"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]

Perhaps, you and 1985 can resolve your differences by accepting the Simulation theory.

This is not a logical path to finding truths.
1985: The God of the Bible created the universe and life on earth.
Clownboat: We don't yet know how our universe came to be, nor how life on earth began.

If the goal was to resolve differences with 1985, I would just accept their claim about their god concept. My goal is to believe in as many true things as possible. Accepting proposals just to resolve differences is not a path to discovering truths.

He loses his religion and you lose your science.

This is not justification for accepting any claim.

Seems a reasonable trade

I don't find it reasonable, again due to the fact that accepting proposals just to resolve differences is not a valid path to discovering truths.

and Jesus said, " blessed are the peace makers." I'm sure that's true in a simulation as well, .... well maybe its not. Drats!!!

If it's all simulation, there was no actual Jesus to make any claims right? Just programing...

[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

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

I know you are and I am truly embarrassed for you.
Copy/paste to save time and sanity:
"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."

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

Then I would like to point out while you continue to fail.
The question that started all this, which you still have failed to answer was:
"How did we get the over 380,000 species of beetle that we currently have on this planet?"

Life on earth began from a single cell does not address how we got 380,000 species of beetle. It is an hypothesis about how life may have begun on this planet.

Did you just figure out the nature of the discussion?

It has been shown that you are the one that is confused.
The topic of the thread is Evilution and you continue to discuss how life may have begun on this planet. At least you are not arguing that some unknown god did it. For that I do give you credit.

"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?"

We don't yet know.
One theory posits that single-celled organisms evolved multicellularity through a specific series of adaptations. First, cells began adhering to each other, creating cell groups that have a higher survival rate, partly because its harder for predators to kill a group of cells than a single cell.

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

Yup, let me know if "we don't yet know" is hard to comprehend.

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

I challenge you to show the lack of understanding on my part being displayed here like I have demonstrated with your confusion between evolution and abiogenesis.

[nawlens]

I haven't watched the video, but I reasonably certain Hovind is a literal 6-day creationist where the entire universe is 6,000 years old, and Noah put the dinosaurs on the ark. He also believes God will destroy the entire universe after the Millennium. Quite honestly - I don't listen to the man and never will after discovering this.

[TRANSPONDER]

I haven't watched the video, but I reasonably certain Hovind is a literal 6-day creationist where the entire universe is 6,000 years old, and Noah put the dinosaurs on the ark. He also believes God will destroy the entire universe after the Millennium. Quite honestly - I don't listen to the man and never will after discovering this.

It is remarkable how convincing anything from Flat earth to Mon - landing - denial through of course YE creationism can sound if one only hears their side of it. Strings of lies can absolutely convince - until the Other side shows they are not just misunderstood, but lied about.

But the thing is...why lie?

Take for instance the upright whale fossil. Used to be presented as had to be the result of a tumultuous Flood or in stratification it would be level. But the whale was in tilted strata, and they either were utterly stupid not to know that or they lied. We may suppose it can't be a lie as why would they say something as Evidence they knew wasn't true? But I heard that AiG argued that 'Lucy' was an ape because the spine entered from the back of the skull like a chimp and not from below.

I don't know what the excuse is as I never heard them asked, but the spine does enter from below in Australopithecus, along with other features showing bipedalism was adapted as natural. And it seems that bipedalism rather than a better brain was the real key to human evolution. I sorta get denial as fighting radiometric dating, even setting up a research group to disprove it (RATE) This failed and they don't refer to it now but just deny everything.

But what about Archaeopteryx? For decades they denied it was a feathered critter and it was obviously a lizard. Then when feathered dinosaurs validated Archaeopteryx (after a strenuous campaign of denial) they changed to saying it was a bird and not a reptile, despite the clear reptilian features.

For me, them being wrong isn't even the puzzle but why they lie? Is denial so deep that they reckon that Truth itself is a lie? I think that's likely (1). Or is it just a thing they want to maintain even when they know it isn't true? I know they do not understand evolution - proven by the 'species cannot interbreed' nonsense, which isn't evolution theory anyway. I know that the faithful just parrot the apologetics without understanding, Fine, but the ones who come up with the lies into the first place ought to know. better

One critic argued that Hovind at least knew better as his lies had often been corrected, but he still repeated them. I have to guess that the ones at the top do it as a business to live off the faithful. They know it isn't true and don't mind lying.

But time and again I remember that i know the answer but don't understand it. It is the basis of all religious thought and it is that Faith is the basis of the denial and evidence (and logic) is only useful when it supports the faith (2) and if it doesn't, it is dismissed as mere opinion or a conspiracy to conceal the truth.

So I guess I know how the scamming of the Faithful works, and it is just whether the scammers at the top believe it or not. i know that I watched a clip of Hovind swearing that be believed the Bible, cover to cover. And in response to rapturous applause at this declaration, be Bowed. Instinctive, i know but so wrong to act like he should take personal credit for this Faith - declaration. It stank of Pride.

