"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]

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

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

By what I know, it is easy to make snowflakes. Also coal and oil are possible. And in a way wings also are possible. Comets and volcanoes I hope people can't make, but I think it also is possible.

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

In this case my point was not to say so. The point is that I think you are wrong in what causes life, because you can have all the necessary parts of a living cell, but still scientists can't make it living, if it is dead.

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

I think it is possible God heals amputees, even if I have not seen that happening nowadays.

[TRANSPONDER]

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

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

By what I know, it is easy to make snowflakes. Also coal and oil are possible. And in a way wings also are possible. Comets and volcanoes I hope people can't make, but I think it also is possible.

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

In this case my point was not to say so. The point is that I think you are wrong in what causes life, because you can have all the necessary parts of a living cell, but still scientists can't make it living, if it is dead.

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

I think it is possible God heals amputees, even if I have not seen that happening nowadays.

It is rather a hoot that you excuse the evidence against by claiming 'it may be possible' even if you can't produce any examples of it. But Scientists can't say Abiogenesis is possible, even if it's can't be done now.

Bot of course that argument is really a denialist one. The point about Evolution is that (and I'm sure I've said this before) even if a god (name your own) started Life off, the evidence is that it evolved over millions of years, not over a short time, and effectively made all species in one go. In short, Genesis is wrong.

The failure in the Big Three Gaps for God is that it doesn't say which god it is, and we are back to arguing the Holy Books and doctrines, which is the only debate that matters. And evolution debunks Genesis. That, and not the origins of life, is the point.

Atheists know they can't disprove a god, which is why we are ok with deists and irreligious theists. Because we don't care what people believe themselves, just so long as they don't impose it on others, which is just what organised religion does.

But God - apologists still hold up 'Who made everything, then?' as the final atheist -stumper that wins for them every time, but it actually gains them nothing, whichever god they happen to believe in.
e in.,

[SiNcE_1985]

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

Gladly, I've done both.

You provided a very long video and claimed that info is in it. That is NOT you providing evidence, that is you providing an unreasonable claim, in a debate setting no less.

Yeah, a very long video..which means 2 hours worth of lies in textbooks.

That is a lot of lies; thus, the requestor received what he/she asked for, AND more.

"You will know them by their fruits."

That's right, keep quoting Jesus.

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

When science corroborates Biblical teachings, that is meaningful.

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

Yeah, the point is, God did it.

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

Then we shouldn't consult science text books either.

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

Then you don't have a viable theory for evolution.

I believe your reasoning is flawed due to a preconceived notion that evolution must be false in order for your preferred religious beliefs to be true.

Um, no...because there are Christians (theists) who believe in evolution.

I'm just not one of them.

I am not saddled with such a thing. Prove evolution to be false and I will lose no sleep and will anticipate learning about the better explanation.

If evolution is proven false, then theism is the only game left in town.

I understand this is difficult for you to accept...but hey.

I'm willing to learn while your goal is to maintain a belief you already hold, but Kent Hovid... really?

Yeah. Kent Hovind. Really.

[TRANSPONDER]

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

Gladly, I've done both.

You provided a very long video and claimed that info is in it. That is NOT you providing evidence, that is you providing an unreasonable claim, in a debate setting no less.

Yeah, a very long video..which means 2 hours worth of lies in textbooks.

That is a lot of lies; thus, the requestor received what he/she asked for, AND more.

"You will know them by their fruits."

That's right, keep quoting Jesus.

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

When science corroborates Biblical teachings, that is meaningful.

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

Yeah, the point is, God did it.

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

Then we shouldn't consult science text books either.

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

Then you don't have a viable theory for evolution.

I believe your reasoning is flawed due to a preconceived notion that evolution must be false in order for your preferred religious beliefs to be true.

Um, no...because there are Christians (theists) who believe in evolution.

I'm just not one of them.

I am not saddled with such a thing. Prove evolution to be false and I will lose no sleep and will anticipate learning about the better explanation.

If evolution is proven false, then theism is the only game left in town.

I understand this is difficult for you to accept...but hey.

I'm willing to learn while your goal is to maintain a belief you already hold, but Kent Hovid... really?

Yeah. Kent Hovind. Really.

