"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]

So you post garbage and award yourself a point, Nice going.

Here is another well-deserved point..

Gen: "The universe began to exist" (Gen 1:1).

Scientists in the 20th century: "Wow, the universe is not static and eternal like we originally thought. It appears to have a beginning".

Gen (Bible): 2

Evolutionary Biology / Science: 0

I can keep going

All you did was ignore the evidence discovered by research, sory it didn't happen before your eyes

It didn't happen at all.

, and sneer at evolution - theory. One of the most tellingly harmful to the creationist is to say that evolution theory has better evidence and better arguments but say it in a sarcastic tone.

The same thing you guys do with religious claims.

As usual it isn't about you telling yourself you won, but but about the case you present.

I agree.

Apart from you don't see something from nothing before your eyes, or ;imperfect human perception' as the creationists like to say when they want to discredit science. All you are doing is saying you don't want to see the evidence, so tyou can say you don't see any evidence.

Um, no.

Because again, a belief in evolution does not necessarily negate my belief in God (Christianity).

I do not see evidence for the theory with, or without my belief in God.

It's brilliant as an exploded diagram of everything wrong about Creationist apologetics. Not the misrepresentation or deception or even the projection and pot - kettle accusations, but the denial of evidence dangled in front of the face.

I feel the same way as it relates to theistic arguments for the existence of God..which are rejected by atheists but the evidence is as clear as day.

And, yes. We never hear about Dover where science and a law court found that IC was no science but creationism, which is merely religious dogma in a lab coat. Though we never hear about it, it was a hoot as the Creationists were telling each other that GW Bush appointed the judge so he would find for them no matter the evidence.

Which he didn't and they stoned him for it afterwards. Now of course Judges know what's expected of them by the religious Right. Behe pretty much got abandoned by those who swore they'd turn up, and his 'science' was shot down and he was made to look stupid (1). And the aftermath was interesting - not just the attacks on the Judge, but the effort to distance IC from religion but also to redefine science as whatever religion said it was.

Sit tight. If the election goes wrong, Kizmiller vs Dover will go the way of Roe vs Wade. That's a promise.

(1) Asked whether, if IC was to be taught as as a controversial theory, Astrology should also be taught in the science class, Behe could not help but say Yes and look a laughing stock.

Dogs produce dogs.

[TRANSPONDER]

So you post garbage and award yourself a point, Nice going.

Here is another well-deserved point..

Gen: "The universe began to exist" (Gen 1:1).

Scientists in the 20th century: "Wow, the universe is not static and eternal like we originally thought. It appears to have a beginning".

Gen (Bible): 2

Evolutionary Biology / Science: 0

I can keep going

All you did was ignore the evidence discovered by research, sory it didn't happen before your eyes

It didn't happen at all.

, and sneer at evolution - theory. One of the most tellingly harmful to the creationist is to say that evolution theory has better evidence and better arguments but say it in a sarcastic tone.

The same thing you guys do with religious claims.

As usual it isn't about you telling yourself you won, but but about the case you present.

I agree.

Apart from you don't see something from nothing before your eyes, or ;imperfect human perception' as the creationists like to say when they want to discredit science. All you are doing is saying you don't want to see the evidence, so tyou can say you don't see any evidence.

Um, no.

Because again, a belief in evolution does not necessarily negate my belief in God (Christianity).

I do not see evidence for the theory with, or without my belief in God.

It's brilliant as an exploded diagram of everything wrong about Creationist apologetics. Not the misrepresentation or deception or even the projection and pot - kettle accusations, but the denial of evidence dangled in front of the face.

I feel the same way as it relates to theistic arguments for the existence of God..which are rejected by atheists but the evidence is as clear as day.

And, yes. We never hear about Dover where science and a law court found that IC was no science but creationism, which is merely religious dogma in a lab coat. Though we never hear about it, it was a hoot as the Creationists were telling each other that GW Bush appointed the judge so he would find for them no matter the evidence.

Which he didn't and they stoned him for it afterwards. Now of course Judges know what's expected of them by the religious Right. Behe pretty much got abandoned by those who swore they'd turn up, and his 'science' was shot down and he was made to look stupid (1). And the aftermath was interesting - not just the attacks on the Judge, but the effort to distance IC from religion but also to redefine science as whatever religion said it was.

Sit tight. If the election goes wrong, Kizmiller vs Dover will go the way of Roe vs Wade. That's a promise.

(1) Asked whether, if IC was to be taught as as a controversial theory, Astrology should also be taught in the science class, Behe could not help but say Yes and look a laughing stock.

Dogs produce dogs.

The universe began to exist, yes. But where is your evidence that a god did it, never mind which one? Materialist default suggests that how it happened was natural, not supernatural.

Bible/Genesis 0. Science 1.

You may keep going making pointless points. It makes no case for you.

