"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?

[POI]

I got you to the 10 yard line. Let someone else (you) bring it in for the touchdown.

No. As I already stated, you provided a mere Gish gallop of intellectually lazy claims strung together. That's all. Using American football analogies, your team forfeited before the opening coin toss.

Unlike macro-evilution, a cosmic beginning is something we can actually observe, and both logically and mathematically prove.

Even IF this is true, a 'big bang' does not automatically mean 'creation ex nihilo'.

?

The Bible is a specific claim about creationism. Aside from the claim(s) itself, what actual evidence(s) supports this/these specific claim(s) to creationism? So far, all you've provided is a 2-hour Gish gallop video from a known charlatan. For which I responded to in post 87.

I am not defending Christian theism with my argumentation at the moment.

Yes you are, by providing Kent Hovind's video.

I stay working.

???

[SiNcE_1985]

No. As I already stated, you provided a mere Gish gallop of intellectually lazy claims strung together.

You asked for "lies in the textbook" as it pertains to evolution.

I provided you 2 hours worth of "lies in the textbook" as it pertains to evolution.

2 hours worth of lies, is a LOT of lies.

You are the one that asked for it, it isn't my job to comb through the material for you.

If you didn't watch the vid, you wouldn't know the actual quality of the claims, would you?

That's all. Using American football analogies, your team forfeited before the opening coin toss.

Even IF this is true, a 'big bang' does not automatically mean 'creation ex nihilo'.

That is exactly what it means... precisely what it means.

The Bible is a specific claim about creationism. Aside from the claim(s) itself, what actual evidence(s) supports this/these specific claim(s) to creationism?

Well, for starters, I see animals bringing forth after their kinds...which is exactly what God commanded in Genesis.

Contrary to evolution, where animals began to not bring forth after their kinds.

So far, all you've provided is a 2-hour Gish gallop video from a known charlatan. For which I responded to in post 87.

Gish gallop lol.

Not Gish gallop, but hey.

Yes you are, by providing Kent Hovind's video.

You should only concern yourself with "lies in the textbook" at this point...not about which God did what.

It has less to do with God, and more to do about dishonest scientists trying to push a false narrative.

I stay working.

???

Urban talk for "I am always working".



I am from an urban land.

[TRANSPONDER]

We really don't need to waste our time looking at claims of evolutionist lies by people who don't understand evolution, don't want to and lie themselves, or at least make easily debunkable arguments, like the grand canyon done is n a relatively short time.

The only point you are making is kinds after their kinds argument. This is short - sighted and in denial of the evidence. Now I know that you will simply deny the evidence and insist that unless you see cats from dogs before your very eyes, or mud puddles with electric volts fizzed into them producing DNA molecules, or at least Mammoths from butterflies in a laboratory, you will deny that the forensic, morphological and palaeontological evidence for evolution, never mind deep time geology and a debunk of a Yong Earth genesis - literalist creation -claim, you will not even recognise the Deep time and evolution case.

Fortunately that doesn't matter as the debate is not about cracking the denial of the Faith - claimant, but the better case that can be made.

The fact is that the evidence for speciation is more than compelling, and only closed - minded denial refuses the scientific evidence (dismissed as textbook lies) and insists tat thing are merely as appears to our limited human perceptions, which of course would tell us the earth is flat with a sky dome over it and all the celestial lights are trundling around the inside, just as it look like in Genesis.

[POI]

2 hours worth of lies, is a LOT of lies.

Nope. I addressed the first claimed "lie" and it's just the rhetoric of a charlatan. See post 87 - (second request).

That is exactly what it means... precisely what it means.

Negative. A 'big bang' can also originate from "ex materia", and not only "ex nihilo".

Well, for starters, I see animals bringing forth after their kinds...which is exactly what God commanded in Genesis.

Then you clearly do not even know what evolutionary biology claims. Rather than to type a text wall, here is a very short vid, speaking about common ancestry. To set the stage, this comes from a Roman Catholic scientist, (Kennith Miller), after his part in the Dover trial in the mid 2000's.

You should only concern yourself with "lies in the textbook" at this point...not about which God did what.

I already did, in post 87. The lie(s), ironically, comes from the cited charlatan --> (Kent Hovind).

It has less to do with God, and more to do about dishonest scientists trying to push a false narrative.

Then you need to be consistent. Kent Hovind is either deceptive or ignorant. I see no third option, as it relates for his defense of the Bible. If it's a lie, it's a lie. Whether it be about origins of Covid, etc... And it's clear Mr. Kent is either lying or ignorant to the claims for evolutionary biology.

