Me Versus The Evolutionist
December 10, 2022
Scenario 1
Me: "Yeah, I accept that the world was created by God in six days, like the Bible -- an intelligent historical record from the One who actually witnessed the world being created -- says."
Him: "You stupid cretinous idiot! You JUST BELIEVE what some old book says!?! It's just a stupid old story!"
Scenario 2
Him: "Hey, did you know that a meteorite 60 million years ago killed 'the dinosaurs' and that we are descendants of monkeys and amphibians and bacteria and that the fact that humans have a tailbone proves that 'we' once had tails? Pretty cool, right?"
Me: "You stupid cretinous idiot! You just believe what some ignorant storytellers imagine in their minds and think it's not only 'Science' but also 'truth'!?! How is that possibly any better than an intelligent historical record revealed from God, the actual Creator of the world!?!"
Him: "Uhmmmm, it's SCIENCE!"
Me: "How is that science??? Science requires repeatability and experimentation! Do you even know what the scientific method is??"
Him: "Well, I don't know but The Scientists do know, and how could so many people be wrong??"
Me: "And for that matter, at least I actually can tell you exactly why I trust the intelligent historical record of the Bible, but you seem to have no idea why any of those claims you made are 'true'! You just BELIEVE THEM!.. Fine! Prove to me that 'we' evolved from primates."
Him: "Ok, I will!... Well, we're similar to primates and a bunch of people -- Scientists -- said it, and, oh I don't know the reasons and don't have a clue why it's true, but there's JUST SO MANY PIECES OF EVIDENCE!"
Me: "Well, the evidence you provided was a joke! Two things being similar has no bearing on whether or not one 'came from' the other; that's called a non-sequitur -- specifically the 'affirming the consequent' logical fallacy -- another explanation is that God created primates and men to be similar. And your other claim, that whatever a group of people believes, if they call themselves Scientists, must be true, commits the 'appeal to authority' logical fallacy -- even a trillion people can all be wrong! If all your "SO MANY PIECES OF EVIDENCE' are that baseless, than it's just a house of cards!"
Him: "Well, there's just SO MUCH MORE EVIDENCE that it's true, though!"
Me: "Like what?"
Him: "I'll just say one more thing:.. THE FOSSIL RECORD!"
Me: "What about it? Also calling it a 'record' uses the 'begging the question' logical fallacy -- you are calling this heap of dead creatures a 'record,' when it's just a manipulated story -- suffering confirmation bias and cherry picking, as well as 'ad-hoc' explanations for any findings which falsify evolution -- that only the priests who curate the information the public hears have access to realistically (and hence is just worthless hearsay, especially since the researchers who claim it 'proves' evolution have a pre-existing bias and story in mind when they look for the 'proof'), and which also still wouldn't prove evolution, as the order of bones and carcasses in the ground tells nothing about the origin of the creatures (specially when there was a Great Flood which stirred up the whole world) and one can make up just about any story to equally explain the order (which also isn't always consistent) of creatures buried, showing that it's not proof, only a plausible explanation, which is neither science nor truth. If the rest of all this 'tons of evidence' is equally as fallacious, the whole story is really just a worthless religion made up by Freemasons (such as Charles Darwin) and those with an agenda, and which is bolstered by ignorant fools and those who already believe the story to be true, so all information to them is already seen in the lens of 'evolution,' meaning it's not actually objective and unbiased truth, but subjective and worthless myth."
Him: "You just don't 'get it.' You're not a scientist!"
Me: "Well, apparently I understand your own story much better than you do... And I assume by 'scientist' you are only referring to scientists who believe in your evolution story? Although, being that the scientific method can only be used to form an explanation for a repeatable event -- and your evolution story is not repeatable -- they don't even qualify as real SCIEN-tists."
Him: "How dare you assume that you're smarter than The Scientists!? And nearly all scientists accept evolution, so The Science isn't as divided on this subject as you're making it out to be.."
Me: "So what if even all the 'scientists' -- I've already established that it's not real science -- in the world agree on one thing? Refer back to the appeal to authority fallacy, and also to the 'argumentum ad populum' fallacy, which is where something is claimed to be true because either most or all people believe in it; and that's what you're doing here, saying that because most 'scientists' -- and members of the same 'scientific establishment' will obviously mostly agree on the same central tenets, in this case of evolution -- agree that the 'theory' of evolution is true, it must be true."