Evidence is compelling that speciation happened. It is compelling that Genesis 1 or 2, is wrong. Your denial is simply - denial.

How nice that we agree it is about the case, not any hope of changing the entrenched positions of the other. Your case is denial of evidence, and if you don't see it in front of your eyes in real time, it didn't happen at all. claims without force (the universe began, therefore Genesis is true) make no case for you..

The evidence for evolution progression of fossils from simple to complex in strata millions of years old, by radiometriuc dating, plus evidence..proof really..of speciation in the cetan sequence, including whale morphology (front flippers were clearly once forelegs) and the same with birds; wings, plus DNA evidence in primates (a fused chromosome which had to have derived from the unfused on in primates). The evidence is clear for an evolutionary process whether one supposes a god did it that way or not. Theism may be right, Genesis is demonstrably wrong.

Dogs produce dogs is like saying 'elections produce presidents, therefore there were never any kings ruling America'. Just deny the evidence.

You may go on posting your denial of evidence day after day, it makes no case for anything but Faithbased denial of evidence.

[POI]

I reject the given interpretations of alleged evidence(s).

The same thing you do with creationists arguments.

Ah, but I give reason(s) why. Case/point, post 87. For which you have ignored 3 times now.

You do not. You just hand-wave them away. I provided a 4-minute video providing evidence to Ken Miller's position to common ancestry. Aside from a hand-wave, why exactly do you reject the evidence? Did you even bother to watch the short (easy-to-follow) video?

[SiNcE_1985]

Ah, but I give reason(s) why. Case/point, post 87. For which you have ignored 3 times now.

Post 87 doesn't negate what I see with my own two eyes..

Dogs produce dogs, cats/cats, etc.

You can keep Ken Miller's biobabble.

You do not. You just hand-wave them away. I provided a 4-minute video providing evidence to Ken Miller's position to common ancestry.

I can provide you a 66 book (Bible), stating my position to common designer.

Aside from a hand-wave, why exactly do you reject the evidence?

Because of the mere impossibility of abiogenesis.

And no need for me to expand/expound on that...because if I recall, you did not address what I said in that other thread.

So, save the energy in asking.

Did you even bother to watch the short (easy-to-follow) video?

No, because dogs produce dogs.

[TRANSPONDER]

Ah, but I give reason(s) why. Case/point, post 87. For which you have ignored 3 times now.

Post 87 doesn't negate what I see with my own two eyes..

Dogs produce dogs, cats/cats, etc.

You can keep Ken Miller's biobabble.

You do not. You just hand-wave them away. I provided a 4-minute video providing evidence to Ken Miller's position to common ancestry.

I can provide you a 66 book (Bible), stating my position to common designer.

Aside from a hand-wave, why exactly do you reject the evidence?

Because of the mere impossibility of abiogenesis.

And no need for me to expand/expound on that...because if I recall, you did not address what I said in that other thread.

So, save the energy in asking.

Did you even bother to watch the short (easy-to-follow) video?

No, because dogs produce dogs.

No, no no. This is the the best Bad example in a long while. If you were, like the creators of Velma, a secret member of the Other side, doing bad work to discredit your ostensible side, you could not do a better job of it.

Kinds produce kinds, of course, but they can be bred to change. That you can d see with ..compelling evidence if not yore wery eyes. And even creationists accept that change through natural selection is a thing, but only within kinds. They deny that continual change over time can result in such changes that a new species name needs to be given.

"You're calling me a whale? Well damn' you, Mr scientist, I'm still a cow!".

But the fact is, beside any creationist denial that cetans were one land critters, just as happened with the dinosaurs, where icthyosaurs were one land dinosaurs. It takes a long time, that's all which is why dogs don't give birth to cats and never getting the feline to stay still long enough.

A book of old myths that have been shown to be nonsense is not a science book any more than the earth is flat, Martians built the Aztec temples or China forged the voting papers.

So apart from blinkered denial of evolution and even of what Creationism accepts about evolution, (within kinds) and insisting that a book of fairy tales is your science, you add...rehearse I should say... irrationality and logical fallacy by insisting the Abiogenesis is impossible. Not that you don't see it happen before your own eyes every day (you don't see Bodies rise from the dead but you believe that happened) but that it is not even possible.

And you do important work for us this day, because that is the fallacious position that evolooshun denial HAS to adopt - not that we can't prove that it happened, which leaves it 'Let's agree to differ/My belief is as valid as yours', which means Genesis does not get a win, but Abiogenesis has to be declared Impossible.

And you don't know that. Even if it can't be done in a lab, you can't claim it is proven to be impossible. And it doesn't matter anyway, as even if one conceded that Life needed intelligent agency (say martians looking for a new home) to get started, the evidence is still compelling that it evolved thereafter, and Genesis is wrong.

Slam
Dunk.