A long list of lies, misrepresentation and invalid arguments. Hovind was a fraud and still is. His arguments are nonsense designed to fool people who don't want to understand evolution or the arguments against Genesis -literal creationism (evilooshun) .

You don't even understand what it is or what the apologetic is or what the religious counter is. You wrongly think that you just have to find one thing evilooshunists can't answer (or prove, rather as there is a hypothesis) and you think (or pretend) that collapses evolution and 'theism is the one thing left'. Didn't I say this was the basic illogic of Theism? They think that God is the default unless Everything about evolution is proven (and we know with the cetan sequence, that can be proven and it is still ignored).

In actuality, abiogenesis is irrelevant. No matter where Life came from, it evolved - on the evidence. But even if you could disprove evolution, it would not mean a god did it, it would mean 'we don't know'.

And even if you could prove a god did it, it wouldn't tell you which one.

It comes down to the Bible and specifically, the NT. sure it don't look good for Bible credibility if Genesis is wrong but as you observed, some Christians are fine with evolution.

Not you - for terrible reasons, or you would not reference the fraud, liar and jailed felon Kent Hovind.

Now, I don't know whether your apologetics are really bad and denialist, or whether you know they are bad and it's just tweaking the noses of atheists.

It doesn't matter, because the point is the dscussion and the case, not how denialist anyone is, or what rotten and discredited authorities they serve up..

[SiNcE_1985]

A long list of lies, misrepresentation and invalid arguments.

Opinions.

Hovind was a fraud and still is.

Opinions.

His arguments are nonsense designed to fool people who don't want to understand evolution or the arguments against Genesis -literal creationism (evilooshun) .

Opinions.

You don't even understand what it is or what the apologetic is or what the religious counter is. You wrongly think that you just have to find one thing evilooshunists can't answer (or prove, rather as there is a hypothesis) and you think (or pretend) that collapses evolution and 'theism is the one thing left'. Didn't I say this was the basic illogic of Theism? They think that God is the default unless Everything about evolution is proven (and we know with the cetan sequence, that can be proven and it is still ignored).

Your rant aside; dogs produce dogs, cats/cats, fish/fish.

In actuality, abiogenesis is irrelevant. No matter where Life came from, it evolved - on the evidence.

Um, no.

When God is taken out of the equation (on atheism), then abiogenesis must be true.

Atheism depends on the nonexistence of God, and abiogenesis being true.

The problem is, no one can prove abiogenesis true...in fact, it could be false.

And if abiogenesis could be false, then evolution also could be false, and would also go down the toilet with it.

But even if you could disprove evolution, it would not mean a god did it, it would mean 'we don't know'.

Um, no.

Law of excluded middle.

When there only two options...

1. God did it
2. Nature did it

Only two games in town^.

And one is successfully negated (#2), then the other option is true (#1), by default.

Now, of course I already understand the "any option but God" approach that most of you have, but hey.

That's the way the cookie crumbles.

And even if you could prove a god did it, it wouldn't tell you which one.

Yeah, but it gets us to theism, when we weren't previously there.

It comes down to the Bible and specifically, the NT. sure it don't look good for Bible credibility if Genesis is wrong but as you observed, some Christians are fine with evolution.

Then that would be an in house disagreement I have with my brothers and/or sisters in Christ.

It doesn't effect the Gospel, though.

Not you - for terrible reasons, or you would not reference the fraud, liar and jailed felon Kent Hovind.

Now, I don't know whether your apologetics are really bad and denialist, or whether you know they are bad and it's just tweaking the noses of atheists.

It doesn't matter, because the point is the dscussion and the case, not how denialist anyone is, or what rotten and discredited authorities they serve up..

?

[1213]

...the evidence is that it evolved over millions of years, ...

That is your belief and opinion. The evidence that can be seen, could exist also if God created everything as told in the Bible. That is why your faith in evolution is without any good support.

...And evolution debunks Genesis...

In your dreams.

[TRANSPONDER]

A long list of lies, misrepresentation and invalid arguments.

Opinions.

Hovind was a fraud and still is.

Opinions.

His arguments are nonsense designed to fool people who don't want to understand evolution or the arguments against Genesis -literal creationism (evilooshun) .

Opinions.

