"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]

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.

No iit is not. Dogs Do produce dogs - dogs produce different kinds of dogs, with breeding. This is a known fact.

Wolves produced dogs. This is evolution. So far as I know Creationism accepts that because wolves and dogs are all the same kind.

If you disagree, take it up with Creationism, not evolution.

But Creationists deny with no shred of evidence that evolution within kind cannot over time become evolution beyond kinds.

This is supported by the evidence, DNA, morphological and palaeontological, while all the evidence is against Genesis - type creationism.

At least understand the subject before you try to debunk it. But evidently you prefer slogan - shouting defiance to any actual argument.

But it's fine. denying everything doesn't win you anything, it just proves what we goddless say - the Creationist side is ignorance and denial.

Now what else had you?

Well I won't say what it is, but others will know. You throw some Creationist garbage at us and instead of arguing it yourself, you tell us to go and argue with the originator.

That is not j how it works; if you post something his as Your argument, you defend it yourself or you lose.
Slam#
Dunk.

[SiNcE_1985]

No iit is not. Dogs Do produce dogs - dogs produce different kinds of dogs, with breeding. This is a known fact.

Wolves produced dogs. This is evolution. So far as I know Creationism accepts that because wolves and dogs are all the same kind.

Yeah, pretty much.

Micro evolution...and no sane person will argue against it.

It is the macro stuff that we ain't buying.

If you disagree, take it up with Creationism, not evolution.

But Creationists deny with no shred of evidence that evolution within kind cannot over time become evolution beyond kinds.

That is where you leave science and step into the dimension of religion.

Look at what you just said, "over time".

With that one statement, you left science, because that isn't what science is telling you...that is what your religion of evolution is telling you.

This is "time of the gaps".... unobserved, faith-based, and speculative.

This is supported by the evidence, DNA, morphological and palaeontological, while all the evidence is against Genesis - type creationism.

DNA is a code...and codes have programmers...intelligent designers.

The intelligent designer (God) used the same code for a variety of creations.

Just like the English alphabet, we are all using the same 24 letters, and with those letters comes a variety of different words, sentences, paragraphs, etc.

Same thing with DNA. The same proteins, chromosomes, cells yet different life forms...because the Cosmic Engineer used the same code.

At least understand the subject before you try to debunk it.

"You just don't understand evolution" is never to far from the convo.

But evidently you prefer slogan - shouting defiance to any actual argument.

"Dogs produce dogs" is just a reminder to the folks who believe that, long ago, when no one was conveniently around to witness it...the animals of yesterday were able to do things that the animals of today have NEVER been able to do.

You wanna know why? Because dogs produce dogs, cats/cats, fish/fish...and so on and so forth.

But it's fine. denying everything doesn't win you anything, it just proves what we goddless say - the Creationist side is ignorance and denial.

Now what else had you?

I have a God, the Creator of the universe who loves little bitty old me.

Well I won't say what it is, but others will know. You throw some Creationist garbage at us and instead of arguing it yourself, you tell us to go and argue with the originator.

That is not j how it works; if you post something his as Your argument, you defend it yourself or you lose.
Slam#
Dunk.

Um, I merely made mention of it...and POI decided to devote an entire thread about it..and got what was asked for.

I am not tasked with defending the source material.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #122]

"Dogs produce dogs" is just a reminder to the folks who believe that, long ago, when no one was conveniently around to witness it...the animals of yesterday were able to do things that the animals of today have NEVER been able to do.

You wanna know why? Because dogs produce dogs, cats/cats, fish/fish...and so on and so forth.

Still haven't looked at the video I posted, have you?

gills---->lungs
water animal---->land animal

[SiNcE_1985]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #122]

"Dogs produce dogs" is just a reminder to the folks who believe that, long ago, when no one was conveniently around to witness it...the animals of yesterday were able to do things that the animals of today have NEVER been able to do.

You wanna know why? Because dogs produce dogs, cats/cats, fish/fish...and so on and so forth.

Still haven't looked at the video I posted, have you?

gills---->lungs
water animal---->land animal

For every video you post for evolution, I can post one against it (and vice versa).

That is why I don't dig videos.

Waste of time.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #124]

For every video you post for evolution, I can post one against it (and vice versa).

That is why I don't dig videos.

Waste of time.

The video I posted shows a clear example of macroevolution in progress.

You can't post a video negating that.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #122]

"Dogs produce dogs" is just a reminder to the folks who believe that, long ago, when no one was conveniently around to witness it...the animals of yesterday were able to do things that the animals of today have NEVER been able to do.

You wanna know why? Because dogs produce dogs, cats/cats, fish/fish...and so on and so forth.

Still haven't looked at the video I posted, have you?

gills---->lungs
water animal---->land animal

For every video you post for evolution, I can post one against it (and vice versa).

That is why I don't dig videos.

Waste of time.

Sure - all the time you think it's one claim countered by another, and not about presenting a case. You are not presenting a case but reciting denial. That's the problem. You may find an excuse not to look at videos, but there is no excuse for responding to all presented evidence with 'dogs from dogs',

[Difflugia]

DNA is a code...and codes have programmers...intelligent designers.

