"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?

[1213]

...Evolution theory proposes only hypotheses to create models to explain observed phenomena, including Fossils, morphology and biodiversity. Research find whether the evidence supports the theory. If not, think again. This is how reason (sceince) works and Dogma (religion) ...

And when nothing in nature really supports the theory, it has become a dogma that atheists defend religiously. Here is one interesting article about the theory for those who are interested:

https://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

...Clearly, people have always come up with a big invisible human to explain questions they don't have an answer to. How else do you explain gods in all cultures (or at least animating spirits) and all rather made in the image of the inventors, and hating the same people their inventors do?
...

How do I explain gods in all cultures? By that all people had contact with the God. And people had also contact with the so called gods. I don't think humans would have any idea about God, or gods, if there would not have had experiences of them. By what I see, humans can't imagine anything new on their own that they don't have an example. That is why I believe all the ideas of gods has some real thing causing the idea.

I think one good example of this is the cargo cults. I believe similarly all ideas of gods has some real thing that led to the idea. This does not mean that all so called gods would be true God, only that there is something real that caused the beliefs.

[TRANSPONDER]

...Evolution theory proposes only hypotheses to create models to explain observed phenomena, including Fossils, morphology and biodiversity. Research find whether the evidence supports the theory. If not, think again. This is how reason (sceince) works and Dogma (religion) ...

And when nothing in nature really supports the theory, it has become a dogma that atheists defend religiously. Here is one interesting article about the theory for those who are interested:

https://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

...Clearly, people have always come up with a big invisible human to explain questions they don't have an answer to. How else do you explain gods in all cultures (or at least animating spirits) and all rather made in the image of the inventors, and hating the same people their inventors do?
...

How do I explain gods in all cultures? By that all people had contact with the God. And people had also contact with the so called gods. I don't think humans would have any idea about God, or gods, if there would not have had experiences of them. By what I see, humans can't imagine anything new on their own that they don't have an example. That is why I believe all the ideas of gods has some real thing causing the idea.

I think one good example of this is the cargo cults. I believe similarly all ideas of gods has some real thing that led to the idea. This does not mean that all so called gods would be true God, only that there is something real that caused the beliefs.

There is much in nature that supports evolution, not only that it happens, and even Creationists accept it at the 'Micro' level, DNA, Morphology and of course, the fossil record. No doubt you say that you don't see it it happening (Dogs from cats) all the time so you don't believe it, so why should we believe in gods for which there is no good evidence?

You refer to various gods dreamed up by various cultures and imply (through Cargo cult) that it must be a real god or gods. But it could as well be a volcano, a tempest or just unexplained questions. And even then, it doesn't say which god would be the real one, even if there was a god or gods behind any of it.

You are in the familiar faithbased position of waving away as no existent all the (negative) evidence against and claiming as evidence for negative evidence against.

[Difflugia]

I think the amount of "entities" is a poor way to determine what is true.

As I said, it's an extremely simplified, but still useful metric.The point is that the more things that aren't in evidence one has to tack on to an explanation, the less likely the explanation is true.

But, it seems to me that you have never thought what it would mean, if evolution theory is true.

On the other hand, it seems to me that you've never thought about what a massively improbable entity a god is.

For example the idea of how eye developed requires lot of explanation. Starting from, what caused it to happen, and what exactly where the changes in DNA that led to it.

You think those are the problems? What "entities" do you think we have no evidence for? We have natural examples of eyes in many stages of complexity from the simplest eyespots to eyes better and more complex than our own. Genomics is at a level of sophistication that we can compare gene sequences for hundreds or thousands of organisms leading to an extremely detailed understanding of molecular evolution. Just as an example, the most important class of light-sensitive proteins is the opsin. Vertebrate vision in low light is mediated by rhodopsin, but it seems that rhodopsins are present in virtually all classes of organism, leading to a rich and detailed understanding of its development through biological history.

Since the way you asked the question leads me to believe that you think the evolution of the eye is some insurmountable problem, here's a link to an Open Access article describing the evolution of light vision. The information that you're looking for exists. You're just claiming that you don't believe it because you never looked for it. It's like insisting that cars are magic because you've never read the maintenance manual.

