"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]

I can say the same thing about your sources.

Like I said, you have your sources, and I have mines.

I challenge you to show the bias like I have done with your source. Are you up to the challenge?

A person's religious faith has nothing to do with their rejection of this idea that long ago, when no one was around to witness it, animals were able to do things that the animals of today have yet been observed to do (reptile-to-bird).

Strawman. Your site is biased and cannot be trusted. Your site must be rejected for the bias it displays and priori beliefs.
I provided unbiased info (challenge is still in place) and you provided biased info. To pretend that we are equal here is fantasy.

You are just professing your faith at this point.

This is false and I find it very dishonest.
That there are changes in the inherited traits of a population through successive generations is indeed a fact. This is NOT a faith statement.

Bottom line; we (those that don't believe) do not see any convincing evidence that evolution is true.

Just like how a flat earther rejects actual evidence and provides info from biased sources. You are no different than a flat earther here.

Evolution (that population change) is in fact a fact.

Um, no one is denying this...the contention lies on the extent of these population changes that you speak of.

More dishonesty! Just above you claimed that this was just me professing my faith. Shame on you.

We only see micro-changes....which is why those of us who don't believe aren't denying microevolution, because we can see it...we can test it...we can predict it.

Derp. Enough micro makes macro.
What is the mechanism that is in place that prevents macro changes?

We aren't denying science.

We are denying the..

1. Unobserved
2. Untestable
3. Unpredictable

You are in fact denying!
Changes in populations is observable.
Testability: For testing evolution, we can compare the starting and ending allele frequencies for a specific gene during a given time period. Note that only a single gene is being tested. If the frequencies change over time, then evolution is occurring.
Predictability: Tiktaalik was predicted and found where it was predicted to be.

Your denial is unfounded.

The idea that a reptile evolved into a bird is unobserved, untestable, and unpredictable.

So, it isn't even science.

You have proven that you level of understanding of what science is is lacking.
I'm not here to teach you about reptile to bird evolution. You should learn about it if you want to understand it.
For centuries, many scientists hypothesized that birds were reptiles due to similarities in their anatomy, but there was no hard fossil evidence to support it. But in 1860, archaeologists discovered a fossil of a highly detailed Archaropteryx lithographica (a bird-like dinosaur), which filled the void of the “transitional species” that scientists needed to link birds and reptiles. Since then, many fossils of feathered dinosaurs have been found.

Because again, not all Christians (or theists) reject evolution..

Nonsense! Your website is biased whether or not all Christians reject evolution. The bias of your supplied website stands on its own.

and the fact that I am a Christian has nothing to do with me being unable to observe macro-level (reptile-to-bird) changes in living organisms.

Another strawman. You hold the view you hold for 100% religious reasons. Reptile to bird has already been evidenced. You can learn about it or continue to stick your head in the sand.

Christian websites (or even Christian scientists) are allowed to report the facts how they see it.

More dishonesty! Your website does not allow such things.
- The Creator of the universe is a triune God: Your website does not allow reporting anything but this. Facts be damned if they are counter to this priori belief.
- All things in the universe were created and made by God in the six literal days of the creation week described in Genesis: This does not allow for anything but this priori held belief.

And we simply ain't buying the theory.

There is nothing to buy. It can be a lot of work to understand it though. It's much easier to just say it's false than learning about it. Sad that so many seem to take the easy route.

And God's power got us the moon.

Please show that you speak the truth.

Question asker: How did we get the over 380,000 species of beetle that we currently have on this planet?
Non answer giver: Intelligent design.
Question asker: I have learned nothing.

I can play this game, too.

Question asker: How did we get the over 380,000 species of beetle that we currently have on this planet?
Non answer giver: From a single-celled organism.
Question asker: I have learned nothing.

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! What's worse is that this was offered in lieu of answering a debate question. I'm guessing that the said poster didn't want to allude to 380,000 species of beetle evolving in a 6,000 year period. This level of evolution that SiNcE_1985 would need to believe in would make a biologist blush. How can such an accelerated rate of evolution be argued for while denying it?

Intelligent design does not answer the question as to what mechanism explains the animals we see not only now, but also in the fossil record.

