I agree with you. However, this atheist I've been talking to is claiming that morality came about through evolution because it is needed for the survival of the species. What would be the best way to counter that claim?
You see this is where they get you if you accept their "words" as evidence. He "claims" morality happened because it was part of survival, right? But actual "science" demands that he show proof of this. And he cannot.
You see when in the mind of the evolutionist, they accept evolution as an absolute then whatever exists in reality they also accept as a part of evolution even though there is no evidence, a process, or a mechanism for it. So their logic and justification for it is to use "words and claims" in the place of any real science. So basically what he is betting on is that you will take him at his "word" and therefore your acceptance gives his words the power to change truth and make new realities (at least in his mind). What you "always" have to do in that situation is ask him where does he get that idea from and where is the evidence for it.
If he uses the logic that evolution is true by implying that because something exists therefore evolution is the only answer regardless of whether he can provide you with evidence or a process. Then it is only by words that he thinks he can prove this which is not science.
A evolutionist that worships evolution to an absolute and thinks their words are golden and contain the power to change reality will basically only use words to explain things where evidence or observable processes do not exist. The other part of the equation is that he selling you a used car LOL. what I mean by that is that to get you to buy or place doubt into what you currently believe he's only going to tell you what is always "good" about what he's selling. Just like a used car salesman is only going to tell you the good things about a used car to get you to buy it.
You see selling is not science, proving is. And you need evidence and observable processes to do this, not words and claims that cannot be backed up.
You see all he's doing is using words, words , words. Your objective is to turn the discussion into real science and that is where his claims will fall apart. So no matter how many words he uses you have to stick to your guns of evidence and observable processes. And when he dodges this you point out that there was really no science to his claim just opinions, or he would have provided what you asked for and shown the real science that existed. and add: Nice try....
Proving evolution is a play on words and how you use them. And since this mainly a word game, you have to learn how to shut the word game down. So you:
1) Stick to your guns that words prove nothing and that actual science has to have evidence and observable processes.
2) That when he cannot meet the criteria of doing this that you point that out which shuts down his word game machine.
3) When he starts to try and insult you, you won. Because when he cannot provide real science, insults are the only thing left which means he just declared you the winner.
4) Since insults are just another word game to bring down your point of proving he had no science to back up his words and claims you have to diffuse those insults. How you do this is that you never react to them as he would want you to. Reacting badly gives what he says power over you. So what you do is take that power away. Saying things like: Come on, you can think of better insults than that, Did not your side teach you how to hate people just for disagreeing with you? If he continues you just keep up the same style of response never crossing the line of reacting to what he says. What you are doing here that diffuses the situation you are showing how childish and immature his actions are. and a child cannot have power so you basically take his power away. The thing you have to watch out for while doing this is to keep your responses aimed at his responses only. It is tempting to add a little side punch or insult but that would be you acting like him which gives him the power back. You have to be the adult here, and it will be that maturity that you show that diffuses his immature efforts to insult you when his science cannot support his claims.