Magic? What do you think it is? I don't think there is any magic needed.

If you're not relying on magic for your explanation, then you just made your own job so much more difficult. If you think that the gods used only nonmagical means, then the analogous challenge to the one you offered us is that you have to identify all of the natural processes that the gods went through while producing the eye. How did the gods cause eyes to be formed in each creature such that they're heritable in their offspring? If there was no moment of magic when it implausibly just happened, how do you otherwise explain the divine process?

Can you tell one example of thing that a human has imagined, that has no example or source that it is based on?

I see you already realized that your argument is poor enough that you have to shift your goalposts. "No example or source?" Unless you're now claiming that human imagination has to produce something better than the Bible, then you'll have to establish that the stories in the Bible also have "no example or source."

[TRANSPONDER]

Entities is the term used in the logical explanation, so I suppose we are stuck with it.

Occams razor, principle stated by the Scholastic philosopher William of Ockham (12851347/49) that pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate, "plurality should not be posited without necessity." The principle gives precedence to simplicity: of two competing theories, the simpler explanation of an entity is to be preferred. The principle is also expressed as "Entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity."(Brittannica)

It is put in more familiar form as 'The simplest explanation is the best'. Though that is open to absurd interpretation 'The simplest explanation is that the earth is Flat and all those photos are fakes".

It is that a materialist explanation of phenomena is adequate without dragging a god into it, or I use the example of knowing how an automobile engine functions well enough that there is no need to propose Engine Gnomes.Darwin's Eye used to be a favorite. And is essentially argument from complexity before Michael Behe tried to make it a scientific principle. (Irreducible complexity) which was scientifically rebutted.


On the early days I was bothered by the feather (now explained in the fossil evidence) but the Eye was never a problem for me.

As Difflugia says above, we have examples of eyes in various evolutionary stages.

New Scientist explains the matter here:
When did eyes evolve?

The first eyes appeared about 541 million years ago at the very beginning of the Cambrian period when complex multicellular life really took off in a group of now extinct animals called trilobites which looked a bit like large marine woodlice. Their eyes were compound, similar to those of modern insects. And their appearance in the fossil record is strikingly sudden. Trilobite ancestors from 544 million years ago dont have eyes. So what happened in that magic million years? Surely eyes, with their interconnected assemblage of retina, lens, pupil and optic nerve, are just too complex to appear all of a sudden?

How did eyes evolve?

The complexity of the eye has long been an evolutionary battleground. Ever since William Paley came up with the watchmaker analogy in 1802 which claimed that something as complex as a watch must have a maker creationists have used it to make the "argument from design". Eyes are so intricate, they say, that it stretches credibility to suggest they evolved through the selection and accumulation of random mutations.

Charles Darwin was well aware of the argument. In On the Origin of Species he admitted that eyes were so complex that their evolution seemed "absurd to the highest degree". But he went on to convincingly argue that it only seemed absurd. Complex eyes could have evolved from very simple ones by natural selection as long as each gradation was useful. The key to the puzzle, Darwin said, was to find eyes of intermediate complexity in the animal kingdom that would demonstrate a possible path from simple to sophisticated.

I have no need to add it the comments on 'magic' above, except that i noted an Unwritten Rule of Bible apologetics - at least with Noah's Ark. The explanations have to Work (or at least look like they might). God cannot just 'wave a magic wand' and make ithappen as then of course, it makes the whole farce unneccessary. God could have just started over.

The funny thing was that some 'Evidence' for the Flood, like the Black Sea theory would, though it would validate the event, completely undermine the Bible explanation of why it happened. It would not be total, nor wipe out a creation that was annoying God, along with everything else as collateral damage. It is curious and rather amusing, then, that a 'natural explanation' for the Resurrection account (s...which would actually fit the narrative better) Cannot be proposed, because the act of 'magic' is necessary.

[Goose]

New Scientist explains the matter here:

---

So what happened in that magic million years? Surely eyes, with their interconnected assemblage of retina, lens, pupil and optic nerve, are just too complex to appear all of a sudden?