The question you should be asking is; what mechanism explains the natural origins of life from inanimate material?

Too bad. I asked the question I asked and you have failed to address it. I care not about you complaining about what questions I ask.

And even before that, what mechanism explains the origins of the universe from nothing?

Derp! This question is known!
Ready? "We don't know". This allows further research. To pretend one of the available god concepts did it is to stop future learning.
You know what causes thunder and lightning.... right?

The story starts from the beginning, not the middle.

Please learn the difference between abiogenesis and evolution. This is embarrassing. Are you hoping to drag me down to your level to then beat me with experience?

1. How/why did life originate from nonliving material?

The answer is that we don't know. We have people that are duped into believing one of the available god concepts did it though. Something humans have been doing for thousands of years. Such thinking led us to believe that the gods were behind thunder and lightning. Thankfully there were people that were honest about not knowing and then learned about such things.

2. How/why did the universe begin to exist, from nothing?

The answer is that we don't know. We have people that are duped into believing one of the available god concepts did it though. Something humans have been doing for thousands of years. Such thinking led us to believe that the gods were behind thunder and lightning. Thankfully there were people that were honest about not knowing and then learned about such things.

What you would provide as answers to the questions above is just lazy. Why study such things when you can just insert your favorite god concept?

Because science is limited and lacks the explanatory power to produce the effect, then I am motivated to look elsewhere.

I'm sorry, but what method other than the scientific method would you propose for learning/understanding how our world works?

You have failed to point to a better mechanism that explains all the life we see now and from the past.

God did it <----better.

This is nothing but a lazy non answer!
Which god and how? Your reasoning is the same that led us to believe the gods were behind thunder and lightning, therefore your answer must be rejected.

And I will not lose sleep if it is proven to be true...because it is still necessary for God to be a the helms.

You're the one with a dog in this fight leading what you are allowed to believe. I am not saddled with such a thing. We are not equal here.

[TRANSPONDER]

So, apart from denial, we get rejection of the evidence for anything that we can't see by looking, even though evolution within species wasn't known until shown by experiment. And even now the Pepper Moth experiment is at times denied (1). But the evidence in the fossil record is as valid as the evidence that proved 'Micro'.

And of course the last Ditch rush to abiogenesis and Cosmic origins 'If we can't prove how that happened, ALL evilooshun - claim fall to the ground'. Supposedly. Fact is that if you can prove a person committed a crime...say hush money paid by a crooked politician to block adverse publicity... it is Proven even if we can't explain or prove how such a person came to be the crook, thug and liar he turned into.

Evolution theory is validated by evidence even if one supposed a god (name your own) made Life, the universe and everything in one go. it evolved over millions of years and all kinds were not made pretty much as they are. Thus Genesis is incorrect and is best treated as metaphor...like selling all your stuff and giving everything to the poor.

It's a game. It isn't about evidence or reason; at least, not after they fail. It becomes making stuff up, pulling lawyer tricks, and then just denial, evasion and sauce (Wind up an atheist for Jesus).

It can be frustrating, but it is never about convincing the denialist, but presenting the best case, and let people decide.

(1) part of the Method - in fact the required method) is Not to know the theory or arguments, let alone understand them, but to lift stock apologetics and sling they at the atheists and demand each one be debunked or the Whole of evilooshun, atheism and scientism collapses leaving God as the only default theory.

I am sure that is how it works and is why evidence counts g for nothing.

[1213]

...
Evolution theory is validated by evidence even if one supposed a god (name your own) made Life, the universe and everything in one go. it evolved over millions of years and all kinds were not made pretty much as they are. Thus Genesis is incorrect and is best treated as metaphor...like selling all your stuff and giving everything to the poor....

Why do you think the evidence is for evolution, although it can exist also because of some other reason?

[TRANSPONDER]

...
Evolution theory is validated by evidence even if one supposed a god (name your own) made Life, the universe and everything in one go. it evolved over millions of years and all kinds were not made pretty much as they are. Thus Genesis is incorrect and is best treated as metaphor...like selling all your stuff and giving everything to the poor....

