A Christian creationist sent me a letter about his understanding of evolution and the big bang theory as being mostly equivalent to the accounts in the bible. I responded to him, and here is his response to my critique:

This is Mike, and watch me rip apart your critique. My introduction is my opinion and what I believe due to the evidence I provided below. So it's only natural that I foreshadow what I'm going to write in the note. A lawyer says what he is going to prove or argue, then argues it.

Second, my acquisition of knowledge comes from a personal relationship with God via the Holy Spirit whom Jesus provided the way to live inside a human being by providing purification of sins so that the perfect God could interact with fallen humanity via faith. Ever since I believed in Jesus and turned my heart to God I have not only had a relationship with God as all Christians do, but I have the Holy Spirit who lives in and with my spirit in my own body and teaches me everything I know and ask to know through prayer, revelation of mind, Scriptures, and circumstances. Because you don't have the Holy Spirit nor can you see Him by no means means He is not active in teaching me what I know.

Third, when I say the big bang theory and evolution, I'm am talking about the  general prevailing scientific idea and reasoning that is prevalent in modern society that attempts to refute the Bible and it's creation account. This note was written on 5 minutes after I read Genesis several times and used it according to what I know in general about the big bang, evolution, natural selection, and the Godless scientific thought that tries to explain creation outside of God's doing.

Fourth, what do you think a singularity is? An expanding singularity is the reverse of a black hole. A black hole leads to a singularity which is where space and time cease to exist and are swallowed up and closed up to a singularity point which amounts to it no longer existing. So the universe starting from a singularity and expanding is the same thing as nothing turning into something, out of nowhere from a specific point of origin. Further, the Bible describes the universe as a singularity expanding because not only could God speak about what the future would bring but He could also take His chosen men outside of time and bring them to a place, whether in mind or in spirit, to see what was happening in the future=prophecy. The universe being a singularity, starting from one point, at a specific place in time, and expanding outward fits all these descriptions and qualities in the Bible. I said that Genesis and the Big bang say out of nothing came something from a point and space in time. How does this being a singularity expanding change that??

Fifth, God commanded the water in Genesis to be "gathered together in one place" after it began as "formless", this was the whole sphere of the Earth. So do you still want to say that the Bible says nothing about things clustering together? What do you think gathered together after being formless  means??? Can you read??? Can you understand meanings of words?

Sixth, you are telling me that the Big Bang Theory does not include the forming of mountainous terrain and land in the process? Um, lol, so the big bang theory doesn't ever provide an explanation for land, when it formed, and that it was necessary for life in its various forms to exist? To avoid coming across as mentally retarted, I will allow you to restate that the big bang theory and evolution do indeed include in an explanation of the process of life to include where and when the land formed, because it sure as hell should!

Seventh, land doesn't come from water? Are you ignorant? Water mixing with molten lava produces land? And the element that is basic, initial and where all elements in some way shape or fashion are derived from is Hydrogen, the fuel of stars and with oxygen, the make up of water. Land does indeed form from a process from fire from the core of the earth and water. If you say there is no theory that supports that land comes from water, you are woefully and childishly uneducated and need to retake 7th grade science or visit the Hawaiian Islands.

Eight, you are right, the Bible does not say how many years ago the Earth was formed by God. But from a further reading and understanding of the Bible, you will learn that time and relativity come from sin. So before Adam and Eve ate the Apple, death and time and relativity were not in the realm of the Earth. So Earth was created and existed for some time outside the relative measurement of time. Therefore, the Bible indicates that it is impossible to determine the age of the Earth. It could be 100,000 years old, it could be 700,000,000 billion years old in relative time. Who knows but God. The Bible supports any age for the age of the Earth and in all likelihood, it's very very old.

Ninth, nowhere did I get into, nor did the Bible get into detail about how the water produced plant life, then sea life, then land life. It could have been single cell processes, it could have been whatever process. What I cited in the Bible is that God commanded the water to produce land, then the land to produce plant life, then the water to produce sea life, then the land to produce land life. Then God Himself formed man with His own hands, hence no missing link. I was showing that just as evolution says life began from an orderly process from simple to complex in processes from the Earth itself, so the Bible says life began from an orderly process from simple to complex in processes from Earth itself. Only God's intent and commands were the source of this and not nothing.

Arguing against me is like arguing with God because I learn from God. So can you beat God in an argument? You are just a 20 something man, He is God.

That is my favorite part.

Ahh, I feel the love between you and the writer. The technique of compassion for an opponent's viewpoint may be warranted.  Obviously the two of you will never meet on a single point but the dialogue could continue. What is the real reason that the creationist needs to refute science?  It may have nothing to do with the topic at all, but a deeper reason that deals with faith. Yes, I agree with your point about the differentiating categories for science, yet you could have given the writer a little bit of encouragement to engage in fruitful dialogue by reflecting on his statement concerning the Big Bang and Evolution. Neither really answers a lot about anything at this point in time, but as you note it is a science that is still trying to find out reasons. Yes, to some of us those thoughts are extremely intriguing. However, to Christine they are as boring as watching tar harden.

To the writer there may be a miscommunication in that they may not make the connection that their "God creation moment" is what science would term the Big Bang, which is then broken down into Geology, Hydrodynamics, Meteorology, The Ages, Evolution, etc.

Just a thought on a different tactic to use when talking to creationists. Validation with definitive dialogue on how their view would explain the scientific methods. 

Their feelings of course.

The majority of situations where there is a combative nature is because of a hurt feeling.  As humans we want to be correct and when someone puts forth information that contradicts what we feel is right, then we have a moment of embarrassment, anger, resentment, ego.

It is by validation of one's feelings that a dialogue can happen, just not as fast as you would like. It will take time, but then patience is a good tool to practice.

If your objective is to validate your own feelings without regard to others, then a quick dismissal of the other person's feelings are adequate and you both end up feeling superior to the other without accomplishing anything. The other person is just plain stupid, ignorant, unwielding, refuses to accept reality (as you see it), or just combative and not worth your effort.

Which objective is the one you really want?  To me that is the real issue. Depending on which objective each side wants, then  the original dialogue may have been appropriate.

Gotta love perspective.

The abrasive opening is mostly a throwing down of the gauntlet. If you take it and throw it back in the same manner, then the offender wins. If you take it and hold it out as an enticement, either the offender backs down, or a dialogue starts. It is an intriguing art to try and get an offensive person to open up. Generally when they do, I find that both parties can become quite genteel to each other even when there is an impasse. There is a respect between the two that was not there before and may lead to a more intriguing discussion.

Loved your link.

We are for the most part, a fear-loving, conspiracy driven society. For every item that is news worthy or scientific there is generally 2 to 3 "theories" that arise. Why?  Easier to deal with story-telling that is very adaptive to changing as the need to influence the masses toward an objective. Besides, no one wants to take the time to check out the facts. Easier to have someone else tell you what is correct. 

Sad, civilization is going backwards to the dark ages instead of forward into a more enlightened age.

How many students would rather rent a movie on an English reading lesson and then write an essay based on the movie then read the actual story?  Information overload leads to one seeking quick easy answers.