Eyes appearing all of a sudden. Magic indeed. Priceless.

[TRANSPONDER]

New Scientist explains the matter here:

---

So what happened in that magic million years? Surely eyes, with their interconnected assemblage of retina, lens, pupil and optic nerve, are just too complex to appear all of a sudden?

Eyes appearing all of a sudden. Magic indeed. Priceless.

The problem about Evolution - deniers is that they do not understand evolution. If they did, they would know that britters or their features did not appear fully - formed out of nowhere. They (the theory says) evolved from simple blocs, and the simple blobs developed light - sensitive blobs which aided in survival (as prey or predator. then light - sensitive pits (the theory goes) and eye cells with cornea, and then the proper eye. The thing about evolution is - it evolved s.

Even IC understands this as it argues the process of evolution could not happen (not without God's help) as the organ would not work while changing.

Again, understand the theory one is trying to debunk before trying to debunk it.



We heard it here, not too long ago: "You always say we don't understand evolution" or some such. But this is the thing - evolution - deniers don't understand the theory they are trying to debunk. Which is why we get 'cats from dogs' or the nonsense about interbreeding species. They do not understand evolution - theory and do not want to.

[1213]

I think the amount of "entities" is a poor way to determine what is true.

As I said, it's an extremely simplified, but still useful metric.The point is that the more things that aren't in evidence one has to tack on to an explanation, the less likely the explanation is true.

And the amount seems to depend on does the person like the explanation or not. I think it is not useful, because truth can be complex.

But, it seems to me that you have never thought what it would mean, if evolution theory is true.

On the other hand, it seems to me that you've never thought about what a massively improbable entity a god is.

How do you count the improbability? Life exists, so there must be something that caused it, either a creator or it started spontaneously from dead material. We don't have any observation of life coming from dead material, therefore the probability for God is high.

leading to a rich and detailed understanding of its development through biological history.

We have a different idea of what is a rich and detailed understanding.

Since the way you asked the question leads me to believe that you think the evolution of the eye is some insurmountable problem, here's a link to an Open Access article describing the evolution of light vision. The information that you're looking for exists. You're just claiming that you don't believe it because you never looked for it. It's like insisting that cars are magic because you've never read the maintenance manual.

Eye is just one small example of how evolution theory leads to many things that are not in the evidence.

But, thanks for the link. I think the biggest problem with the theory is that there are many phases where the development is not useful, until the "product" is finished, which is one reason why I have great difficulties to take the theory seriously.

If you're not relying on magic for your explanation, then you just made your own job so much more difficult. If you think that the gods used only nonmagical means, then the analogous challenge to the one you offered us is that you have to identify all of the natural processes that the gods went through while producing the eye. How did the gods cause eyes to be formed in each creature such that they're heritable in their offspring? If there was no moment of magic when it implausibly just happened, how do you otherwise explain the divine process?

So, you think everything you don't understand is magic?

I am not the God, and I can't create anything. But, basically all lifeforms are programmed with DNA. And this means, to cause eyes one would have to arrange DNA so that eyes grow. I don't think it requires magic, which is the art or practice of using charms, spells, or rituals to attempt to produce supernatural effects or control events in nature. I believe God does not need magic to make things happen, even though I don't know everything.

I see you already realized that your argument is poor enough that you have to shift your goalposts. "No example or source?" Unless you're now claiming that human imagination has to produce something better than the Bible, then you'll have to establish that the stories in the Bible also have "no example or source."

I think the stories in the Bible are based on what happened, therefore they are not imagined.

[1213]

There is much in nature that supports evolution, not only that it happens, and even Creationists accept it at the 'Micro' level, DNA, Morphology and of course, the fossil record. No doubt you say that you don't see it it happening (Dogs from cats) all the time so you don't believe it, so why should we believe in gods for which there is no good evidence?

Nothing in nature supports evolution theory that cannot really be tested as scientific theory should be.

And for me the Bible and life are good evidence for the God.

You refer to various gods dreamed up by various cultures and imply (through Cargo cult) that it must be a real god or gods. But it could as well be a volcano, a tempest or just unexplained questions. And even then, it doesn't say which god would be the real one, even if there was a god or gods behind any of it.

