"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?

[Clownboat]

This is the genetic fallacy.

Where the information comes from (the source) has no bearing on the truth value of the information.

The source has been shown to actually be biased. The evidence was provided and your proposed excuse does not make the shown bias disappear.
You have failed to show the bias in my source and I have shown the bias in yours. You can only pretend that we are on equal footing.

So the only challenge here, is for you to demonstrate why/how the information is inaccurate, and I don't think you can do so.

Biased sources cannot be trusted. Your source is biased and will not even consider information that goes against its preconceived biases.

You have to attack the source material, not the source itself.

It has been proven that your source cannot be trusted for the biased beliefs that dictate what is even allowed to be considered.
You're like debating a flat earther that sees no issue with rejecting actual science because of the flat earth websites that they get their info from.

Just like I can say your source is bias...as it is coming from folks who already believe in evolution.

That wouldn't be accurate though. Please show any actual bias like I did for the info you provided or acknowledge that it isn't there.

An equivalent bias would be something like: Any ideas that go against the theory of evolution will automatically be discounted. I trust the readers see this and realize how ridiculous this would be.

This is false and I find it very dishonest.

When I call someone dishonest, I get reported, warned, and dinged for it.

See the bold above. Please manage your reading comprehension and victim mentality.

When anyone else do it, a blind eye gets turned to it.

Life's just not fair.

You made your bed and you need to sleep in it. Pretending to be a victim is not something I find virtuous.

That there are changes in the inherited traits of a population through successive generations is indeed a fact. This is NOT a faith statement.

That is not the point of contention, which is the mere scope/degree of changes.

You accused me of making faith statements. I posted this to show that you were wrong.

Flat earth, spherical earth...doesn't matter to me...as long as God orchestrated the affairs.

Readers, I propose that this is the priori held belief (bias) that dictates this persons held beliefs. It also aligns with the bias from their source, which is not a surprise. I note that flat earthers employ a similar bias.

Derp. Enough micro makes macro.

You are speculating, relying on the unseen. This is faith.

Readers, ask yourself if it is to apply faith to acknowledge that enough micro steps would equal a macro step.
Sure, you can walk 100 steps, but there is no way that you could do that enough to walk a mile! To believe that would be faith!

What is the mechanism that is in place that prevents macro changes?

What is the mechanism that is in place to keep it going?

Readers, notice how questions are unable to be answered and biased sources are being supplied.
It's like asking: If you keep walking, what is the mechanism that will get you to one mile? It nonsensical.

I need observable evidence....not bio-babble.

That we can compare the starting and ending allele frequencies for a specific gene during a given time period and note changes over said time is bio-babble to you.
Not a surprise coming from one that needs to deny science and rely on biased websites in order to maintain a priori held religious belief.

Jonathan Wells, a CHRISTIAN biologists, is aware of everything you just said, yet he doesn't draw the same conclusions...which means that not everyone buys into the biobabble.

Strawman. It's obvious that not everyone draws the same conclusions. Not everyone agrees that the earth is an oblate spheroid either. This point has no meaning.

Give me something I can observe...and all I observe are animals producing what they are, not what they aren't.

All the animals that exist now and in the fossil record plus embryology, DNA comparisons, biogeography, genetics, anatomy, molecular biology, homologous organs and evolution in action (that species change).

Me: No, maybe God simply created fully-bodied birds with teeth. Ever think of that?

I have. Can you propose anything that would make someone consider that some unknown god concept did what you insert without reason or evidence?

Never mind what the website say, because I know of Christians who DOES believe in evolution.

Welcome to being a flat earther.
Here is a Christian who DOES believe in a flat earth: My Flat Earth by Pauly Hart
"The time has come, and now is, when we must show others the truth of God's Word. That the earth is not a spinning ball in space."

You really don't see why your reasoning is being rejected, do you?