As I keep stating, evolutionary biology can be false, but that does not then make Genesis true. It's not either/or. Genesis has to prove it is true on its own merit(s).

[TRANSPONDER]

Absolutely. Evolution or Genesis is really unimportant in the debate. But it has taken on a central position in the debate. From a couple of Mormons coming to the door back in the 70's to a bunch of leafleteers in burkas buttonholing me in KL in 2018, ''Who made everything, then', seems to be the biggest and best argument for a god, and maybe it is, though it is nothing like as good as they suppose.

As you say, ex materia is just as (logically) possible as ex nihilo and practically more so as they say themselves 'nothing can come from nothing', though that is more a slogan designed to end the discussion than intended to contribute to it (1).

But, as those Muslim girls in KL clearly thought, making a case for Creation vs evilooshun was a win for Islam for them, just as those mormon lads though that arguing that God dunnit was a win for LDS. In fact evolution - debate neither wins nor loses anything for any religion in particular, but this basic a priori assumption that, if it is a god that dunnit, it is (of course) Their god, and all the others are man - made inventions.

(1) I see it so often; the 'atheist - stumper' that is going to be the one - shot win that allows them to walk off (metaphorically or in reality) with the last word.
I am sure...because the idea is to tell themselves they won. Yes, the idea is to try to close down all discussion and debate ...outside of the Box, that is (2) and sell the faithful what they need to keep on believing, even if it really makes no sense. But there I am again, where the debate is long since done, other than protracted denial and putting the same arguments again and again and expecting a different answer, and it is the mindset of Faith that interests me rather than their defunct apologetics.

(2) I have heard them say that they are eager to discuss religion or, as Hovind says, They love science. Sure, but only discussion about accepted religion, not questioning it, other than rhetorically with assured easy dismissal of doubt and question with the stock apologetics they try to pull on atheists and find they aren't working. And 'science' is fine - so long as it is twisted to suit their beliefs. Dogs from cats or Mammoths from butterflies is their idea of science, along with the grand canyon cut in a week or a month or a pint of water a molecule thick could cover the earth. But you couldn't float a boat or drown a creation in that, so a good deal more water is needed. Had he really thought that through or was he just hoping it was a smart answer that would satisfy his pump - primed listeners? i think that is likely - it is is intended to keep the faithful from questioning, rather than make a proper case against real science. Which they can just dismiss as lies anyway.

[TRANSPONDER]

and a p.s Yes the video makes the point about the fused chromosome. Now the DNA 'similarity' between humans and chimps was dismissed as either coincidence or them having the same manufacturer. But the point about the fused chromosome is that it has no real explanation other than as a progression - that is, evolutionary step - from a common ancestor with chimps.

I have seen this point argued before and sometimes myself, and as i can recall it was just what the video said - they have no response other than silence.

[SiNcE_1985]

2 hours worth of lies, is a LOT of lies.

Nope. I addressed the first claimed "lie" and it's just the rhetoric of a charlatan. See post 87 - (second request).

Well, take it up with Hovind.

Negative. A 'big bang' can also originate from "ex materia", and not only "ex nihilo".

But that won't work, because of a few good reasons..

1. There is no evidence for creation ex materia.

2. There is evidence against creation ex materia.

Create a thread on the subject and I'll see ya there.

Then you clearly do not even know what evolutionary biology claims.

Ahhh, yes.

The good ole "you just don't understand evolution" retort.

Never fails.

And my typical response will always be..

My unbelief in evolution is not based on what I don't know about the theory; but rather, it is based on what I DO know about the theory.

Rather than to type a text wall, here is a very short vid, speaking about common ancestry. To set the stage, this comes from a Roman Catholic scientist, (Kennith Miller), after his part in the Dover trial in the mid 2000's.

Oh, I remember Kenneth Miller...didn't know he was a Roman Catholic.

Hadn't heard from him in years.

If I'm not mistaken, I recall Kent Hovind saying he challenged Ken Miller to a debate on evolution but Miller declined.

This was years ago.

I already acknowledged that there are theists who believe in evolution (all of whom I disagree with), so I'm not sure the point you are trying to make by sharing the video.

Then you need to be consistent. Kent Hovind is either deceptive or ignorant. I see no third option, as it relates for his defense of the Bible. If it's a lie, it's a lie. Whether it be about origins of Covid, etc... And it's clear Mr. Kent is either lying or ignorant to the claims for evolutionary biology.

Sure, anyone who doesn't believe in evolution are so dumb, contrary to the all the genuises who believe in evolution, as they are the only bright ones around here.

Yeah, ok.

