"Evilution"

[POI]

From post 172 (http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 7#p1151917):

we should be skeptical about school textbooks on biology as relates to evolution, as my pal Kent Hovind has spent a lifetime exposing the lies and the frauds

It's clear here the claim is that biology textbooks outright present lies and/or fraud, as it relates to the topic of evolution.

Even if this were true, evolution being false does absolutely nothing to post up claims from Christianity. Christianity still rises and falls upon its own merits. But since the claim has been placed forward, let's vet these claim(s) out.

For debate: Please present one lie, or one piece of fraud, in which Kent Hovind has demonstrated about biology textbooks? More, if you can. And then please tell us why proving evolutionary biology wrong helps Christianity?

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes. Undoubtedly. And yes, the idea is that all bioforms started from a common biomolecule, which is presumed to be an ancestor of DNA which is really the process of replication that makes non life into life.

If DNA makes something to live, why we have dead cells?

If that is true, then Genesis is wrong. Though that doesn't necessarily mean all the rest is wrong, but I get it that Creationists think that if Genesis if disproved, the whole of the Bible and Christianity is disproved.

For example NT speaks also that God created. This is why, if creation is not true, also NT is not true.

Dead cells? Because things cease to work, Are batteries alive (Living)? if not, why to they 'die'? I get your point about the OT knock - on to the NT. After all Jesus (supposedly) referred back to Noah and Eden, but this can be excused as teaching points he didn't know were wrong or did but used them anyway.

I get it that the Believer wants it all to be true. But my point is that even if they recoil from defending the indefensible, then they can (and di o) simply drop some bits of the Bible and maintain the rest is true.

[TRANSPONDER]

Please present one lie, or one piece of fraud, in which Kent Hovind has demonstrated about biology textbooks?

I'm asking you to present three lies here in this discussion in order to see if a very lengthy clip is worth the time.

Here are the first seven arguments Hovind makes in the video. (For some reason he jumps from "Lie #5" to "Lie #7," and from there to "Lie #9," perhaps due to editing of the original presentation.)

The links below take you to timestamps in the video where Hovind begins each argument, and the quote below the link is from Hovind himself, which I excerpted to give some sense of his conclusion for each point. You'll need to watch the video to catch his arguments. Each is, on average, five minutes long.

Lie #1: That river did not make that canyon

The Grand Canyon was not made by the Colorado River over millions of years. That is one of the lies you kids are going to face in your textbooks. It's just not geophysically possible for that to happen.

. . .

Lie #2: There is no geologic column

Do you know there is no geologic column? If there was, it would be 100 miles thick. It doesn't exist. It's one of the lies in the textbooks. . . . It's true the earth has layers, that's not the question, though. How did they get there?

. . .

Lie #3: This is circular reasoning!

Here's a textbook that tells the kids to date the rocks by the fossils, and on the very next page it says to date the fossils by the rocks. On the very next page, and they don't catch it! It's a lie: circular reasoning.

. . .

Lie #4: Lobe finned fish are still alive!

They tell the kids in school that the Lobe-finned fish is the index fossil for Devonian, 325 million years old . . . No, that's a lie. The Lobe-finned fish are still alive today.

. . .

Lie #5: The layers are not different ages!

80 to 85% of Earth's surface does not even have three geologic periods appearing in 'correct' consecutive order.

Lie #7: This is not what they really mean by evolution

They want to give you examples of [micro-evolution] and make you believe that the whole theory has been proven . . . Genetic information is lost, not added, when you get a strange variety. Real evolution would mean an increase in genetic complexity. We don't ever observe that.

. . .

Lie #9: This "evidence" has been proven to be phony years ago!

They tell the kids that the peppered moth is proof for evolution. They counted the moths on the trees and found it was 95% light colored and 5% black. Then they burned coal in the factories and the trees turned black. And they counted the moths again and it was only 5% light and 95% black. The problem is the entire story is a lie . . . Because, after 40 years of watching, they found a grand total of two moths on the trees.

These are all lies, or half -truths, misunderstandings or misrepresentations.

The Grand Canyon was not made in a short time (The Flood was a year or so). It would be straight if so, not meandering, which really only works with a very long, slow, cutting by a river.

There is a geologic column. The geology is of course mostly incomplete and folds and inversions make it seem in wrong or reverse order, but this can be deciphered and the correct order put together. I did read, however that a complete column in order exists in Dakota.