I can't in all commonsensical reasoning believe in the notion that the universe came from nothing and we owe our existence to a mindlless/blind/random process.

Thank you for supplying the mechanism that drives your beliefs. I am not saddled with such a thing and in fact am willing to accept a god concept or not as being a cause.

I don't have enough faith to believe in that nonsense.

You do and this is nothing but poisoning of the well.

Um, no...guys like Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, Johanthan Wells, Hugh Ross, etc.

Nothing but an argument from authority. If they have understood evidence that shows that not only a God, but the Christian god concept is the thing that brought about all the animals we see now and in the fossil record, please present it.

They've all looked at the evidence, and they understand it...and they simply ain't buying it.

Once a person pretends to know the unknown, there is no reason to continue learning.

And neither am I.

I'm not impressed.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument does a great job of gutting out the details of what is required for the universe (moon included) to exist.

No it doesn't, it only causes more questions. More importantly, I continue to ask you to explain a better mechanism for the animals we see now and in the fossil record. Kalam is not that.

Im sure you are familiar with the argument, and that is my proof, my evidence, and my truth.

Thanks for sharing your beliefs. Do you have any evidence for us?

Readers, notice how SiNcE_1985 failed to address my question and instead provided evidence that they don't understand that which they criticize.
Only someone that doesn't understand the theory of evolution would suggest that beetles came from a single celled organism!

Hmm..

A single cell turned into a beetle is what you are suggesting. No one proposes such a thing. I would rather debate a flat earth!

Please, I would like an apology and I refuse to engage in any more dialogue with you until I get one.

Beetles did not evolve from a single celled organism anymore than you did. They evolved from a form that was not a single cell. Therefore, you do not deserve an apology.
Perhaps you are alluding to abiogenesis? A topic about how life came about. Evolution is about change. If you don't learn this, you will continue to be confused.

So, until I get an apology, this will be my last post to you.

I'm sorry.

I am sick of my knowledge being questioned just because I do not buy into this dumb theory (evolution).

Then don't join debate sites where ideas are to be questioned. The victim mentality in you is strong!

You are clearly wrong here, so I am not the one whose knowledge should be questioned.

Beetles are thought to have evolved from a group of crustaceans. The first insects were landbound, but about 400 million years ago in the Devonian period. Not from a single celled organism.

Yeah, further research into how an entire universe can come from a state of nothingness.

Why do you submit that our universe came from nothing? Anything to distract I assume, but I don't want to pretend to know. Please enlighten me.

Good luck with that...but anything but the "G" word, right?

Incorrect. I take no issue with a god or gods being the cause for abiogenesis nor for how populations of animals change. You couldn't be more wrong.

You can't have life evolving, if you don't have life originating.

I don't know what part of that you guys don't understand.

That is because there is no part of this that I don't understand.

If you take God out of the equation (which most of you do), then you need to explain how life can originate, WITHOUT GOD.

We don't know how life originated. Perhaps a God did it. Please keep up.

We are now at "God did it, whether you like it or not".

Nope, sorry. We still don't know how life originated on this planet. Your continued assertion that you know is what would stops you from learning though.

Are you familiar with the show "How It's Made"?

It is a show where they take you behind the scenes as to how things are manufactured.

In other words, we know those "things" (jeans, aluminum foil, automobiles, etc) are all created via intelligent design, yet that doesn't stop us from being able to marvel at the process, does it?

I don't see why that would prevent marveling. Why are you asking about a TV show? Does it have anything to do with the animals we see now and in the fossil record?

It has nothing to do with being lazy...we can look at the universe, knowing God created it

We don't know if there was a god or gods behind our universe coming into existence. Humans have been uncomfortable with not knowing, so they invented god concepts to explain. Then they can be comfortable pretending to know like you seem to be doing here.

I am not necessarily talking about how our world works, I am talking about how our world ORIGINATED.

We know how planet form, ours included. Gravity played a large part.