But this isn't stuff to make me lose sleep. I know they tell lies and why they do - because Faith matters, not Facts. So Why they do it is really academic.

cue and p.s. The any excuse phenomenon. Some made up excuse, if it sounds to them like some kind of point the atheist can't refute, they will stick to it and repeat it over and over. take for instance 'harping on abiogenesis, even when it has no bearing on whether evolution (not genesis) is correct. That it is an Atheist - stumper is what matters, not whether it is relevant.

Cue also the Gish gallop and shouting the other side down, but we are getting into Rhetoric and politics there.

(1) we already heard the infamous declaration that, if the Bible said 2+2 = 5, they would not say that was wrong, but try to find an argument to show it was true. If True facts and reality disagrees with the Bible, then true facts and reality is wrong. That is how Faith works.

(2) In fact even wrong and misquoted science is recited as Fact If it supports the faith. I don't Get this kind of thinking, but i know it is what is done.

[nawlens]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #2]

I saw the debate a few years ago. I like Hugh Ross. Kent Hovind - you don't want to know what I think of him or the other literal 6-day creationist like MacArthur, Hamn, and Hanegraaf. These people destroy common sense Christianity. People 'riding the fence' listen to these outrageous teachings and then discard Christianity as a whole. Most sensible people know the universe is NOT 6,000 years old. I'm also very impressed at how many people fell for the teaching that the flood was global, and that Noah put the dinosaurs on the ark.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #2]

I saw the debate a few years ago. I like Hugh Ross. Kent Hovind - you don't want to know what I think of him or the other literal 6-day creationist like MacArthur, Hamn, and Hanegraaf. These people destroy common sense Christianity. People 'riding the fence' listen to these outrageous teachings and then discard Christianity as a whole. Most sensible people know the universe is NOT 6,000 years old. I'm also very impressed at how many people fell for the teaching that the flood was global, and that Noah put the dinosaurs on the ark.

That would be baby with bathwater. It would be unfortunate. In fact i think that many Christians laugh off YE Creationism and accept evilooshun, discard the Flood and may even drop Exodus, Daniel and the Nativities, but will insist that the gospels are Broadly correct and, as for evolution, God was behind it and even the Evolutionists can't prove that Dead Biochemicals sprang into life by chance for no reason.

Yet, Creationism is a Thing like a shibboleth that one doesn't actually have to sign up for to be a Christian, but far too many believers think it is.

[POI]

Let's start with the first one Kent claims.

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.

It's funny, when you watch Kent in newer videos, he changes and/or augments his rationale about rapid Grand Canyon formation.

Start around minute-3:

[POI]

You asked for the evidence (Kent's work as it pertains to this subject), and you were provided it.

Now, it is your job to do your due diligence by examining the material and forming your own opinion(s).

I've done my part.

Providing a 2-hour Gish gallop of intellectually lazy claims is not 'doing your part'. Sorry.

Anywho, I addressed Hovind's first "claim", that the "Grand Canyon was probably formed in a week.". Look one post above.

1) The fact that the universe began to exist has scientific backing...2) and the origins of life and diversity absolutely requires Intelligent Design (for reasons previously given)....and Christianity provides the intelligent designer.

1) We do not know yet if the universe had an actual "beginning"?

2) Even IF this is true, Christianity provides a claim, and that's it.

3) My over-arching point being, is (even IF) evolution and abiogenesis were disproven, we are merely back to square one. The Bible does not stand on its own evidentiary merit(s).

I could grant your request...I just don't want to discuss it.

Cool?

You do you boo. Not sure why you hang around a debate arena, hoping to win converts though, if you do not wish to put in actual work?

[SiNcE_1985]

Providing a 2-hour Gish gallop of intellectually lazy claims is not 'doing your part'. Sorry.

I got you to the 10 yard line.

Let someone else (you) bring it in for the touchdown.

1) We do not know yet if the universe had an actual "beginning"?

We do know.

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

2) Even IF this is true, Christianity provides a claim, and that's it.

?

3) My over-arching point being, is (even IF) evolution and abiogenesis were disproven, we are merely back to square one. The Bible does not stand on its own evidentiary merit(s).

Moot point, as I am not defending Christian theism with my argumentation at the moment.

You do you boo. Not sure why you hang around a debate arena, hoping to win converts though, if you do not wish to put in actual work?

I stay working.

[TRANSPONDER]

'Since 1985, you are clearly struggling a bit.

The touchline analogy is that you are tossing the pill about but cannot get the try. If you leave it to somone else, never mind a expecting the other team to find a player to do it for you, is not going to win you the game, or even score points.

Apparently the universe (our universe) did have a beginning, but that doesn't tell us whether it was a natural event or one arranged by a creator.

And even if we consider an intelligent creator, it doesn't say which one it was. Other religions provide creators, not just Christianity.

The famous old '?' is quite an apologeticsd meme. it appears to mean 'I cannot answer this one so I'll pretend I don't understand it it, implying that it means nothing'.

Yes, our pal is struggling a bit here.

I'll go and watch Hovind on the grand canyon, but that one is long dead and buried. The meanders alone prove it was made by gradual erosion, not in one rush. From the early days I saw Hovind as not just wrong but a fraud. I watched a strawman show he put on - a clownshow of him firing questions at Evolutionists who were clearly shills picked by him to make evolution look stupid.