"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]

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

To avoid moving of goal posts, I would like to hear first, do we agree that the textbooks say all living things share the same common ancestor?

Cut/paste a 'quote' from a textbook for which you feel is a lie or is fraud. The fear of moving the goal post(s) can then be directly compared to the quote from the textbook.

My ideology does not live/die by evolution being true or false. Further, I am not an evolutionary biologist. I know the basics but am not an expert. FYI, evolution can be completely debunked, and it would have virtually no bearing on why I do not believe in Christianity. Further, Christianity has also found a way to intertwine both evolution and the claim(s) from Genesis.

Alternatively, it seems that some here would have no choice but to scrap Chrisrtianity, if evolution was not a lie or was not fraud?

[TRANSPONDER]

In fact, it makes little difference. Even if a Creator was proved, it wouldn't say which one, so the debate would have to be done all over and Bible veracity, or rather NT veracity or that is Gospel veracity which is to say resurrection - claim credibility is in fact the Only debate that really matters and all the others are irrelevant if not long lost like Morality.

But even with evolution proved, that does NOT disprove a god, because Christians at a pinch can bin Genesis as myt....Metaphorically True..and carry on. But of course Exodus has to be fought for but if it was for sure debunked (if negative evidence can do that) it would be shrugged off as true or, if not, everything else is true.

But we are in the Bamboo vs cedar area. One can bend rather than resist debunk and survive though in a weaker form, or they can refuse to bend until the gale breaks it.

"No, no, it hasn't fallen, it's just lying down.."

But denial or adaptation of the believer doesn't matter. No more that biology is affected by creationist denial. Egyptology doesn't give a hoot about a claim for an exodus. It records what there is evidence for, not fairy tales it can't disprove, or are held up as true even if they can.

[brunumb]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #2]

That's over two and a half hours of possible 'preaching'. Please select just three lies and present them here in your own words to see if watching the whole seminar is justified.

I guess you and I have different definitions of "preaching"...and I doubt you watched the video and thus aren't in a position to speak on it.

I haven't watched the video. 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.

Are you unable to articulate any of the so-called lies to back up your claim?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #2]

That's over two and a half hours of possible 'preaching'. Please select just three lies and present them here in your own words to see if watching the whole seminar is justified.

I guess you and I have different definitions of "preaching"...and I doubt you watched the video and thus aren't in a position to speak on it.

I haven't watched the video. 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.

Are you unable to articulate any of the so-called lies to back up your claim?

I sat through enough of that nasty preachy start to get to the first 'Lies' which is simply his (Hovind) denial of the Big bang, age of the earth and 'cave man' by which I suppose he means ape man, and he can hardly deny that humans lived in caves until farming and herding replaced foraging and hunting.

The Creationists put on a huge effort "EATE" to try to debunk the various radiometic dating methods that backed up the estimates of geological ages but they could not. In fact I recall a meeting of this group where they had to revise the age of the earth (in their belief) to 50, 000 years, which cause a dismayed stir amongst the audience of Genesis beleivers as of course an age or 8 or so thousand years in a Belief amongst them.

The Big Bang is a funny one as the believer (a priest in fact) who proposed the BB saw it as an act of creation that was evidence for a god. In fact lane -Craig's Kalam is based on this idea 'The universe had a start'. Though he avoids claiming it had an intelligently dome start as that would sift the burden of proof back to him.

It was hard to stomach what I saw as Hoving (both of them) are the liars, their 'science' is non -science and science denial, and their creationist theme parks and magical cures are scams.

[1213]

Cut/paste a 'quote' from a textbook for which you feel is a lie or is fraud. The fear of moving the goal post(s) can then be directly compared to the quote from the textbook.

Ok, Britannica for example says:

"all plants and animals derive from bacteria-like microorganisms that originated more than 3 billion years ago".
https://www.britannica.com/science/evol ... fic-theory

And according to the genes, bacteria is too different in comparison to eukaryotes (All animals, plants, fungi, and many unicellular organisms are eukaryotes), which makes the Britannica's claim not possible.

"[E]ach of the three domains of life (bacteria, archaea, and eukaryotes) has its own unique way of 1) replicating its genome, 2) defining whether a piece of DNA is a gene or not, 3) determining whether an RNA is protein-coding or not, and 4) if it is protein-coding, where transcription or translation should start and end."

