"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?

[TRANSPONDER]

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.

That is simply fingers in the ears and ignoring evidence that the earth is riound and rotating and it isn't the sun moving (and could be stopped as the Bible claims) because that is the way it looks to 'limited human perception', just like kind produce kinds, which is true, but is not the whole story. But as usual...in fact every darn time, the science denier only denies some science. Where it comes to the flat earth, they deny that is what the Bible says at all.

So your denial doesn't get you a win, let alone debunk evolution. It only shows that you don't understand evolution and do not want to...or more, I think, you DO understand it better than you pretend, but are in denial of evidence, reality and the facts.

And this must be time for that vid that is the exposure of the worst Christian propaganda since "Scripturman"

[POI]

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.

Kenneth Miller is not saying "dogs do not produce dogs". Hence, you can watch the 4-minute video I have provided - (to avoid typing a text-wall explanation). Otherwise, as another already stated, you are not here to debate -- (ironically in a debate forum) . I already addressed Mr. Hovind's first claimed "lie", from your video, and responded in post 87. You ignored it - (3 times and counting). It's clear you ignore many things, namely my rebuttal to Hovind's claim, as well as what evolutionary biology actually provides evidence for.

As stated prior, I guess your ignorance is complete bliss.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #110

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.

Did you watch the video I posted?

[Clownboat]

No, because dogs produce dogs.

And wolves produce wolves. Well, until humans got involved domesticating and selecting. When this happened, wolves produced dogs.

[SiNcE_1985]

Kenneth Miller is not saying "dogs do not produce dogs".

That is what evolution is saying.

Hence, you can watch the 4-minute video I have provided - (to avoid typing a text-wall explanation). Otherwise, as another already stated, you are not here to debate -- (ironically in a debate forum) . I already addressed Mr. Hovind's first claimed "lie", from your video, and responded in post 87. You ignored it - (3 times and counting). It's clear you ignore many things, namely my rebuttal to Hovind's claim, as well as what evolutionary biology actually provides evidence for.

Again, that is between you and Hovind.

Take it up with him.

I just provided the source material that you asked for, "Lies in the textbook".

Now, I will stand back and let you two duke it out.

[SiNcE_1985]

No, because dogs produce dogs.

And wolves produce wolves. Well, until humans got involved domesticating and selecting. When this happened, wolves produced dogs.

Wolves and dogs are the same kind of animal..canines.

[SiNcE_1985]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #110

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.

Did you watch the video I posted?

What video?

[POI]

Kenneth Miller is not saying "dogs do not produce dogs".

That is what evolution is saying.

Please watch the video for clarification. It's only ~4 minutes long and speaks about a very specific piece of evidence(s).

Again, that is between you and Hovind.

Take it up with him.

I just provided the source material that you asked for, "Lies in the textbook".

Now, I will stand back and let you two duke it out.

It was you who endorsed his work(s). And now you tuck tale and run when they are examined with even the most basic level of scrutiny? Unless you actually do not agree with Mr. Hovind's positions? If you don't agree, then why bring him up at all? But if you do agree with his point(s), then please defend them. I addressed his first point in post 87.

Otherwise, just admit you are an internet troll and be done with it...

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #117]

Did you watch the video I posted?

What video?

I guess that means you didn't.

That says a lot.

[Difflugia]

It was you who endorsed his work(s). And now you tuck tale and run when they are examined with even the most basic level of scrutiny? Unless you actually do not agree with Mr. Hovind's positions? If you don't agree, then why bring him up at all? But if you do agree with his point(s), then please defend them. I addressed his first point in post 87.

Otherwise, just admit you are an internet troll and be done with it...

The position condensed:

That was all a little over my head, admittedly. I don't know who is right and who is wrong, but I'm rocking with Hovind.

Anything more you get is likely to just be a variation on that.