here is his final reply to me:
Did you not read what I wrote, or are you just ignoring it? There is no need for transitional fossils as explained in detail in my above posts. You aren't going to have fish with half a leg and half a flipper. It wouldn't have what it needs to survive or become sexually successful at reproducing. beyond that, if you understand the process of fossilization, you would understand the EXTREME rarity of such a fossil being preserved. It's a one in a million shot that something dies and ends up in the exact circumstances required for fossilization. Beyond that, read my post above about the impact we have WITNESSED from SINGLE gene mutations.


Thanks!

Did you spot the contradiction in his story:
"What, you want to see a human that walked slightly hunched over? It doesn't work that way. It's punctuated by smaller changes that group together for larger changes. That's basic science at this point."
Then he said
"They grow a tail, a beak is replaced by a mouth, lose feathers, etc, all with a single gene mutation."

It is not true that only a single gene mutation is needed from losing a break to gaining a mouth. Most animals (I'm thinking birds at this point) that have beaks don't have a noise or teeth so therefore their sense of smell might be different or non at all. If one is to go from beak to mouth, not only does a gene mutation is needed (and only if the mutation gene give rise to a mouth) there is also a need for the structural part of the brain that is attributed to smell (that is another mutation need). But not only that, but the anatomy and physiology of a break is different from the anatomy and physiology of mouth and noise, so there also need to be another mutation (and only if the genes can give rise to that mutation). But that's not even it, there are many more structures that need to rise in order to support a species that went from a break to a mouth.

And as for the claim that science have taken a chicken embryo and with one single gene mutation it grew a tail, a beak is replaced by a mouth, lose feathers, I would simply ask him to give you the scientific information about that. I never heard of it, and I would like to see and read the research.

 

[KWCrazy]

So you believe in a god because you don't have all of the answers?

Actually, I believe in God because I've learned the answers.

You don't understand evolution.

ALL evo's say, "You don't understand evolution." They will also say that you don't understand the laws of thermodynamics. If you quote a science text they will laugh and say that's not what it is, and then quote another science text which says almost the exact same thing. Understand, most evos do NOT understand science. They simply regurgitate what they read on Talkorigins.com.

It doesn't work that way. It's punctuated by smaller changes that group together for larger changes. That's basic science at this point.

What basic science tells us is that adaptation is a conservative process whereby advantageous characteristics are accentuated and deleterious characteristics are extinguished. Since repeated subtraction does not equal addition, smaller changes grouped together can only result in a more simple life form, not a more complex one.

We've taken chicken embryos and made single gene changes in them that have had a HUGE impact on the physical features of the creature.

Genetic engineering in a lab does not equal natural advancement of a species. There is NO process in science that causes genetic information to magically appear from nothing. There are NO examples in science of species becoming more complex. Evos will point to the nylon eating bacterium, as if a change of diet represents a major advancement for a simple life form that was designed to eat what was available.

Just because YOU don't understand genetics, dna, biology, it doesn't mean there is a creator.

Just because THEY don't understand genetics, it doesn't mean that it is so.

There is no need for transitional fossils as explained in detail in my above posts.

Translation: I can't explain why there are no transitional fossils. The fossil record records life forms that all existed, but that show no sign of transition. Scientists arrange them into a pattern to show transition, but the only true science involved with the fossil record is that A looks more complex than B, so therefore, B came from A.

You aren't going to have fish with half a leg and half a flipper. It wouldn't have what it needs to survive or become sexually successful at reproducing.

Therefore, a fish would never evolve legs. He makes a point point at debunking his own religion.

It's a one in a million shot that something dies and ends up in the exact circumstances required for fossilization.

Which is about a hundred trillion times better than base pairs of proteins combining to produce even the simplest of life forms.

 

[KWCrazy]

And as for the claim that science have taken a chicken embryo and with one single gene mutation it grew a tail, a beak is replaced by a mouth, lose feathers, I would simply ask him to give you the scientific information about that. I never heard of it, and I would like to see and read the research.

<staff edit> The history of evolution is repleat with frauds, some of which are still be offered as proof DECADES after being exposed. Understand that evolution is nothing less than a false religion, designed to lead people astray.

 

[Jublo]

<staff edit>

what a biggoted pile of gibbrish. evolution is no more of a religion than gravity.

 

[KWCrazy]

what a biggoted pile of gibbrish. evolution is no more of a religion than gravity.

Somewhere in evo school they must teach people to compare the LAW of gravity with the scientifically unsound THEORY of evolution, because I've seen the same thoughtless response a hundred times before.

Evolution has never been proved. There are no processes in biology, probablilty, logic or physics to support it. While the ignorant may think that the auto-origination of life and of matter is possible, the most learned admit that it is beyond the explanations of science. It is tautology, not science. It is faith in the impossible. It is religion.

 

[cmotdibbler]

Newton's "Law" of Gravity is accurate describing the mechanics of macro-sized objects, it breaks down when dealing with very fast (speed of light) or very small (atom and smaller) objects. That is why some of Einstein's work was important. We learned this in "evo" school at the middle school level. As far as the "unsound" theory of evolution, please provide a list of references. Surely you know that the scientist who can overturn this would be considered a scientific immortal. I'm a molecular biologist and do not know of a single professional biologist (and I've met hundreds) who doesn't accept as fact that gene allele frequencies change over time .... which to the layman is evolution by natural selection.

 

[MostRadicalManEver]

Notice that he said “We've taken chicken embryos and made single gene changes in them that have had a HUGE impact on the physical features of the creature.” This screams that intelligence improves things and not chance. Chance decays things. You can blow up a print factory 1 trillion times and never get the Webster’s third edition dictionary to land in your lap. You will always get rubbish!

The fossil record is a good argument. There is no evidence in the fossil record, and punctuated evolution is like a bicycle turning into a motorcycle overnight. It won’t happen. The parts aren’t there.

You could also bring up all the hoaxes such as:

Piltdown Man
Nebraska Man: A Single Pig Tooth
Ota Benga: The African Native Put Into a Cage
(google it – I can’t post links yet!)

Plus if evolution is so great, then why don’t we see positive mutations everywhere? If I see a mutation, it is always a detriment and not an improvement. Plus the gene pool corrects itself in next generation. The mutation never repeats itself. I have never seen it, have you?

I am glad you are sharpening your sword, but you may want to fish in better waters my friend! Actually landing fish is a lot better than playing with them!

Jesus said Make Disciples! Can you disciple an atheist?

However, I have been working on an atheist for nine years now. He is actually starting to come around, I think, but his pride is preventing him. Atheists want to be right at the expense of their soul.

Jesus Rules!