Why do you think the evidence is for evolution, although it can exist also because of some other reason?

Because of logic, specifically Occam's razor.: Don't multiply logical entities without good reason. Since evolution (and indeed abiogenesis which has a mechanism if not proof of it) fits the evidence perfectly even with a possibility of falsification (e.g rabbits in Carboniferous strata). And even if the creator - claim was just as valid, that would only mean 'we don't know which is right' which would invalidate Faith in a god (never mind which one) but validate only unproven possibilities which did not merit Belief.

But there is no valid evidence for a god behind evolution, never mind a particular one. And the fact that science has produced the goods and religious claims have failed despite attempts to validate them, means the Materialist default, which means that the Natural (scientific/materialist) explanation is the one with more clout, while the god - claim with no good basis has no clout, merit or validity.

It is utterly clear that the only reason to propose a creator and the one in the Bible is because of Faith in that claim before the debate even starts.

[1213]

Because of logic, specifically Occam's razor.: Don't multiply logical entities without good reason.

The evolution theory brings countless number of logical entities without good reason, for those who are not faithful to Darwin.

.. means the Materialist default, which means that the Natural (scientific/materialist) explanation is the one with more clout, while the god - claim with no good basis has no clout, merit or validity.

It is interesting that according to a study, belief in God is the default.

"Humans 'predisposed' to believe in gods and the afterlife"
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 103828.htm

How do you explain that?

It is utterly clear that the only reason to propose a creator and the one in the Bible is because of Faith in that claim before the debate even starts.

I think the idea that God is proposed is not true. People are not that imaginative that they would come up with the idea on their own. The idea has to be from that God has announced himself and given the idea of a creator.

[TRANSPONDER]

Because of logic, specifically Occam's razor.: Don't multiply logical entities without good reason.

The evolution theory brings countless number of logical entities without good reason, for those who are not faithful to Darwin.

.. means the Materialist default, which means that the Natural (scientific/materialist) explanation is the one with more clout, while the god - claim with no good basis has no clout, merit or validity.

It is interesting that according to a study, belief in God is the default.

"Humans 'predisposed' to believe in gods and the afterlife"
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 103828.htm

How do you explain that?

It is utterly clear that the only reason to propose a creator and the one in the Bible is because of Faith in that claim before the debate even starts.

I think the idea that God is proposed is not true. People are not that imaginative that they would come up with the idea on their own. The idea has to be from that God has announced himself and given the idea of a creator.

Good points and questions. But I can answer. 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) doesn't, which is why, even though rethinks are needed, (e.g realising that dinosaurs were warm blooded and more mammal than reptile) the theory seems to be right.

The religious hypothesis, on the other hand, fails, despite denial. We are not talking about a proposed entity without good reason (and damn' all the others) but maintaining one as Dogma without good reason.

I think you'll find that the god - belief is not so much a default theory based, like scientific materialism, on the validated evidence, but a default excuse for not having an answer.

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?

Yes, I had a glance at the article before the usual 'sign here for us to send you malware' pop - up appeared, and of course you misunderstood it, thinking it argued what you wanted it to say, rather than what it actually did say, which was a tendency to believe in gods. I agree - it is a human tendency - to invent gods as easy answers to questions they don't have an answer to.

[Difflugia]

The evolution theory brings countless number of logical entities without good reason, for those who are not faithful to Darwin.

What do you think these logical entities are? If they're "countless," you must have some idea of which "entities" are "without good reason."

Occam's Razor is just a greatly simplified statement of Bayesian reasoning. It's based on the observation that the more "entities" added to an explanation without direct evidence, the lower the prior probability of that combination of entities. Too many entities, even plausible ones, will reduce the likelihood of the overall explanation to the point that it is itself implausible. Unfortunately for your claim, you're simply claiming that these entities exist (to the point of being "countless"), but you haven't told us what they are or why they together materially affect the plausibility of the outcome. It looks to me like you're putting the cart before the horse; you are convinced that the overall probability of evolution is low, therefore there simply must be such entities, even if you don't know what they are yourself.