You can't use science to explain the origins of its own domain...this is circular reasoning and will get you nowhere.

Good thing I'm not doing that.

Yet, you choose to remain stuck running around in the circle instead of looking beyond the circle because of this "anything but God" approach.

You have already been shown to be wrong about this. I'm ok with a god or gods as having created out universe if such a thing is valid.

"We don't know", or better yet, "we dont WANT to know"...which is the problem.

I submit that this is your problem. I am in fact curious about such things. Here, specifically about all the animals we see not only now, but also in the fossil record. Something you really, really, really don't want to discuss.

[SiNcE_1985]

A single cell turned into a beetle is what you are suggesting. No one proposes such a thing. I would rather debate a flat earth!

Beetles did not evolve from a single celled organism anymore than you did. They evolved from a form that was not a single cell. Therefore, you do not deserve an apology.
Perhaps you are alluding to abiogenesis? A topic about how life came about. Evolution is about change. If you don't learn this, you will continue to be confused.

"All life on Earth evolved from a single-celled organism that lived roughly 3.5 billion years ago, a new study seems to confirm."

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/adve ... e-ancestor

"We now know that all extant living creatures derive from a single common ancestor, called LUCA."

https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2018/ ... -organisms

Nope, what does the excerpt from the website say...

"All life on earth"

"all extant living creatures".

A beetle is part of "all life", and "all extant living creatures".

You can take your grievances about this to the publishers of the website, and tell them how you feel.

I really don't care.

But the fact of the matter is, you were wrong, and you ARE wrong.

And that's all I got to say to you.

[Yozavan]

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?

You're absolutely right. Religions rise and fall by their own merits. I'm not familiar with Kent Hovind, perhaps he's a weirdo, but people aren'twrong to question science.

Science is still in its infancy, and it seems odd to some, why science must be considered inerrant de facto. Some people, religious or otherwise, are simply curious why science is granted exemplar of intelligence bar none!

Usually, religious people ( Muslims as well as Christians) risk being ostracized for questioning science, but fortunately more secular people are starting to join in. If science is correct in its vast array of dogmatic assertions, then all is well. After all, science will rise and fall by its own merits!

[TRANSPONDER]

A single cell turned into a beetle is what you are suggesting. No one proposes such a thing. I would rather debate a flat earth!

Beetles did not evolve from a single celled organism anymore than you did. They evolved from a form that was not a single cell. Therefore, you do not deserve an apology.
Perhaps you are alluding to abiogenesis? A topic about how life came about. Evolution is about change. If you don't learn this, you will continue to be confused.

"All life on Earth evolved from a single-celled organism that lived roughly 3.5 billion years ago, a new study seems to confirm."

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/adve ... e-ancestor

"We now know that all extant living creatures derive from a single common ancestor, called LUCA."

https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2018/ ... -organisms

Nope, what does the excerpt from the website say...

"All life on earth"

"all extant living creatures".

A beetle is part of "all life", and "all extant living creatures".

You can take your grievances about this to the publishers of the website, and tell them how you feel.

I really don't care.

But the fact of the matter is, you were wrong, and you ARE wrong.

And that's all I got to say to you.

By all means, run away. Evilooshun never mattered in the religion - debate anyway. I doubt that the protoblob was actually called LUCA myself. It is just the label we put on this supposed original blob.

It makes no difference to the hypothesis or the YE Creationist denial of the evidence, or that even if Evolution and Evilooshun is wrong, you still have to argue Which god?

[TRANSPONDER]

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?

You're absolutely right. Religions rise and fall by their own merits. I'm not familiar with Kent Hovind, perhaps he's a weirdo, but people aren'twrong to question science.

Science is still in its infancy, and it seems odd to some, why science must be considered inerrant de facto. Some people, religious or otherwise, are simply curious why science is granted exemplar of intelligence bar none!