You don't even understand what it is or what the apologetic is or what the religious counter is. You wrongly think that you just have to find one thing evilooshunists can't answer (or prove, rather as there is a hypothesis) and you think (or pretend) that collapses evolution and 'theism is the one thing left'. Didn't I say this was the basic illogic of Theism? They think that God is the default unless Everything about evolution is proven (and we know with the cetan sequence, that can be proven and it is still ignored).

Your rant aside; dogs produce dogs, cats/cats, fish/fish.

In actuality, abiogenesis is irrelevant. No matter where Life came from, it evolved - on the evidence.

Um, no.

When God is taken out of the equation (on atheism), then abiogenesis must be true.

Atheism depends on the nonexistence of God, and abiogenesis being true.

The problem is, no one can prove abiogenesis true...in fact, it could be false.

And if abiogenesis could be false, then evolution also could be false, and would also go down the toilet with it.

But even if you could disprove evolution, it would not mean a god did it, it would mean 'we don't know'.

Um, no.

Law of excluded middle.

When there only two options...

1. God did it
2. Nature did it

Only two games in town^.

And one is successfully negated (#2), then the other option is true (#1), by default.

Now, of course I already understand the "any option but God" approach that most of you have, but hey.

That's the way the cookie crumbles.

And even if you could prove a god did it, it wouldn't tell you which one.

Yeah, but it gets us to theism, when we weren't previously there.

It comes down to the Bible and specifically, the NT. sure it don't look good for Bible credibility if Genesis is wrong but as you observed, some Christians are fine with evolution.

Then that would be an in house disagreement I have with my brothers and/or sisters in Christ.

It doesn't effect the Gospel, though.

Not you - for terrible reasons, or you would not reference the fraud, liar and jailed felon Kent Hovind.

Now, I don't know whether your apologetics are really bad and denialist, or whether you know they are bad and it's just tweaking the noses of atheists.

It doesn't matter, because the point is the dscussion and the case, not how denialist anyone is, or what rotten and discredited authorities they serve up..

?

Essentially yes, 2 options - goddunnit or Nature. You do not win by suggesting in brackets that it is option 2 that is wrong. Your 'kinds produce kinds' is a basic anti - evolutionist fail. It is Not evolution theory. Just one fail Hovind also does.

Creationism actually accepts evolution - within 'kinds'. They merely insist that change is limited before the critter is so changed it needs a new species name. That is Evolution, not the dogs from cats nonsense.

The problem with creationists is they don't understand the subject they are trying to debate and don't want to.

Your idea that God has to be disproved to make abiogenesis/atheism valid is wrong. Agnosticism (remember that?) is the actual answer to an unknown How, until one theory or the other is proven. The evidence is that however life started it evolved and wasn't made into all the 'kinds' we have today. If you like, that negates option 1 which even Christian evolutionists then get around with 'God used evolution', so even your two options get thrown out if they go wrong.

There is no logic or reason here, only faithbased bias. and fiddling and denial of evidence and reasoning to suit the faith. And you may sell your art treasures and bet on that.

But you are right that If you could make a case for goddunnit that would get you to theism, but it wouldn't say which one. That is why atheism is cool with Deism and even irreligious theism and the Real argument is about the gospels. It always was.

If they are untrue, Christianity crumbles, like all the other religious that Christians reject without consideration.

And I'll leave alone the good old "?" of incomprehension when asked an awkward one. One I know the answer to anyway. Theist and religious apologetics doesn't care whether their arguments are valid or even honest as even lies are perfectly justified if they prop up the Faith, which is really what Religious apologetics are all about, which is why your arguments above are inverted logic and thus illogical.

p.s again I don't know whether you are deliberately winding up an atheist for Jesus, but I have never heard of a law of excluded middle, but I have heard of a fallacy of the excluded middle. Which you actually do here.
1 God did it
2 some other god did it
3 something else intelligent did it
4 no god (and thus Nature) did it.

That's 2 excluded middles which makes your example fallacious. I Unless 1. includes all other intelligent creators. Then we are ok.

[TRANSPONDER]

...the evidence is that it evolved over millions of years, ...

That is your belief and opinion. The evidence that can be seen, could exist also if God created everything as told in the Bible. That is why your faith in evolution is without any good support.

...And evolution debunks Genesis...

