"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?

[SiNcE_1985]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

And your want has also been granted.



A couple things I want to point out though..

1. I dread the posting of videos, however, you asked about specifics as it pertains to Kent and his work..so here it is.

2. I don't expect you to watch the entire video and digest all the information in one day...if you do, cool.

If not, no sweat.

3. This is not some boring, preachy video...as Kent's style is dynamic, engaging, and informative...and some may even say entertaining.

Kent Hovind is my "go to" guy when it comes to "Christian science" and evolution.

I've seen him destroy 3 scientists at one time in a debate...and some clips from that debate have gone viral.

Kent is an avid believer of YE (Young Earth), and I dont necessarily agree with him on that, but hey.

His debate with Hugh Ross (my other apologist hero) on the subject of Old Earth vs Young Earth was one of the best I've ever seen.

Most of my talking points from evolution, I owe it to him.

He will debate anyone, anywhere, anytime on the subject of evolution..and the floor is open.

That's it.

[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.

[1213]

...
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?

[TRANSPONDER]

That depends on the terms. are 'we' primates? Or all mammals? Or all animals? Or all Bioforms? The hypothesis is Yes in all cases - but the particular hypoothesis looks different. We have a primate ancestor with Chimps and gorillas, or the Maia shrew with mammals, or Tiktaalik with land animals or the chordate fish for vertebrate critters and in fact the replicating DNA for both plant and animal cells. Yes, hypohesis is we and potatoes supposedly have a common ancestor.

And we can no more produce that in some cases (in other cases yes) any more than Christians can produce the empty tomb. It is an assumption that it is where the trail starts.

As to Hovind, a known fraud about his qualifications, a dunce about the science , as well as dishonest as his incorrect science has been corrected so often and yet he kept presenting the same false claims, and it has to be said 'Convicted felon'. Gotta admit the religious (or pretend to be religious) Right have more than their share of them.

Take for instance the nonsense about the Flood not having enough water to cover the earth. Kent blithely said with the easy confidence of the trickster that water just centimeters deep could cover the earth. Sure, but you couldn't drown a creation in it. he also said all land was connected with water in the empty spaces . That isn't strictly true, as continental plates float on a ductile substrate. It is how the continents split and reform and collide or part throwing up mountains or causing rifts and earthquakes and volcanoes.

I don't think this would benefit the thread to turn into a video exchange but Thunderfoot's series 'Why do people laugh at creationists' particularly exposed Hovind's nonsense, though he vanished after his spell in Jail and his successor Eric is now peddling the lies and fake nostrums.



A couple of things - Creationists deny everything, including science, unless they can twist the 'observations' to suit themselves. The mindset has been wrong all the way in thinking that Goddunnit Creation as in Genesis is the default theory and Evilooshun (1) when it is materialist science that has won the default by showing how things work without the need for a god. Name your own anyway, as Creationism doesn't show which god it is, if so.

The real way of it is that, even without default - establishing evidence, the mere existence of a working hypothetical alternative is enough to make Genesis a claim that needs to be proved, and not a default theory, never mind a Fact to be relied upon as truth.

It surprises me, though so few seem to realise what they know - that Christianity stands or falls on the resurrection and the rest is irrelevant other than to that proof or disproof - but Evolution vs Genesis -literalism (which is what Creationism is really about) is an Icon, a thing to be fought for, by believers, when it doesn't even matter.

(1) evolution - in Biology, a hypothesis and scientific Theory (Law) of all species evolving by natural selection from a common ancestor.

Evilooshun. In Creationism, a god -denying satanic only-a-theory invented by Atheist professors to claim that everything came from nothing for no reason.

[SiNcE_1985]

[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.

[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 guess we do. The thing is, we goddless know that Creationism lies, and misrepresents. We have seen it many times. We could sit through the whole video and note each point and undertake to refute it, and get into the usual debate, where science itself is rejected and finally faitbased denial "I refuse to accept what you say so I win" is the apparent position.

Rather, one point could be discussed. But I know what denial looks like; we -yall saw it with the slam dunk proof of speciation and it was fought all the way with the final attempt to excuse arm bones (they are better) was debunked with sharksfins, (which proves Taoism as only the Chinese gods could have created something intended to make delicious soup) and since then dead silence and arguing other things.

And with yourself, you dismiss the Exodus hypothesis as an interesting theory and never mid the evidence or clues to show that it is a fiddled tale not a reliable record. Dismissal, not debate.

This is how Genesis literalism works, as it fights on the basis of science, then on the basis of denying science and finally of faithbased denialism, which is where we should start and finish and save time for all of us.

Science does not support Creationism which is why they have to attack science.

[SiNcE_1985]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #5]

Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish.

No amount of bio-babble (which is what you are giving) can change this apparent and consistent observation in nature.

I'm not going to address the ad hominems attacks you made against Kent.

Irrelevant to the discussion.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #5]

Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish.

No amount of bio-babble (which is what you are giving) can change this apparent and consistent observation in nature.

I'm not going to address the ad hominems attacks you made against Kent.

Irrelevant to the discussion.

More dismissal and running away from the debate, in fact. Your kinds produce kinds is terribly small minded (I mean the Creationist meme not you) as it ignores evidence and insists that what we see before our eyes is all there is.

Which is funny when it then slams science for limiting to what it can prove by evidence and does not treat one particular theory in a host of unknowns as reliable truth.

This is all wretched and irrational thinking and the evidence is that parents produce offspring that is a bit different. And evolution is accepted even by Creationism. They accept that a Kind evolves, so that refutes the principle you appear to be arguing 'No change'. Creationism accepts evolutionary change, but not so much that a new species - name has to be given (1).

This is where the tiny minded view comes in. Speciation (macro evolution - like it was some different process) is denied for no reason other than they don't like it. Some argued a genetic barrier. There is none. Some argued interbreeding infertility. That is nothing to do with evolution.

The cetan sequence is slam dunk evidential proof of speciation, land critter to sea critter. And prove one, prove it all.

(1) My own 'why are there still monkeys' quip. Creationists says 'I know a plane can fly one city to another but it is impossible it could fly to a different country'.

[POI]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #2]

Please consider the debate question(s)/request(s). Even if we were to watch this long video, you may first want to emphasize differing point(s) than the one watching. Give us, what you feel, is the strongest point against 'evilution' first.

1) Please present one lie, or one piece of fraud, in which Kent Hovind has demonstrated about biology textbooks? This way, we can take them one at a time, before moving on to the next.

2) And then, please tell us why proving evolutionary biology wrong helps Christianity? Just so you know, I did not fall away from Christianity, due to 'evolution' or 'abiogenesis', in the slightest. Thus, I'm curious to know why you keep bringing up these two topics? Is it to demonstrate that some unbelievers appeal to lies and fraud, just like some unbelievers accuse Christians of doing?

P.S. I know you hate videos, so I trust we will all do our best to provide videos which directly answer the question(s), rather than to type a text wall And where applicable, we can tell the interlocutor where exactly to watch (i.e.) from minute-5 to minute-8 for random example.