Usually, religious people ( Muslims as well as Christians) risk being ostracized for questioning science, but fortunately more secular people are starting to join in. If science is correct in its vast array of dogmatic assertions, then all is well. After all, science will rise and fall by its own merits!

Science has already validated its' case.

It doesn't claim to know everything - science is skeptical and questioning in nature which is why it can 'change its' mind' and replace an old theory with a better one, more in line with recent data.

It is Dogma, and notably religious dogma - that cannot admit it was wrong and either adapts and cherry - picks what it believes or denies, or denies everything (that conflicts with their Faith - I never heard a YE Creationists claim the earth was flat)and becomes more crazy and denialist the more it denies science. (cue - note how this is now exploited by politics and commerce as well as religious fundamentalism) . And of course it projects its' dogmatic faith -reasoning onto science.

The Fundamentalists position you put is false, in fact. The questions have been asked and answered, Pre - Cambrian fossils, DNA, feathered dinosaurs, and the cetan sequence pretty much establishing Evolution, and Behe's IC being taken down in a court of Law.

And yet the science -skeptic Faithful keep making the same arguments and accusations, when they could have seen the rebuttals if they'd looked further than their Christian propaganda websites.

But that's why we're here - to provide the answers the apologetics sites ignore, and see them either sink into denial or run away with some last - word snark.

[Yozavan]

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?

You're absolutely right. Religions rise and fall by their own merits. I'm not familiar with Kent Hovind, perhaps he's a weirdo, but people aren'twrong to question science.

Science is still in its infancy, and it seems odd to some, why science must be considered inerrant de facto. Some people, religious or otherwise, are simply curious why science is granted exemplar of intelligence bar none!

Usually, religious people ( Muslims as well as Christians) risk being ostracized for questioning science, but fortunately more secular people are starting to join in. If science is correct in its vast array of dogmatic assertions, then all is well. After all, science will rise and fall by its own merits!

Science has already validated its' case.

It doesn't claim to know everything - science is skeptical and questioning in nature which is why it can 'change its' mind' and replace an old theory with a better one, more in line with recent data.

It is Dogma, and notably religious dogma - that cannot admit it was wrong and either adapts and cherry - picks what it believes or denies, or denies everything (that conflicts with their Faith - I never heard a YE Creationists claim the earth was flat)and becomes more crazy and denialist the more it denies science. (cue - note how this is now exploited by politics and commerce as well as religious fundamentalism) . And of course it projects its' dogmatic faith -reasoning onto science.

The Fundamentalists position you put is false, in fact. The questions have been asked and answered, Pre - Cambrian fossils, DNA, feathered dinosaurs, and the cetan sequence pretty much establishing Evolution, and Behe's IC being taken down in a court of Law.

And yet the science -skeptic Faithful keep making the same arguments and accusations, when they could have seen the rebuttals if they'd looked further than their Christian propaganda websites.

But that's why we're here - to provide the answers the apologetics sites ignore, and see them either sink into denial or run away with some last - word snark.

The growing trend among youngsters is to assume politicians, the media and science is lying to them! Fundamentalists are not the threat anymore. Last year I graduated from a high school in Venice beach. I assure you, science is considered suspect among many youth. Many doubt we've even gone into space, let alone biological or astronomical theories.

Fundamentalists ain't the threat anymore

[Clownboat]

"All life on Earth evolved from a single-celled organism that lived roughly 3.5 billion years ago, a new study seems to confirm."

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/adve ... e-ancestor

"We now know that all extant living creatures derive from a single common ancestor, called LUCA."

https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2018/ ... -organisms

Nope, what does the excerpt from the website say...

"All life on earth"

"all extant living creatures".

A beetle is part of "all life", and "all extant living creatures".

You can take your grievances about this to the publishers of the website, and tell them how you feel.

I really don't care.

But the fact of the matter is, you were wrong, and you ARE wrong.

And that's all I got to say to you.