"To borrow the language of cryptography, the inheritable genetic information that determines life or death of all living beings is encrypted. Furthermore, the information is encrypted in different ways in different organisms, one way for bacteria, another way for archaea, and yet another way for eukaryotes. These organisms have to use their own unique cryptographic keys to decipher their genomes. Their cryptographic keys are their own RNAs and proteins present in their own cells and those that they can make themselves using their own molecular machineries."

"It is like Chinese and English - they use totally different alphabets, words, and grammars and need to be read differently."

"[T]he same task is implemented differently by the three fundamental cell types. That is not what one would expect if bacteria and eukaryotes had shared a common ancestor because DNA replication is essential for the survival and reproduction of each and every known organism."

"This creates unbridgeable gaps between bacteria, archaea, and eukaryotes and, thus, challenges the popular belief that life came from non-life naturally and that all organisms are connected via a big evolutionary tree of life."

"What many believe and teach about the origin of life and the origin of biodiversity does not agree with what the genes are showing us."
- Tan, Change Laura. 2022. Facts Cannot be Ignored When Considering the Origin of Life #3: Necessity of Matching the Coding and the Decoding Systems. Answers Research Journal, Vol. 15, pp. 49–60. DOI:assets.answersresearchjournal.org/doc/v15/origin_of_life_coding_decoding.pdf
https://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

Alternatively, it seems that some here would have no choice but to scrap Chrisrtianity, if evolution was not a lie or was not fraud?

If evolution means all species come from single organism, it is in contradiction with Biblical claim that God created different life forms. So, obviously, if evolution theory would be true, Bible would be false.

[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 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.

No though of course every Bible debunk makes it harder for the Believer to argue that the Bible is to be trusted.

I know, I know, the primal blob has not been proven. But the mere existence of the hypothesis and mechanism as opposed to an act of magic with no process means that there is no Creationist default, just the claim (without even getting to which creator it is).

But the evolution from simply blobs Has been proven or at least has compelling evidence, not just with the discovery of pre -cambrian fossils, making the final link to the proposed bio -blob, but with DNA, showing commonality with all bioforms.

What does Genesis literalism have? Denial of science and slapping an ancient book - and just one of many, all the others being rejected with no consideration.

[TRANSPONDER]

I was quite surprised how little Hovind there was - after his jailing for tax fraud, that is, After that, though he argued and denied from his living room, Eric took over the 'Mission'.

But there are earlier videos debunking Creationism and their 'Tabletop' mind experiment models, like Hovind's ice meteor zooming through the solar system, breaking up, causing the Rings and the flood (this may not even be his own idea) and they have Hovind before his arrest trial and conviction.



The idiocy about a molecule deep flood stuck in my mind. But where idiocy ends and bamboozling begins is not sure. An Extreme idiocy was the idea that Volcanoes whoofed the Koalas to Australia to get over the distribution problem. Can'tr recall who proposed that.

This is so stupid that I can't believe it was seriously proposed and we never hear it now. But the science holds that earth's water did indeed come from space ice of which there is a lot. The cosmos is full of frozen water.

But the problem is it doesn't work in an 8,000 year time scale but 4 billion years. same as post ark super evolution. It is taking Evolution theory but speeding it up so it happens in just a hundred years

"Evolution isn't true - there wouldn't be enough time!" (Creationist apologetic meme)

Even better is no 5.



This is the table - top' model that sorta stacks up in the creationist mind but hasn't a hope of working with actual we earth conditions.

I have a theory; it doesn't have to make sense; it only had to sound like it does for the uncritical believer (with some science - denial where needed) because it is Faith, not science, that is wanted here.

[historia]

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.

[Kylie]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #2]

That's over two and a half hours of possible 'preaching'. Please select just three lies and present them here in your own words to see if watching the whole seminar is justified.

I guess you and I have different definitions of "preaching"...and I doubt you watched the video and thus aren't in a position to speak on it.

I note that you avoided the actual issue which was to present three examples of Kent showing lies in evolution books. Regardless of whether you consider it preaching or not, watching a two and a half hour video is a big ask of someone.

[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?

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.