False gods can be real also, they are just something that people should not keep as their God. For example people have kept a golden calf as their god. Surely it could have existed, it just should not be kept as the God, for example because it does or says nothing.

[TRANSPONDER]

There is much in nature that supports evolution, not only that it happens, and even Creationists accept it at the 'Micro' level, DNA, Morphology and of course, the fossil record. No doubt you say that you don't see it it happening (Dogs from cats) all the time so you don't believe it, so why should we believe in gods for which there is no good evidence?

Nothing in nature supports evolution theory that cannot really be tested as scientific theory should be.

And for me the Bible and life are good evidence for the God.

You refer to various gods dreamed up by various cultures and imply (through Cargo cult) that it must be a real god or gods. But it could as well be a volcano, a tempest or just unexplained questions. And even then, it doesn't say which god would be the real one, even if there was a god or gods behind any of it.

False gods can be real also, they are just something that people should not keep as their God. For example people have kept a golden calf as their god. Surely it could have existed, it just should not be kept as the God, for example because it does or says nothing.

I recall that I touched on this. It is like (analogy) dismissing archaeology as the rise and fall of civilisations cannot be observed. Rather the Illiad should be credited when it says Apollo built the city in one go.

Archaeology refutes this as it shows that it evolved over several rebuilds. But you (analogy) want to ignore that.

Anther analogy is that you say we cannot ever solve crimes unless we see them happen "Before, laydees and gennellmen, before yore werry eyes". But traces are (famously in TV detection shows) analysed to work out what happens. That is what the fossil evidence shows.

The rocks show a sequence of layers laid down. The process must take millions of years. Later dating methods confirms this. The fossil traces of the critters shows development from blobs to quite sophisticated creatures. The evidence is obvious. Also the morpholosy of flippers or wings shows that they used to be arm or leg bones. And finally, DNA shows the genetic order of connection, with chimps the closest to us.

We see the evidence in nature, but you want to ignore or dismiss it.

What for you is convincing is evidence of nothing but your preferred belief. I gave doubts about evolution a good go back in the 80's - 90's when there was a a lot of debunk going on. Like I say, I saw the evidence "In Nature" for eye evolution. But the feather bothered me. It really did. I couldn't see how it evolved to be adapted for flying unless the critter was trying to fly, and how could it try to fly without a feather that enabled it to?

Well the process still isn't sure, but the fossil evidence of feather development Not intended for flight but in smaller tree dwelling dinos, being a survival aid in getting away (or after prey) faster and longer led to the process of birds, and don't use the old one about birds and dinos co - existing, because that (like "Why are there still monkeys" is refuted with "If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?" Not all the critters felt the need to change their life.

It is (projected bias) preference in what you want to believe and not understanding the theory and not wanting to.

I already said that Creationism accept the process of natural selection as 'Micro', but denies that over enough time, the changes could become Macro (and the cetan sequence Proves that it is did - is f evidence means anything). The rejection is absolutely not based on good reason, never mind the evidence, but on Faithbased denial of compelling evidence.

And on what? To claim an ancient legend which pleniy of Christians are wiling to let go as 'metaphor' has to be true, because it is in the Book.

That is the case i put before the browsers and lurkers, and what you or I want to believe is not germane to the argument.

Your argument about False Gods clearly shows your faithbased belief in Biblegod as the True god, and of course all the others are false., not real or false as should not be worshipped. Who says so? You? The other Holy Books? You don't believe in any of the others or rather in their religions. And your argument about Islam fails or you ought to be a Muslim as it is a further revelation from God, just as Jesus was. And i suppose the Muslims ought to believe Joseph Smith. But they put it more bluntly that you do 'No More Revelations'.

This (ignored) dilemma isn't a problem for me as I disbelieve one more religion than all the various believers do.

And we have done these discussion before, several times. I think there is some mental block in the Bible apologist mind; they cannot remember anything that was discussed and make the same (debunked) arguments again and again. Just like election denial (which is also a shibboleth of a cult). Point being that all the gods can be claimed to see and do everything - it is the false one you believe in that should not be believed...according to those other religions.