A single celled organism did NOT evolve into a beetle. To suggest such a thing is ludicrous and displays a complete lack of understanding.
I even clarified by saying: Copy/paste "Beetles are thought to have evolved from a group of crustaceans. The first insects were landbound, but about 400 million years ago in the Devonian period. Not from a single celled organism."
You seem to be talking about how life began on this planet with a single celled organism. I agree that this is the most likely scenario, but in truth we really don't know yet how life originated here.

I see you have no defense for your biased website nor were you able to show any bias in mine.
You were also unable to show that your employment of bias was any different than a flat earthers bias.

Another question you failed to address is what mechanism stops micro from becoming macro. This is a very valid question as you seem to discount that micro changes can lead to macro. Rather than educating me, you stick your head in the sand and pretend it wasn't asked.

That we can compare the starting and ending allele frequencies for a specific gene during a given time period and note changes over said time is bio-babble to you.

How on earth is this bio-babble? Will you educate me, or continue to ignore my questions?

You also asked me to give you something you can observe. When I did (below again), you also ignored it. Why bother asking as it doesn't seem sincere?

All the animals that exist now and in the fossil record plus embryology, DNA comparisons, biogeography, genetics, anatomy, molecular biology, homologous organs and evolution in action (that species change).

Then you pointed out that you know a Christian who DOES believe in evolution. I'm not sure what point you were trying to make, so I showed you a Christian that believes in a flat earth, hoping to show you why your reasoning is nonsensical.

I do thank you once again for supplying the mechanism that drives your reasoning though:

I can't in all commonsensical reasoning believe in the notion that the universe came from nothing and we owe our existence to a mindlless/blind/random process.

And this one was so good I just wanted to make note of it once again:

I am sick of my knowledge being questioned just because I do not buy into this dumb theory (evolution).

On a debate site no less!

Then you made some comment about how a universe coming from nothing. I inquired about why you would suggest such a thing. The silence is deafening. I understand that believing that eternal life may hinge on disbelieving in evolution adds emotion to the topic, but please do not project your emotions about this topic on to me. Again, if a God or alien or whatever created life here, I'm ok with that and would want to know more. Therefore, what I learn about this topic does not affect some afterlife for me. I don't have a dog in the fight and am able to look at the evidence with an open mind. Not all are able to do this it seems.

[Yozavan]

"All life on Earth evolved from a single-celled organism that lived roughly 3.5 billion years ago, a new study seems to confirm."

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/adve ... e-ancestor

"We now know that all extant living creatures derive from a single common ancestor, called LUCA."

https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2018/ ... -organisms

Nope, what does the excerpt from the website say...

"All life on earth"

"all extant living creatures".

A beetle is part of "all life", and "all extant living creatures".

You can take your grievances about this to the publishers of the website, and tell them how you feel.

I really don't care.

But the fact of the matter is, you were wrong, and you ARE wrong.

And that's all I got to say to you.

A single celled organism did NOT evolve into a beetle. To suggest such a thing is ludicrous and displays a complete lack of understanding.
I even clarified by saying: Copy/paste "Beetles are thought to have evolved from a group of crustaceans. The first insects were landbound, but about 400 million years ago in the Devonian period. Not from a single celled organism."
You seem to be talking about how life began on this planet with a single celled organism. I agree that this is the most likely scenario, but in truth we really don't know yet how life originated here.

I see you have no defense for your biased website nor were you able to show any bias in mine.
You were also unable to show that your employment of bias was any different than a flat earthers bias.

Another question you failed to address is what mechanism stops micro from becoming macro. This is a very valid question as you seem to discount that micro changes can lead to macro. Rather than educating me, you stick your head in the sand and pretend it wasn't asked.

That we can compare the starting and ending allele frequencies for a specific gene during a given time period and note changes over said time is bio-babble to you.

How on earth is this bio-babble? Will you educate me, or continue to ignore my questions?

