Conversations between creationists and evolutionists.

Although these conversations are not exact quotes they are very typical of the types of discussions I have had with evolutionists.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Scenario One


The creationist says “A key question in evolutionism vs creationism is does microevolution demonstrate macroevolution?”

Evolutionist responses, “There is no difference between micro and macro evolution.”

Creationists responses, “OK show me one observable example of macroevolution.”

Evolutionist responses, “See it is right here.” and he shows an example of microevolution”

The Creationist says, “No that is microevolution. The Bible teaches microevolution. It says all things reproduce after their kind.”

The evolutionist says, “Macroevolution happens too slowly to see in present time.”

The Creationist says, “So you just accept by blind faith that macroevolution is happening even though you can not see in in real time?”

The evolutionist says, “absolutely not! I just showed you!” and he point to his previous examples and says, “Stupid creationist”
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Scenario Two

The creationist says, “Change within created kinds of family/genus is taught in the Bible. It does not require any additional information but represents a reduction is information. For example theoretically you can breed down from a wolf to a poodle. However, you cannot breed back up from a poodle to a wolf because you had to breed out information to get to the poodle. The problem is how do you get the additional information for a change across genus?”

The evolutionists says, “Mutations within DNA develop over time to develop new genus.”

The creationists says, “We do not see mutations that are positive can you give me an example?”

The evolutionists says, “We see fish that live in caves without eventually go blind.”

The creationist says, “That is not an example of additional information it represents a loss of information. We are looking for a gain of information”

The evolutionist says, “We can demonstrate that when a drug is introduced often some bacteria switch on a gene that makes them resistant to the drug. The drug resistant bacteria thrive while the bacteria without the resistance die out.”

The creationist says, “Switching on a gene that was already on is not adding any new information. Also when the drug is removed the original bacteria without the gene switched on thrive and the drug resistant bacteria die out. This shows that the fitness cost of the drug resistant bacteria is not a positive thing as well as not representing any new information.”

The evolutionist says, “We can clearly make real world change in the genetic information. We have actually breed fruit flies with four wings. That is a set of wings that were not there before.”

The creationist says, “Granted but the genetic information fro the wings is not new information. In addition to that the addition set of wings have not muscles so the fruit fly is unable to fly. It can not survive outside of the laboratory. So it does not add any additional information and it not a positive mutation.”

The evolutionist say, “OK but it does show that mutations can take place.”

The creationist say, “That is not the question the question was where does the addition information come from? You indicated it came from positive mutations. You gave an example of switching on genes that were already there followed by an example of negative mutation. We are looking for observable real time examples.”

The evolutionists says, “I gave you real world example of changes. The process of evolution uses these changes over a long period of ;time they are subtle so you cannot see them in the immediate.”

The Creationist says, “So you just accept by blind faith that positive mutations somehow actually age information that was not there to began with even though you can not see in in real time?”

The evolutionist says, “absolutely not! I just showed you!” and he points to his previous examples and says, “Stupid creationists”
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Scenario Three

The creationists says, “There are not two sets of evidence both the creationists and the evolutionists are looking at the very same evidence. The issue is the bias by which the evidence is interpreted. Creationists start with the Bible. That does not mean the Bible is accepted on blind faith. The Bible teaches that faith is not to be blind. Biblical faith is based substance and evidence. The evolutionists start with naturalism, materialism, humanism and relativism. Usually they do not even examine the evidence for or against their belief system.”

The evolutionist says, “What a confused bunch of poppycock. Evolution is based on science. Science is by its very nature non-bias, objective, and neutral. The evidence speaks for itself. That is not a belief system.”

The creationist says, “The evidence does not speak at all. It does not have a voice. It must be interpreted by humans. Humans by their nature always interpret the world around them based on their worldview. That is how our brains work.”

The evolutionist says, “Hold on right there. You are talking like men are not capable of seeing what the evidence clearly shows.”

The creationist says, “What I am saying is that we interpret evidence based on our worldview. Nobody is neutral.”

The evolutionist says, “You are just attempting to open up the discussion so you can insert your religious propaganda. Not everybody is religious. Science is science and religion is religion. I am not a religious nut. The fact of evolution is settled. Everybody knows that.”

The creationist says, “Everybody does not include many, many scientist who are creationists.”

The evolutionist says, “No reputable scientist is a creationist”

The creationist says, “Let’s see same degrees, same schools, same fields, published in same journals. Looks to me like you are defining a reputable scientist as one who hold the same worldview as you do rather then their ability as a scientist. The scientist who invented the MRI and many other well respected scientists are creationists.”


The evolutionist says, “Well the majority of scientist are not creationists. It is obvious that the majority of scientist know that evolution is the only scientifically viable perspective.”

The creationist says, “Your saying that just because the majority of scientists think something is true it is true. Most people are not Christians, most ditch diggers, most doctors, most lawyers and indian chiefs. Consensus has never been the means of determining science.”

The evolutionists says, “You are trying to tell me that scientists have some kind of anti-religious objective. That is laughable.”

The creationist says, “The reality is as I said today naturalism, materialism, are presuppositional biases. We all interpret evidence based on our presuppositions.”

The evolutionist says, “You are talking like science is some kind of religion. Are you nuts?”

The creationist says, “Although everything we take in is interpreted by our worldview. Evidence from history is much more liable to interpretation from our world-view than laboratory science as it cannot be tested and repeated and more importantly actually observed. We see the present but not the past”

The evolutionist says, “Good grief there you go with that tired old line that their is somehow a difference between historical science and observational science in terms of it reliability. Will you creationist get a grip on the difference between your philosophical yammering and real science.”