[TRANSPONDER]

I think the amount of "entities" is a poor way to determine what is true.

As I said, it's an extremely simplified, but still useful metric.The point is that the more things that aren't in evidence one has to tack on to an explanation, the less likely the explanation is true.

And the amount seems to depend on does the person like the explanation or not. I think it is not useful, because truth can be complex.

But, it seems to me that you have never thought what it would mean, if evolution theory is true.

On the other hand, it seems to me that you've never thought about what a massively improbable entity a god is.

How do you count the improbability? Life exists, so there must be something that caused it, either a creator or it started spontaneously from dead material. We don't have any observation of life coming from dead material, therefore the probability for God is high.

leading to a rich and detailed understanding of its development through biological history.

We have a different idea of what is a rich and detailed understanding.

Since the way you asked the question leads me to believe that you think the evolution of the eye is some insurmountable problem, here's a link to an Open Access article describing the evolution of light vision. The information that you're looking for exists. You're just claiming that you don't believe it because you never looked for it. It's like insisting that cars are magic because you've never read the maintenance manual.

Eye is just one small example of how evolution theory leads to many things that are not in the evidence.

But, thanks for the link. I think the biggest problem with the theory is that there are many phases where the development is not useful, until the "product" is finished, which is one reason why I have great difficulties to take the theory seriously.

If you're not relying on magic for your explanation, then you just made your own job so much more difficult. If you think that the gods used only nonmagical means, then the analogous challenge to the one you offered us is that you have to identify all of the natural processes that the gods went through while producing the eye. How did the gods cause eyes to be formed in each creature such that they're heritable in their offspring? If there was no moment of magic when it implausibly just happened, how do you otherwise explain the divine process?

So, you think everything you don't understand is magic?

I am not the God, and I can't create anything. But, basically all lifeforms are programmed with DNA. And this means, to cause eyes one would have to arrange DNA so that eyes grow. I don't think it requires magic, which is the art or practice of using charms, spells, or rituals to attempt to produce supernatural effects or control events in nature. I believe God does not need magic to make things happen, even though I don't know everything.

I see you already realized that your argument is poor enough that you have to shift your goalposts. "No example or source?" Unless you're now claiming that human imagination has to produce something better than the Bible, then you'll have to establish that the stories in the Bible also have "no example or source."

I think the stories in the Bible are based on what happened, therefore they are not imagined.

Sorry to pinch - pit here, but this is wrong in evidence, logic and understanding, in every respect, and clearly based on Faithbased bias. What the person likes or does not should not be what makes for the preferred explanation, but which the evidence supports. For you the evidence is what the Bible says. For me and Difflugia and other materialist Darwinist atheists, it is what the evidence says.

The improbability of a Creator (never mind which one) is based on the evidence that life evolved gradually and was not made in one god. So Biblegod is wrong, on evidence. We also have a mechanism, even if it can't be proved. Creation has nothing but an act of magic.. Finally the way things work is known to work without a god, so material cause (from inert to replicating - which is what Life is) is the default explanation and not a Creator for which no good evidence has been validated.

So you want to describe your lack of understanding of evolution - theory, or indeed of how logic works as your different view of a 'rich and detailed understanding'? Well We can only say 'At least he's a good bad example of the Faithbased and biased dismissal of the evidence that the v believers get up to'.

So you didn't see (or ignored) the explanation of the eye? Your lack of knowing or dismissal of the explanation (the evolutionary stages of the eye are indeed seen in nature) is what you base your argument on?

No. We (evilutionists or scientific materialists) do not think everything we don't understand is magic but natural events that we don't understand the explanation for - yet. It is God - believers who want to claim that unknowns have to be magic (God doing it by miracles). I won't ask yet again 'don't you see what you are doing? Bias and projection)' Because it does no good, but I again appeal to faithbased believers and denialists 'Don't you see what is is going on here?"

Again you appeal to irreducible complexity, but that IC claim has been debunked in science and the science debunk confirmed in a court of law. Until I suppose the Supreme Court overturns Kitzmiller vs Dover, too.