The intelligent designer (God) used the same code for a variety of creations.

Just like the English alphabet, we are all using the same 24 letters, and with those letters comes a variety of different words, sentences, paragraphs, etc.

Same thing with DNA. The same proteins, chromosomes, cells yet different life forms...because the Cosmic Engineer used the same code.

You and I already had this conversation.

That was an excellent read...clear and concise. However, I obviously have to disagree with what you said above...as I think genomic relationships ARE actually very strong evidence for a common designer.

The reason genetics is good evidence for intelligent design is because of the fact that it is coded information...and information can only come from an informant, and codes have programmers.

Even if you're completely correct about all of this, it could be evidence for a designer, but not the common designer of a recent creation involving multiple, unrelated kinds. The pattern in the "coded data" still doesn't show the discontinuities that we should expect from such a recent creation. Even so, you're simply asserting without evidence that the existence of the information requires an intelligent agent. It's one of those "common sense" creationist (or intelligent design, in this case) arguments that breaks down if you understand the chemistry behind it (not even information theory).

in this case, we can just carry on with the alphabet analogy...because it is the arrangements of each letter than makes every word different...and the same is true our own DNA.

This is the first place that your analogy breaks down. DNA "words" are often quite long (tens to hundreds of "letters"). Because of the way both RNA and protein molecules fold, there are often long portions of DNA "words" where the exact sequence doesn't matter very much (like just in overall net charge, for example). They can be replaced with many different sequences and still mean the same thing. While some base positions matter more than others, DNA "words" are much more tolerant to changes than English ones. Furthermore, the way DNA maps to amino acid coding is such that many single nucleotide changes don't even change the coded protein in the first place. There are analogies that can be made between English and DNA, but there are differences that greatly affect your argument.

[SiNcE_1985]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #127]

Techno babble aside..

Google search..

"DNA's genetic code is unique to each individual and acts like an instruction manual for building and maintaining the body's proteins."

So, basically...we are to believe (on atheism) that a mindless/blind process created an instruction manual, at the molecular level.

Or, are we do commit the taxicab fallacy by admitting that instruction manuals only come from intelligence, except for in the case of DNA?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #127]

Techno babble aside..

Google search..

"DNA's genetic code is unique to each individual and acts like an instruction manual for building and maintaining the body's proteins."

So, basically...we are to believe (on atheism) that a mindless/blind process created an instruction manual, at the molecular level.

Or, are we do commit the taxicab fallacy by admitting that instruction manuals only come from intelligence, except for in the case of DNA?

Yes. Look, Creationism already accepts that 'blind/unplanned_ process of evolution by natural selection - within kinds. It is as perverse to claim that it is impossible that the DNA molecule came about through natural processes as to say it is 'impossible' that Mict ro cannot become macro - given time.

Snowflakes are amazing and wonderful and all individual, or so iut seems, yet do you suggest that each one was designed and manufactured by a god, let alone which one. Your case fails on two levels.

In fact I don't think your argument is Individuality at all, but complexity. How could DNA have happened uninetntionally? Such arguments are flawed. DNA is not a incredibly complex as is supposed. There are a lot of elements, but then so are the atoms in a pebble, but who would suggest that didn't come obout naturally? All that had to happen is that a simple kind of DNA reproduced. The rest is..evilooshun.

I know we don't see DNA molecules of a new kind happen all around us. We don't see people rise from the dead, either. It is true we haven't shown the abiogenesis process in a lab, but the process of living hasn't been shown to be done by a god, either. What we do have is evidence - compelling evidence - that however life began, it evolved, and was not made in one go over a week.

What you have to do to debunk Abiogenesis is to show that it cannot happen, and that is what you are trying to do. But your own theist apologetics refutes that as undisprovable possibilities are claimed just as valid as better supported claims.

But not where it doesn't suit Bible - belief. The possibility that abiogenesis could be true is dismissed and it is declared impossible. Noy quite unlikely, but not possible, and the Creationists cannot say what is possible and what is not.



cue - "ha ha! They are claiming as Fact what is only theory".

Yes, yes. The caveat that does not to be said every time, like disbelieving in a god does not need to be qualified as 'is the working theory and the more likel', so this is the theory (hypothesis) of how it happened, a a flawed and rather daft experiment does not prove anything any more that daring God to strike me dead proves anything when it doesn't happen.,

[Difflugia]

"DNA's genetic code is unique to each individual and acts like an instruction manual for building and maintaining the body's proteins."

So, basically...we are to believe (on atheism) that a mindless/blind process created an instruction manual, at the molecular level.

No, you're supposed to believe that oversimplifying the function of DNA as an "instruction manual" is an analogy understood by more people than understand protein synthesis.

Or, are we do commit the taxicab fallacy by admitting that instruction manuals only come from intelligence, except for in the case of DNA?

Even if the "taxicab fallacy" were really a logical fallacy, you're using it wrong. In order to be guilty of such a fallacy, I'd have to somehow be switching worldviews. In the case you describe, I'd be switching from your worldview that doesn't understand protein synthesis to mine that does.

What you're actually describing would be a case of special pleading. It's not that, either, because DNA isn't really an instruction manual.