The creationist says, “just because you deny that there is a difference between empirical evidence and evendentialism does not make the problem go away.”

The evolutionists says, “Have you never watched CSI? That is how crimes are actually solved today. Using laboratory science to solve crimes that happened in the past. You do watch TV don’’t you?”

The creationists says, “Yes CSI uses laboratory science however, that verifies things in the present. It does not constitute proof of what happen in the past. It provides evidence that can be presented in court. However, it cannot convict. For example laboratory science shows the accused DNA was at the scene of the crime. It does not prove that the accused did in fact kill the deceased. It does not show if the DNA was planted at the scene. It does not show when the DNA came to be at the scene. Those things have to be presented and then they are evaluated by a jury of twelve. However, it must be evaluated by a different means than observational science. The evidence is weighted in the jury room and the jury makes no decision, the correct decision, or the incorrect decision all based on how they interpret the evidence, the reliability of the witness and how and if the gathered evidence actually relates to the case or the conclusions of the procurator or the defense attorney. You can not empirically that is with laboratory prove someones guilt or innocence in a court room. That is why we have juries.”

The evolutionists says, “There you go attempting to create a division in science. So you admit that CSI uses laboratory evidence to discover the past. The court room is not the same as science. That is only a rouse because you do not like the conclusions of science. You are trying to insert religion into science. Religion has no place in science. You obviously have no idea what science is —Get an education.”

The creationist says, “It is the difference between evendentialism (historical science) and empirical (laboratory science) if you are using evendentialism which is what we must use if we are examining any historical event including origins. In the end the evidence from historical examination is interpreted through one’s worldview.

The evolutionist says, “There you go with the worldview stuff. Your just attempting to make real science into some kind of a religion. Your an ignorant religious nut. Stupid creationists”

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Scenario Four

The creationist says, “There have been many, many hoaxes and mistakes in the attempt to show a link between man and the primates. Many skulls and full and partial skeletons have been found. Some thought to be diseased, or deformed apes or humans, or extent species have been presented as links in a chain between primates and humans but that does not actually show that man defended for the primates. Additionally it is not just a human to primate link that is missing. If evolution were true that would be thousands of missing links in-between every change from genus to genus.

The evolutionist says, “Good grief how much more evidence do you want. It is rather conclusive. At least to any rational person. Dozens of skulls can be shown to be in a direct progression from the primate ape to the primate man. Every fossil and every bone discover is part of the chain of progression. You throwing out everything we have achieved from modern science because not all scientists are perfect and some have made mistakes.”

The creationist says, “Just because I am saying that the interpretation of evolutionists for their explanation of where we came from is wrong does not mean I am throwing out all science. The technology and advancements of science come from observational science not historical science. There is a difference between what we do in the real world laboratory and what is found in the past and interpreted through our worldview bias.”

The evolutionist says, “There you go again attempting to make some kind of imaginary division in science between the observational science and historical science. Do you not realize that everything is historical science. Now as I am looking across the room I am seeing the light bounce back to my eyes that is a minute fraction of second longer then what is actually there when that eight comes to my eye and I perceive it. We only see in history. Never in the exact present. You are attempting to set up a false division is science just so you can seek in your religious ideas.”

The creationist says, “Come on you do not actually believe that an eyes witness account from someone who was actually there is the same as evidence about the past that you can not actually duplicate or repeat.”

The evolutionist says, “I just gave you an example and see you insist on attempting to make science into some kind of philosophy. Don’t you realize that not even the majority of theologians and ministers think the way you do about genesis 1. That is not even what is taught about Genesis 1 in most seminaries. You are a fundamentalist religious nut that is a very very small minority.”


The creationist says, “You can not do good science without understanding basic epistemology. You have to understand the difference the in the means of gathering evidence and the various levels of reliability. You must see the role of interpretation in putting meaning to elements from history.”

The evolutionist says, “Do you think I don’t know science or something? I have studied both science and the sheepherder’s book you call the bible. You do know bible just actually means book? I have studied both sides and the evidence is why I am an evolutionist. You are just a brain washed religious nut. Stupid creationist.”
----------------------------------------------------------------------


Scenario Five


The creationist says, “There are many, many evidences that the earth is very young the only one that supports an old earth has some serious…”

The evolutionist says, “Hold it right there your not going to start that radiometric testing is unreliable stuff when every major text book supports it and uses it are you?”
The creationist says, “Well let’s examine that. First of all the real science in radiometric dating is that we can measure the rate that the parent element turns into the daughter element. However, in order to project that rate back to the past assumptions must be made. First that the rate has not changed. Second that the amount of original parent element and the amount of the original daughter is known. Third that there has been no contamination of the sample. None of these things are known and there are indications that they have not been consistent.”

The evolutionist says, “So you can fit in your religion you are attempting to discredit what all the text books and every reliable scientist agrees is the way to measure the dates in the past. You are being ridiculous.”

The creationist says, “Not only are the assumptions a problem but rocks which we know the date they were formed such as rocks from volcano’s which we know the date they were formed are tested and yet they test millions of years old.”

The evolutionist says, “Well of course what they were testing was not the rocks but the elements within the rocks of course they were millions of years old.

The creationist says, “You can not have it both ways. That is the way radiometric dating is used to date rocks. You can’t claim it is somehow not the method used to in dating rocks until the dates are shown to be unreliable and then you want to claim that something else is measured besides what is measured and what assumptions are made.”

The evolutionist says, “You can not just write off a tried and try and true method of dating that has been used over and over throughout the world. You creationists are all alike you want to discredit mainstream science just so you can attempt fit in you religious hype. Stupid creationists.”