In your dreams.

I just love it when finger in ears denialism rears up and shows the space in its' armor as bare as a snail out if its' shell.

You come darn close to saying that evolution is proven by the evidence but a god could still have done it, though you skew it to God could have done it as in the Bible (genesis) and that evolution debunks the order of creation in genesis is simply dismissed.

To anyone Not already brainwashed by faith, they will see you lost the argument are are in faithbased denial.

[SiNcE_1985]

Essentially yes, 2 options - goddunnit or Nature. You do not win by suggesting in brackets that it is option 2 that is wrong.

I sure do, if I have legitimate reasons to conclude that it is WRONG.

Your 'kinds produce kinds' is a basic anti - evolutionist fail. It is Not evolution theory. Just one fail Hovind also does.

Um, if you are advocating unscientific claims such as reptiles evolved into birds...that is not, in our (myself and Hovind's) opinion, not an example of 'kinds produce kinds'.

Therefore, we must keep reminding you guys of this point.

Creationism actually accepts evolution - within 'kinds'. They merely insist that change is limited before the critter is so changed it needs a new species name. That is Evolution, not the dogs from cats nonsense.

Well yeah, because we are sticking to what we can OBSERVE.

We observe small, micro changes within the kinds. We do not observe large scale macro changes, from kind to kind.

The problem with creationists is they don't understand the subject they are trying to debate and don't want to.

Of course, here comes the "you just don't understand evolution" stuff.

Never fails.

As if evolutionists are so smart, and we are so dumb.

Here is what we understand, dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats.

This is something we observe with no exceptions to the rule.

And it is something a 5 year old can understand.

Your idea that God has to be disproved to make abiogenesis/atheism valid is wrong. Agnosticism (remember that?) is the actual answer to an unknown How, until one theory or the other is proven.

See, that is where you are WRONG.

You just admitted that there are only two options.

If God is disproven, then naturalism (and everything that comes with it) must be true, by necessity.

And vice versa.

The evidence is that however life started it evolved and wasn't made into all the 'kinds' we have today.

Question; if abiogenesis is false, how can evolution (without God) be true.

Please answer.

If you like, that negates option 1 which even Christian evolutionists then get around with 'God used evolution', so even your two options get thrown out if they go wrong.

If God used evolution, that would still make atheism an invalid position, wouldn't it?

But you are right that If you could make a case for goddunnit that would get you to theism, but it wouldn't say which one.

Because the argument against evolution is not an argument for Christian theism...but theism, nevertheless (Intelligent Design).

That is why atheism is cool with Deism and even irreligious theism and the Real argument is about the gospels. It always was.

Um, deism is still a form of theism.

So, I don't see how two competing views can be cool with one another.

If they are untrue, Christianity crumbles, like all the other religious that Christians reject without consideration.

?

And I'll leave alone the good old "?" of incomprehension when asked an awkward one. One I know the answer to anyway. Theist and religious apologetics doesn't care whether their arguments are valid or even honest as even lies are perfectly justified if they prop up the Faith, which is really what Religious apologetics are all about, which is why your arguments above are inverted logic and thus illogical.

?

p.s again I don't know whether you are deliberately winding up an atheist for Jesus, but I have never heard of a law of excluded middle, but I have heard of a fallacy of the excluded middle.

I stand corrected there.

Which you actually do here.
1 God did it
2 some other god did it
3 something else intelligent did it

3 peas of the same pod.

4 no god (and thus Nature) did it.

That's 2 excluded middles which makes your example fallacious. I Unless 1. includes all other intelligent creators. Then we are ok.

If you combine those 3 into 1, which makes logical sense because all 3 boils down to GOD DID IT.

Now, you are right back to square one...

1. God did it.

2. Nature did it.

No more options.

[Clownboat]

I sure do, if I have legitimate reasons to conclude that it is WRONG.

Evolution is a fact and a well-supported scientific theory.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl ... c%20theory.

Let's pretend for a moment that the fact of evolution (that populations change) gets disproven. Let's pretend that we found a rabbit in the Cambrian layer for example (yup, that is how easily the theory describing the fact could be proven false, yet still hasn't happened).

So with us pretending, what mechanism do you put forth that would best describe all the animals we see not just now, but also in the fossil record?