Whatever the textbook says, rocks are not dated by the fossils. This has to be a misrepresentation. Fossils are dated by the rocks and the rocks by guesstimates of the time taken to make them until radiometric dating methods confirmed it.

I already mentioned that the geology is folded over or tilted, Yet this is identifiable, even obvious is some exposed layers. It is not hard to work out what the correct order is, and a sectioon of layers here and a different section there builds up a complete picture.

The thing about Micro evolution and genetics is misconceived. Evolution is change, not always loss of 'information' or gaining of it. Humans are no more complex, I suppose, than alligators, though we are different. The Micro thing appears to require denial of transitional forms. The cetan sequence is a slam dunk proof of speciation ('macro -evolution') and once proven, all the other transitionals are validated.

The pepper moth experiment is misrepresented. The light moth adapted to a smoky environment through natural selection. When they landed on trees, the lighter moths were spotted by predators.
The change was 'Observed'. The 'experiment' consisted only of taping some dark moths to a smoke - blackened tree to show how they matched. The Creationist critics in fact lied about what the experiment was.
What's more, their objection is pointless as Creationists do in fact accept evolution within species, so the argument seeks to disprove something they already accept.

I'll save the epithets but I hardly think I need say more, but perhaps pick a vid that dealt with the grand canyon. If I can find it.



Maybe Hovind thought that false argument up, or maybe someone else. Formerly, Creationists used to pass anti - evilooshun arguments around like Maga - memes.

[Difflugia]

If anyone wants to do more than they have, there's a Dutch guy that posted transcripts of Hovind's "Creation Seminar" videos. The "Lies in the Textbooks" transcript is here.

[1213]

Yes. Undoubtedly. And yes, the idea is that all bioforms started from a common biomolecule, which is presumed to be an ancestor of DNA which is really the process of replication that makes non life into life.

If DNA makes something to live, why we have dead cells?
...

Dead cells? Because things cease to work,

Ok, so DNA doesn't make something to live?

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes. Undoubtedly. And yes, the idea is that all bioforms started from a common biomolecule, which is presumed to be an ancestor of DNA which is really the process of replication that makes non life into life.

If DNA makes something to live, why we have dead cells?
...

Dead cells? Because things cease to work,

Ok, so DNA doesn't make something to live?

I think it might. through the process of genetic exchange. I'm hardly an expert, but I gather that's the process. In things like seeds it's even more dead cells to life as a seed just needs conditions to start to be active. Reproduction only happens when the plant becomes old enough. Which come to think of it it what happens in animals, too.

But the point is...whether this line is pursued or not...Life is a mechanical process, and not a magical mystery that is unfathomable without a big invisible human to decide every bit of Life and touch each seed, flower or fish with Its' magic wand, before popping over to Jakarta to watch a ritual flogging.

[TRANSPONDER]

If anyone wants to do more than they have, there's a Dutch guy that posted transcripts of Hovind's "Creation Seminar" videos. The "Lies in the Textbooks" transcript is here.

I had a quick look and I came acriss the Biblical cope of 'scoffers'. It's a weary old cope

(Charlie Brown) "You may poke fun at me now but one day I might become president, and then you'll be sorry!"
(omnes) "You bet we will".

But Hovind quotes Peter as a prophet that came true that people would 'sciff' in the last days. The last days w should frankly have happened while anyone who had heard Jesus talking was still alive. We are still waiting and the Believers are still saying to scoffers 'it's going to happen, any day now; just you wait'.

This is not a Hovind lie, or misrepresentation, but it is a 'prophecy' that really has lost credibility, and is not w mere denial and Cope, as i said. Just like (it seems to me) 'Cereologists' Which cod -science names b denotes crop circle enthusiasts with ought to have gone the way of Alchemy or for that matter Astrology, which ius alive and doing very nicely out of those who can be soon parted from their money.

[SiNcE_1985]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #2]

Please consider the debate question(s)/request(s). Even if we were to watch this long video, you may first want to emphasize differing point(s) than the one watching. Give us, what you feel, is the strongest point against 'evilution' first.

1) Please present one lie, or one piece of fraud, in which Kent Hovind has demonstrated about biology textbooks? This way, we can take them one at a time, before moving on to the next.

Sorry, but you have to do your own homework here.

You asked for the evidence (Kent's work as it pertains to this subject), and you were provided it.

Now, it is your job to do your due diligence by examining the material and forming your own opinion(s).

I've done my part.

2) And then, please tell us why proving evolutionary biology wrong helps Christianity?