On the other hand, every form of creationism relies on magic as an added entity and for Christian creationists, this is magic Jesus. While some apologists will argue that the prior probability of this is appreciable, I think that the best estimate of the prior probability of magic, let alone any specific source of that magic, is most accurately represented by the mathematical concept of ε, or epsilon. It is arbitrarily close to zero without actually being zero. It is the embodiment of merely possible, but with virtually no probability. It is the essence of religious faith.

How do you explain that?

For evolutionary reasons, our brains seek agency to the point that false positives are preferable to false negatives. Thinking that the tall grass is moving because of a tiger doesn't hurt you if there isn't one. People that mistakenly thought there was no tiger didn't have children.

People are not that imaginative that they would come up with the idea on their own.

Have you never been to a book store? People collectively have a boundless literary imagination. "Magic guy that can do anything" is positively mundane compared to The Mysterious Island or A Princess of Mars.

[Difflugia]

(e.g realising that dinosaurs were warm blooded and more mammal than reptile)

To be incredibly pedantic, dinosaurs were more bird than reptile, but are more closely related to modern reptiles than they are to mammals.

Synapsids (whose only modern members are mammals) diverged as a clade before the dinosaurs diverged from turtles, squamates (modern snakes and lizards), and crocodilians. Theropods and mammals evolved warm blood independently.

[SiNcE_1985]

I challenge you to show the bias like I have done with your source. Are you up to the challenge?

This is the genetic fallacy.

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

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.

Strawman. Your site is biased and cannot be trusted. Your site must be rejected for the bias it displays and priori beliefs.
I provided unbiased info (challenge is still in place) and you provided biased info. To pretend that we are equal here is fantasy.

Again, the genetic fallacy.

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

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

But I wouldn't dare do such a thing...all I will say is that they are WRONG in their assessments.

This is false and I find it very dishonest.

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

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

Life's just not fair.

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.

Just like how a flat earther rejects actual evidence and provides info from biased sources. You are no different than a flat earther here.

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

More dishonesty! Just above you claimed that this was just me professing my faith. Shame on you.

You are/were professing your faith in evolution...were you not?

Derp. Enough micro makes macro.

Congratulations. You've just left science and entered "religion".

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

With that one statement, you left science (what we can observed) and stepped into "religion"...and it happened so fast, you didn't even see it coming.

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

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

You are in fact denying!
Changes in populations is observable.

Sure, changes like big dogs, little dogs, tall dogs, hairy dogs, etc.

But they are all dogs.

That is observable.

Reptile to bird...not so observable.

Testability: For testing evolution, we can compare the starting and ending allele frequencies for a specific gene during a given time period. Note that only a single gene is being tested. If the frequencies change over time, then evolution is occurring.
Predictability: Tiktaalik was predicted and found where it was predicted to be. Your denial is unfounded.

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

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.

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

You have proven that you level of understanding of what science is is lacking.
I'm not here to teach you about reptile to bird evolution. You should learn about it if you want to understand it.
For centuries, many scientists hypothesized that birds were reptiles due to similarities in their anatomy, but there was no hard fossil evidence to support it. But in 1860, archaeologists discovered a fossil of a highly detailed Archaropteryx lithographica (a bird-like dinosaur), which filled the void of the “transitional species” that scientists needed to link birds and reptiles. Since then, many fossils of feathered dinosaurs have been found.

Evolutionists: Archaropteryx is a transitonal fossil, from a reptile to a bird...based on the appearance of teeth. And we all know, birds dont have teeth. there is proof of evolution right there.

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

Nonsense! Your website is biased whether or not all Christians reject evolution. The bias of your supplied website stands on its own.

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

Another strawman. You hold the view you hold for 100% religious reasons. Reptile to bird has already been evidenced. You can learn about it or continue to stick your head in the sand.

Ok, so you hold the view you hold for 100% naturalistic reasons.

I can play that game as well.

Anyway, even if I wasn't a Christian, I would more than likely be a deist...at the very least.

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.

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

More dishonesty! Your website does not allow such things.
- The Creator of the universe is a triune God: Your website does not allow reporting anything but this. Facts be damned if they are counter to this priori belief.
- All things in the universe were created and made by God in the six literal days of the creation week described in Genesis: This does not allow for anything but this priori held belief.

