Conversation with an evolutionist

Me Original: "As the evidence against evolution piles on, evolutionists keep changing their theory."

Chris: Exactly. And this is how science works. New evidence shows up, the theory is changed to fit it. As time goes by, the theory evolves (haha!) and can be more and more trusted as fact.

Me Rebuttal: Ok, first I cannot believe you would parade that around as something to be proud of. In fact to say, that since your theory is constantly proved wrong and you have to change it, that is what makes it more reliable! Absurd, 95% of what I was taught in high school has already been proven to be wrong. This is true for every generation, it keeps changing. Text books are loaded with things that were wrong, whether it be hoaxes believed by scientist, things since disproved by science, or flat out wild guesses treated as fact based on presuppositions. To say yes we are wrong a lot, and therefore change our theory a lot, proves it can be trusted is really insulting people's intelligence. If your love of sin is so strong that you are willing to believe that go ahead, but don't use it as a reason to give evolution more credit, it weakens your cause. Here are examples of how radically things have changed, and you applaud the change and point out it's what makes your beliefs strong.

All of these examples have been taught to millions as fact, both through text books, and museum exhibits. You still find the exhibits up and unchanged even though all have agreed they were wrong. Evolutionist are quick to point out they caught their own mistakes, but so what. They still made it into the textbooks and museums and indoctrinated millions. That is my point; you guys jump on anything that you can twist into evolution, parade it around, wait until it's exposed, than quietly admit you were wrong. Meanwhile the millions who you took advantage of by the news articles that teach your guesses as fact will never hear your retraction that never become stories. Am I the only one outraged by this? Many drawings you see of these prehistoric animals are based on finding 1 or 2 bones, and an evolutionary artist adds the rest, absurd!

Peppered moths were glued on trees, photographed and used in textbooks (it was in mine) to prove an evolutionary theory, we can't trust these people! The picture was depicted to be real, but they were glued on!

Here are some examples from livingwaters.com ministry:

"Charles Dawson, a British lawyer and amateur geologist announced in 1912 his discovery of pieces of a human skull and an apelike jaw in a gravel pit near the town of Piltdown, England . . . Dawson's announcement stopped the scorn cold. Experts instantly declared Piltdown Man (estimated to be 300,000 to one million years old), the evolutionary find of the century. Darwin's missing link had been identified. Or so it seemed for the next 40 or so years. Then, in the early fifties . . . scientists began to suspect misattribution. In 1953, that suspicion gave way to a full-blown scandal: Piltdown Man was a hoax . . . tests proved that its skull belonged to a 600-year-old woman, and its jaw to a 500-year-old orangutan from the East Indies." Our Times--the Illustrated History of the 20th Century (Turner Publishing, 1995, page 94).

Science Fiction
The Piltdown Man fraud wasn't an isolated incident. The famed "Nebraska Man" was built from one tooth, which was later found to be the tooth of an extinct pig. "Java Man" was found in the early 20th Century, and was nothing more than a piece of skull, a fragment of a thigh bone and three molar teeth. The rest came from the deeply fertile imaginations of plaster of Paris workers. "Heidelberg Man" came from a jawbone, a large chin section and a few teeth. Most scientists reject the jawbone because it's similar to that of modem man. Still, many evolutionists believe that he's 250,000 years old. No doubt they pinpointed his birthday with good old carbon dating. Now there's reliable proof. Not according to Time magazine (June 11, 1990). They published an article in the science section that was subtitled, "Geologists show that carbon dating can be way off." Don't look to "Neanderthal Man" either. At the Int'l Congress of Zoology (1958), Dr A.J.E. Cave said his examination showed that this famous skeleton found in France, is that of an old man who suffered from arthritis.

Darwin had doubts about his ideas. He wondered why there are not numeral transitional forms. He admitted there were none. Now we say everyone is a transition, come on!

Chris: On the other hand, religion clings firmly, even desperately, to its dogma, no matter how much science proves it to be false, as you have so capably demonstrated for us all.

Me Rebuttal: First let's be clear, I represent Christianity, not religion, like I have proven evolution is a religion. Here are some definitions of religion for your reference: 1) a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe 2) a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects 3) something one believes in and follows devotedly. Evolutionists are in their religion, and they have more respect for the creation than they do for the creator, just like The Bible says will happen.

Christianity does not desperately cling onto anything. It is a proven book constantly under attack that does not need to change. There is not one shred of scientific, archaeological, geological, or historical evidence that can prove The Bible incorrect. It is not desperately clinged to. It is time tested and proven. Give me one example where science disproves The Bible. Something that can be tested and re-tested, something that can be observed (you know the scientific method)? Is there any empirical evidence? Something we can test and show supporting evidence. You have all this evidence I hear about, well can we see it? Listen I would gladly go back to my life of sin, and not answering to a higher power if The Bible can be proven false. Who doesn't enjoy sin for a season? The fact is we are responsible to a higher power, and He does love us, and I am willing to humble myself and admit I fall short of His glory, you however are not.