Well, according to Christianity, the universe began to exist (Gen 1:1).

You cannot have a life originating and becoming diverse without a universe/earth for it to be occupied on.

I'm not aware of any other monotheistic religion (besides maybe Islam) where God is said to have created the entire universe.

The fact that the universe began to exist has scientific backing...and the origins of life and diversity absolutely requires Intelligent Design (for reasons previously given)....and Christianity provides the intelligent designer.

Just so you know, I did not fall away from Christianity, due to 'evolution' or 'abiogenesis', in the slightest. Thus, I'm curious to know why you keep bringing up these two topics? Is it to demonstrate that some unbelievers appeal to lies and fraud, just like some unbelievers accuse Christians of doing?

Precisely.

P.S. I know you hate videos, so I trust we will all do our best to provide videos which directly answer the question(s), rather than to type a text wall And where applicable, we can tell the interlocutor where exactly to watch (i.e.) from minute-5 to minute-8 for random example.

I could grant your request...I just don't want to discuss it.

Cool?

[1213]

I think it might. through the process of genetic exchange. I'm hardly an expert, but I gather that's the process. In things like seeds it's even more dead cells to life as a seed just needs conditions to start to be active. Reproduction only happens when the plant becomes old enough. Which come to think of it it what happens in animals, too.

But the point is...whether this line is pursued or not...Life is a mechanical process, and not a magical mystery that is unfathomable without a big invisible human to decide every bit of Life and touch each seed, flower or fish with Its' magic wand, before popping over to Jakarta to watch a ritual flogging.

In that case, how do you explain that scientists can't make a dead cell to live again, even when they have all the mechanical parts?

[TRANSPONDER]

I think it might. through the process of genetic exchange. I'm hardly an expert, but I gather that's the process. In things like seeds it's even more dead cells to life as a seed just needs conditions to start to be active. Reproduction only happens when the plant becomes old enough. Which come to think of it it what happens in animals, too.

But the point is...whether this line is pursued or not...Life is a mechanical process, and not a magical mystery that is unfathomable without a big invisible human to decide every bit of Life and touch each seed, flower or fish with Its' magic wand, before popping over to Jakarta to watch a ritual flogging.

In that case, how do you explain that scientists can't make a dead cell to live again, even when they have all the mechanical parts?

In the same way science can't make a snowflake or a comet or a volcano or coal and oil, or give a man wings, or fins, only imitate them and understand the principles, which in each case is nothing to do with a god.

The short answer is that just because we can'f duplicate what nature does, does not mean that it is an intelligent designer doing it.

I would ask in response that if God can do miracles, why he doesn't heal amputees.

I must say that I am impressed by the way you persist in putting the Christian case but it is so much the same old stuff we have done so many times.

cue "Show me the posts where i have asked these questions before". I mean it is the old apologetics, even if you hasn't used them before.

[Clownboat]

Sorry, but you have to do your own homework here.

Someone doesn't seem to know how debate works. It would be nice if you learned since you are willfully participating on a debate site. Here, claims can be challenged and should be evidenced or retracted. You have sadly done neither.

You asked for the evidence (Kent's work as it pertains to this subject), and you were provided it.

You provided a very long video and claimed that info is in it. That is NOT you providing evidence, that is you providing an unreasonable claim, in a debate setting no less.
"You will know them by their fruits."

Well, according to Christianity, the universe began to exist (Gen 1:1).

This is not impressive in the slightest. You know this though (because you would not be impressed from quotes from other holy books) and yet still spout this as if it should be meaningful. It isn't.

You cannot have a life originating and becoming diverse without a universe/earth for it to be occupied on.

Therefore what? You don't have a point, do you?

I'm not aware of any other monotheistic religion (besides maybe Islam) where God is said to have created the entire universe.

Why on earth would we consult religious holy books if we are trying to learn how our universe might have formed?

The fact that the universe began to exist has scientific backing...and the origins of life and diversity absolutely requires Intelligent Design (for reasons previously given)....and Christianity provides the intelligent designer.

We don't know how life began on this planet. Why do you pretend that we do?

I believe your reasoning is flawed due to a preconceived notion that evolution must be false in order for your preferred religious beliefs to be true.
I am not saddled with such a thing. Prove evolution to be false and I will lose no sleep and will anticipate learning about the better explanation.
I'm willing to learn while your goal is to maintain a belief you already hold, but Kent Hovid... really?