Um, they are simply going where the evidence takes them.

If it took them to Christianity, then that is where they are.

There is nothing to buy. It can be a lot of work to understand it though. It's much easier to just say it's false than learning about it. Sad that so many seem to take the easy route.

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

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

And neither am I.

Please show that you speak the truth.

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

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

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..

"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

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

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

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

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

Too bad. I asked the question I asked and you have failed to address it. I care not about you complaining about what questions I ask.

Yeah, it is too bad.

Derp! This question is known!
Ready? "We don't know". This allows further research. To pretend one of the available god concepts did it is to stop future learning.
You know what causes thunder and lightning.... right?

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

Ha!

This is like researching how a bottomless hole can be filled with sand to reach the top.

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

Please learn the difference between abiogenesis and evolution. This is embarrassing. Are you hoping to drag me down to your level to then beat me with experience?

Um, abiogenesis is the study or concept of life arising naturally from nonliving material.

Evolution is the concept of life evolving into more diverse/complex organism.

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.

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

And, you can't..so you won't.

The answer is that we don't know. We have people that are duped into believing one of the available god concepts did it though. Something humans have been doing for thousands of years. Such thinking led us to believe that the gods were behind thunder and lightning. Thankfully there were people that were honest about not knowing and then learned about such things.

Um, we are well beyond "we don't know".

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

The answer is that we don't know. We have people that are duped into believing one of the available god concepts did it though. Something humans have been doing for thousands of years. Such thinking led us to believe that the gods were behind thunder and lightning. Thankfully there were people that were honest about not knowing and then learned about such things.

You can repeat this all you like, my answer isn't changing.

What you would provide as answers to the questions above is just lazy. Why study such things when you can just insert your favorite god concept?

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?

It has nothing to do with being lazy...we can look at the universe, knowing God created it, and still marvel at the mind and mathematical precision it took to create the universe and life...in the same way we can go to Chrysler or GM and look at all of the machines and manufacturing processes, and tip our hats the the designers who orchestrated it all.

I'm sorry, but what method other than the scientific method would you propose for learning/understanding how our world works?

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

And nothing within the world (universe) can be used to explain the origins of the world.

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

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

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

This is nothing but a lazy non answer!

It is more than a non answer...it is the answer.

Which god

More inquiry is needed to answer that question.

My answer is; the Christian God.

and how?

I don't know how God did it.

Your reasoning is the same that led us to believe the gods were behind thunder and lightning, therefore your answer must be rejected.

There would be no thunder and lightning if there was no created universe for thunder and lightning to dwell.

You're the one with a dog in this fight leading what you are allowed to believe. I am not saddled with such a thing. We are not equal here.

I go where the evidence takes me. I am not scratching and clawing to stay away from the truth, unlike some people.

[1213]

The evolution theory brings countless number of logical entities without good reason, for those who are not faithful to Darwin.

What do you think these logical entities are? If they're "countless," you must have some idea of which "entities" are "without good reason."

Occam's Razor is just a greatly simplified statement of Bayesian reasoning. It's based on the observation that the more "entities" added to an explanation without direct evidence, the lower the prior probability of that combination of entities. Too many entities, even plausible ones, will reduce the likelihood of the overall explanation to the point that it is itself implausible. ...

I think the amount of "entities" is a poor way to determine what is true. But, it seems to me that you have never thought what it would mean, if evolution theory is true.

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. Evolution theory is nice fairy tale for people who don't want to believe in God and want some explanation for all species. It is like modernized mother earth cult. If you want some useful details and evidence, you will not find any. But for a believer, it is enough to have the fancy explanations, that can't be tested in any way. For a non believer it just leads to more questions.

On the other hand, every form of creationism relies on magic

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

...Have you never been to a book store? People collectively have a boundless literary imagination. "Magic guy that can do anything" is positively mundane compared to The Mysterious Island or A Princess of Mars.

Lots of books, many seem to have come from the Biblical stories. All the ideas I know, have some paragon, or example that the writer has used in making of his book. Can you tell one example of thing that a human has imagined, that has no example or source that it is based on?