You also asked me to give you something you can observe. When I did (below again), you also ignored it. Why bother asking as it doesn't seem sincere?

All the animals that exist now and in the fossil record plus embryology, DNA comparisons, biogeography, genetics, anatomy, molecular biology, homologous organs and evolution in action (that species change).

Then you pointed out that you know a Christian who DOES believe in evolution. I'm not sure what point you were trying to make, so I showed you a Christian that believes in a flat earth, hoping to show you why your reasoning is nonsensical.

I do thank you once again for supplying the mechanism that drives your reasoning though:

I can't in all commonsensical reasoning believe in the notion that the universe came from nothing and we owe our existence to a mindlless/blind/random process.

And this one was so good I just wanted to make note of it once again:

I am sick of my knowledge being questioned just because I do not buy into this dumb theory (evolution).

On a debate site no less!

Then you made some comment about how a universe coming from nothing. I inquired about why you would suggest such a thing. The silence is deafening. I understand that believing that eternal life may hinge on disbelieving in evolution adds emotion to the topic, but please do not project your emotions about this topic on to me. Again, if a God or alien or whatever created life here, I'm ok with that and would want to know more. Therefore, what I learn about this topic does not affect some afterlife for me. I don't have a dog in the fight and am able to look at the evidence with an open mind. Not all are able to do this it seems.

Perhaps, you and 1985 can resolve your differences by accepting the Simulation theory. He loses his religion and you lose your science. Seems a reasonable trade, and Jesus said, " blessed are the peace makers." I'm sure that's true in a simulation as well, .... well maybe its not. Drats!!!

[SiNcE_1985]

A single celled organism did NOT evolve into a beetle. To suggest such a thing is ludicrous and displays a complete lack of understanding.

"All life on Earth evolved from a single-celled organism that lived roughly 3.5 billion years ago, a new study seems to confirm."

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/adve ... e-ancestor

Still trying to figure out what part of "all life on Earth" you don't understand.

I even clarified by saying: Copy/paste "Beetles are thought to have evolved from a group of crustaceans. The first insects were landbound, but about 400 million years ago in the Devonian period. Not from a single celled organism."
You seem to be talking about how life began on this planet with a single celled organism. I agree that this is the most likely scenario, but in truth we really don't know yet how life originated here.

Um, of course I am talking about how life began on this planet as a single celled organism.

Did you just figure out the nature of the discussion?

"Prototypes for every animal body plan rapidly emerged, from sea snails to starfish, from insects to crustaceans. Every animal that has lived since then has been a variation on one of the themes that emerged during this time.

How did life make this spectacular leap from unicellular simplicity to multicellular complexity?"

Do you see that..."insects"....and the question is asked how did things go from uni(single)cellular to multicellular.

https://www.wired.com/2014/08/where-animals-come-from/

You can have the last word here, as a complete lack of understanding is being displayed here.

[TRANSPONDER]

Through evolution. look, I have said this before but you should understand the subject before you try to debate it. The fossil record shows basic life - forms of groups of cells, primitive molluscs, crinoids etc. The Cambrian shows diversity (the 'Cambrian explosion) into various kinds of molluscs, sea plants, sea insects and the first fish. The process of evolution into different branches and 'kinds' or species can be followed, so it is simply lack of knowledge to pretend you can't imagine how it happened. Not only does the evidence explain how it could happen, it explains how it Did happen.

cue "How did life start, then?" Ok, I get it, there is no proof of Abiogenesis, but there is a hypothetical mechanism which is more than the Bible has. There, God just waves a magic wand. But that doesn't matter; the only actual point here is that science through morphology, DNA and the fossil record, not to mention radiometric dating, shows the account in Genesis is wrong.

And just for jolly, wouldn't you, we can have a video. Not because it is needed, and never mind the protests that speculation is presented as Fact, we know all those objections. But just take it as a hypothesis that, from Pre -Cambrian onwards, is validated (proven) though the fossil record.