[POI]

Dogs produce dogs, cats/cats, etc.
You can keep Ken Miller's biobabble.

How would you even know since you did not watch it????

All you continue to do is to parrot an obvious observation we see today. But it's clear you have either a) made no effort to even see what evolutionary biology actually demonstrates. Or, b) just hand-wave the evidence away to continue favoring an ancient book of claims. I see no third option for you here.

Because of the mere impossibility of abiogenesis.

Without watching the 4-minute video, you have no idea what the presented evidence even is.... Further, it mentions nothing about the topic of abiogenesis. I guess, for you, ignorance is bliss.

[brunumb]

Dogs produce dogs, cats/cats, etc.
You can keep Ken Miller's biobabble.

How would you even know since you did not watch it????

All you continue to do is to parrot an obvious observation we see today. But it's clear you have either a) made no effort to even see what evolutionary biology actually demonstrates. Or, b) just hand-wave the evidence away to continue favoring an ancient book of claims. I see no third option for you here.

In other words, SiNcE is actually not debating in good faith.

But that said, even the statement that "dogs produce dogs" is consistent with evolution. Every generation of any species does produce offspring that are essentially the same as their parents. Evolution considers what happens over the course of countless generations where tiny changes in the genotype accumulate so that ultimately we get a phenotype that is so different that it must be considered a different species from the ancient ancestor.

[TRANSPONDER]

Dogs produce dogs, cats/cats, etc.
You can keep Ken Miller's biobabble.

How would you even know since you did not watch it????

All you continue to do is to parrot an obvious observation we see today. But it's clear you have either a) made no effort to even see what evolutionary biology actually demonstrates. Or, b) just hand-wave the evidence away to continue favoring an ancient book of claims. I see no third option for you here.

In other words, SiNcE is actually not debating in good faith.

But that said, even the statement that "dogs produce dogs" is consistent with evolution. Every generation of any species does produce offspring that are essentially the same as their parents. Evolution considers what happens over the course of countless generations where tiny changes in the genotype accumulate so that ultimately we get a phenotype that is so different that it must be considered a different species from the ancient ancestor.

Correct. Kinds produce kinds is an argument in evolutionary terms, and has been - claiming some kind of genetic barrier that stops evolutionary change before the critter looks so different we need a new species - name. There is of course, no such genetic barrier and the fossil evidence is persuasive and even compelling that it did happen. It seems that penguins are evolving from a sort of Australasian prehistoric pelican into an eventual fish - like creature. Before our eyes, it is a transitional form.

But Creationists, at least in the past, have seemed to misunderstand what evolution - theory is and argued that one species cannot interbreed with another (though it's surprising how often they try) and i recall a Creationist photo of exhibition mules at some Creation museum as though that was evidence that debunked evolution.

I think the message does seep through as we don't hear the interbreeding argument now, but the Behe crack at IC seemed to be generally misunderstood or misused by them, because the conclusion is that evolution cannot happen without God keeping the critter viable while it turns its' scales into pliables, but they just seemed to be doing the old 'it is impossible, and cannot be true' ploy. It was the old problem of not wanting to understand the argument - even their own.

[SiNcE_1985]

How would you even know since you did not watch it????

Because, dogs produce dogs..and a 4 minute video saying or insinuating any concept otherwise is an insult on, not only my observations...but my intelligence.

All you continue to do is to parrot an obvious observation we see today.

Yeah, it is obvious..isn't it?

But it's clear you have either a) made no effort to even see what evolutionary biology actually demonstrates.

I've made the effort..and I am simply not convinced.

Plain and simple.

Or, b) just hand-wave the evidence away to continue favoring an ancient book of claims. I see no third option for you here.

The third option is; I see evidence against it.

And that is one heck of a third option.

Without watching the 4-minute video, you have no idea what the presented evidence even is.... Further, it mentions nothing about the topic of abiogenesis. I guess, for you, ignorance is bliss.

I can care less what the video says...because of the simple fact that dogs produce dogs.

And my mention of abiogenesis is a general statement related to the theory of evolution..without regards to the video.

[SiNcE_1985]

In other words, SiNcE is actually not debating in good faith.

I keep the faith.

But that said, even the statement that "dogs produce dogs" is consistent with evolution. Every generation of any species does produce offspring that are essentially the same as their parents. Evolution considers what happens over the course of countless generations where tiny changes in the genotype accumulate so that ultimately we get a phenotype that is so different that it must be considered a different species from the ancient ancestor.

So basically..this^ is a variation of...

"It takes X (millions of years) amount of time to occur".

Or...

"Anything can happen in X (millions of years) amount of time".

This is "time" of the gaps argumentation..relying on the unseen.

Relying on faith in an unobserved theory/concept...using "time" as an excuse as to why we don't observe the effect.

Basically, a religion.