As I keep stating, evolutionary biology can be false, but that does not then make Genesis true. It's not either/or. Genesis has to prove it is true on its own merit(s).

Well, animals are bringing forth after there kind, as Genesis states...and that's all you, I, or anyone else has ever saw.

So, so far..

Scoreboard

Gen: 1

Evolutionary Biology: 0

[POI]

Well, take it up with Hovind.

Nope. I'm taking it up with you. You claim Hovind exposes many lies. I've demonstrated otherwise. It is Hovind who is the liar. If you do not care to engage it, I do not blame you.

But that won't work, because of a few good reasons..

1. There is no evidence for creation ex materia.

2. There is evidence against creation ex materia.

X - Create a thread on the subject and I'll see ya there.

1. Of course there is. All 'creation' is from "ex materia."
2. No there isn't. See option 1.

X - Not necessary.

Ahhh, yes. The good ole "you just don't understand evolution" retort. Never fails. And my typical response will always be..

My unbelief in evolution is not based on what I don't know about the theory; but rather, it is based on what I DO know about the theory.

You know very little. If you watch the 4-minute video I provided, (avoiding the need to type about it in a text-wall), you would see why 'creationists' had absolutely no rebuttal in the Dover trial.

Oh, I remember Kenneth Miller...didn't know he was a Roman Catholic.

Hadn't heard from him in years.

If I'm not mistaken, I recall Kent Hovind saying he challenged Ken Miller to a debate on evolution but Miller declined.

This was years ago.

Nothing here is relevant to address.

I already acknowledged that there are theists who believe in evolution (all of whom I disagree with), so I'm not sure the point you are trying to make by sharing the video.

The video is given to provide evidential account(s) as to why evolutionary biology is demonstrated and testable. And the ones who deny it are either willfully ignorant, or in denial to the evidence.

Sure, anyone who doesn't believe in evolution are so dumb, contrary to the all the genuises who believe in evolution, as they are the only bright ones around here.

Yeah, ok.

Typical response........

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #97]

So you post garbage and award yourself a point, Nice going.

All you did was ignore the evidence discovered by research, sory it didn't happen before your eyes, and sneer at evolution - theory. One of the most tellingly harmful to the creationist is to say that evolution theory has better evidence and better arguments but say it in a sarcastic tone. As usual it isn't about you telling yourself you won, but but about the case you present.

Apart from you don't see something from nothing before your eyes, or ;imperfect human perception' as the creationists like to say when they want to discredit science. All you are doing is saying you don't want to see the evidence, so tyou can say you don't see any evidence.

It's brilliant as an exploded diagram of everything wrong about Creationist apologetics. Not the misrepresentation or deception or even the projection and pot - kettle accusations, but the denial of evidence dangled in front of the face.

And, yes. We never hear about Dover where science and a law court found that IC was no science but creationism, which is merely religious dogma in a lab coat. Though we never hear about it, it was a hoot as the Creationists were telling each other that GW Bush appointed the judge so he would find for them no matter the evidence.

Which he didn't and they stoned him for it afterwards. Now of course Judges know what's expected of them by the religious Right. Behe pretty much got abandoned by those who swore they'd turn up, and his 'science' was shot down and he was made to look stupid (1). And the aftermath was interesting - not just the attacks on the Judge, but the effort to distance IC from religion but also to redefine science as whatever religion said it was.

Sit tight. If the election goes wrong, Kizmiller vs Dover will go the way of Roe vs Wade. That's a promise.

(1) Asked whether, if IC was to be taught as as a controversial theory, Astrology should also be taught in the science class, Behe could not help but say Yes and look a laughing stock.

[SiNcE_1985]

Nope. I'm taking it up with you. You claim Hovind exposes many lies. I've demonstrated otherwise. It is Hovind who is the liar. If you do not care to engage it, I do not blame you.

Hovind claims that dogs produce dogs, cats/cats, etc.

No lies detected.

1. Of course there is. All 'creation' is from "ex materia."
2. No there isn't. See option 1.

X - Not necessary.

The empty assertions are plentiful...it is the evidence that is lacking.

You know very little. If you watch the 4-minute video I provided, (avoiding the need to type about it in a text-wall), you would see why 'creationists' had absolutely no rebuttal in the Dover trial.

Hovind wasn't present at the trial.

Nothing here is relevant to address.

No worries. It was said matter of factly.

The video is given to provide evidential account(s) as to why evolutionary biology is demonstrated and testable. And the ones who deny it are either willfully ignorant, or in denial to the evidence.

Dogs produce dogs.

I reject the given interpretations of alleged evidence(s).

The same thing you do with creationists arguments.