rationalskepticism.org

Tzelemel wrote:

mingthething wrote:Then they'd bring up examples of wrongful conviction occurring to justify their argument that nobody knows for sure because 'you weren't there'.

Sure, they would, but instances of wrongful conviction do not negate the instances of correct conviction, so they haven't actually justified their argument at all. By focusing on wrongful convictions, they're shifting the goalposts. Now instead of saying, "Oh, but you weren't there," they're saying, "You can't interpret the evidence correctly all the time." Effectively, they've lost the argument, and are now trying to distract from that, by trying to counter your arguments.

Gila Guerilla's argument doesn't force them to shift the goalposts. In fact, pointing to the Bible was the punchline for that particular argument. By retorting, "No, I wasn't there, were you?" you're walking into their trap. You're effectively saying, "I agree with you, but you also weren't there." Then you have to counter their arguments.

When debating a Creationist, never debate the Bible. It has nothing of substance to debate with, so you don't want to be drawn into an argument about it, because you're effectively wasting your time arguing over nothing. Furthermore, if you start debating that, you're effectively saying that evolution is directly opposed to Christianity, which is patently false.

Evolution and Christianity are perfectly compatible. What's incompatible is a literal interpretation of the Bible and evolution.