Jump to content

Welcome to Phylogeny Explorer Project Forum

Welcome to Phylogeny Explorer Project Forum, like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process that requires minimal information for you to signup. Be apart of Phylogeny Explorer Project Forum by signing in or creating an account.
  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get email updates
  • Get your own profile page and make new friends
  • Send personal messages to other members.

Sign in to follow this  
Wild-T

Is Evolution "Solidly Factual?"... Accepting Aron's challenge...

Recommended Posts

Aron;
   I have many issues with many of the claims you make from your so-called "facts" of Evolution, to your objectively false assertions that every testable claim in the Bible has been proven to be wrong. However, your specific challenge was to prove to me that Evolution is "solidly factual," and to outline whatever problems I have with it. You also said not to overwhelm you, so I've decided to list just 3 things for now, and for the sake of time and space, I'll try to keep it to just one or two explanations for each one. These are not by any means my only issues, or even my best objections to Evolution, but merely just 3 random points I decided to begin with. Also just a quick side-note before getting started, I would just like to point out that even though I believe in creation by the God of the Bible, I am not a Young Earth Creationist, nor do I subscribe to the many false teachings of Kent Hovind and the like. Now to my points...
   # I - My first issue with Evolution is the dishonest tactic of trying to separate Evolution from Abiogenesis or any other theory of the origin of life. I've heard many times, and understand your argument that they are completely separate sciences, I just don't think that argument holds any water. It seems more like a cop-out and/or damage control, since for the longest time they were considered part of the same theory, and only seem to have been separated after Abiogenesis and Spontaneous Generation have all but been refuted. Mainly because it would essentially dismantle your entire theory before even getting started if you continued to link the two. I think it's a little dishonest to claim you know all the facts of life, and how every living thing from amebas, plants and animals all derived from a single common ancestor, spanning over billions of years, yet not have a single explanation for, or even acknowledgment to the origins of said common ancestor. I've seen you reference multiple biology books quoting their definitions of Evolution as a means to separate the two, however, you dishonestly omit and ignore the portions of those very same text books that mention, and emphasize the importance of the origins of life to the theory. Also, if you're going to separate the two, then it makes absolutely no sense what so ever to ever debate Evolution vs Creation since they're both explanations of two completely different topics. That's like debating Digital vs Solid State, rather than Digital vs Analog or Tube vs Solid State... to make a music reference. It just makes no sense.
   # II - My second issue is the claim that all living things are "related" simply because they are as you say, "eukaryotes." Scientists claim that Humans and apes are 96-99% related by our DNA, and actually classify us as apes because of this. However, that's a very dishonest, and misleading statistic. Not only do apes have 24 chromosomes while we only have 23, There are many major differences in almost a quarter of our DNA sequences that scientists couldn't decide how to interpret, so they literally just ignored it and only compared the remaining 3/4 instead. It's only in that 3/4 of our DNA after completely ignoring the other 25% do we get a 96% similarity. That's just one of literally dozens if not hundreds of dishonest propaganda tactics by scientists to push this false narrative of Evolution, and why I have many doubts of it's validity. Additionally, all this is starting from a false assumption, that similarities in our DNA, or simply having DNA automatically means we're all related, and share a common ancestor. There is absolutely nothing to reasonably suggest this what so ever, besides the fact that we can determine our family heritage using DNA, but the process is not even remotely the same. Not to mention we've only known about DNA for just over 60 years and know relatively very little about it yet. There could very easily still be a major discovery absolutely proving beyond any doubt that there is in fact zero relation between different species. Claiming all living things share a single common ancestor simply because they all have DNA, is completely unsubstantiated, baseless speculation. Beings there are very limited and very specific conditions in which to sustain life, it stands to logical reason that all living things would share in common traits and basic DNA make-up in order to live. This in no way proves or even suggests relation or Evolution.
   # III - My Third and final issue is the simple fact that there is zero proof, and very little evidence that evolution exists, let alone is the single explanation and cause of all biological diversity. One of your main "proofs" of evolution you love to boast is Taxonomy or Phylogeny. The fact that we can classify things into groups based on similarities isn't proof of anything, other than humans have the ability to classify things based on similarities and differences. As mentioned before, similarities do not automatically make relatives. I have demonstrated the absurdity of this by taking a random pile of trash, and developed categories based on diagnostic characteristics. I showed the incremental, superficial changes, slowly compiled on top of successive tiers of fundamental similarities, establishing taxonomic clades... Thus proving that a stale spaghetti noodle is related to, and the ancestor of a travel sewing kit... I'd be more than happy to show you my work if you're interested. The point is, classification is simply that, and not proof of evolution, and if that's one of your best proofs, you're in trouble. Another popular so-called proof that I hear every day, is that there are hundreds of thousands of examples of observed speciation. This is plain and simply a lie. I've had a challenge for nearly ten years now for anyone to provide me even one example of observed speciation, and I have yet to be satisfied. Literally every example I get, is some bacteria, worm or fruit fly that under very specific, controlled and artificial conditions, (nothing like what would be experienced in nature) eventually mutated into another kind of said bacteria, worm etc... that apparently has never been seen before. That is not speciation, it's not the development of a new species, and even if that were to ever actually occur, it would in no way prove that to be the process in which all biological diversity came about. Micro-evolution happens all the time, but it's also falsely conflated, and labeled as speciation as just another dishonest tactic to push the false narrative. The very concept that micro-evolution would eventually result in macro-evolution given enough time, is purely speculative, and based entirely on unsubstantiated assumptions. It has never been shown to even be possible let alone probable, and to suggest that's the process in which all life derived is nothing less than absurd. I've studied this nearly my entire life. I've also diligently studied scripture for even longer. You made the claim in your challenge that quote "It is not possible to defend creationism honestly, not against someone who knows both sides of this issue better than you know your own alone." I'm not doubting you know more about Evolution than I do considering you've dedicated your entire life to it. But I know enough to hold my own, and to be very skeptical of it's validity. However, I can guarantee you do not know my side of the issue better than me... This is very apparent by the many many false claims, and misunderstood arguments I've heard you make against the Bible time and again. As I mentioned at the beginning, these are just a few of my issues with evolution, and I'm anxious to see where this discussion leads... I appreciate you extending the offer, and I thank you in advance for taking the time to have this discussion. If you decide against it for whatever reason, I will understand that as well. I'm aware you're probably a busy man. I'll leave it here for now, and hope to hear from you soon...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aron;


   I have many issues with many of the claims you make from your so-called "facts" of Evolution, to your objectively false assertions that every testable claim in the Bible has been proven to be wrong.


What I actually said (in the video you're talking about) was, “Creationism is just pretending to know what no one even can know. It doesn’t even count as a hypothesis, because it isn’t backed by any evidence at all, it doesn’t make any testable predictions, and you guys will never accept that it has already been proven wrong every way that it can be.” Biblical Creationism DOESN'T even count as a hypothesis, it ISN'T backed by any evidence at all, and it HAS been disproved every way that it can be. I can go into detail about all of that if you want me to, beginning with my 8-part video series on how various fields of science independently disprove Noah’s flood. So my statement was objectively true on all points.

However, your specific challenge was to prove to me that Evolution is "solidly factual," and to outline whatever problems I have with it. You also said not to overwhelm you, so I've decided to list just 3 things for now, and for the sake of time and space, I'll try to keep it to just one or two explanations for each one. These are not by any means my only issues, or even my best objections to Evolution, but merely just 3 random points I decided to begin with. Also just a quick side-note before getting started, I would just like to point out that even though I believe in creation by the God of the Bible, I am not a Young Earth Creationist, nor do I subscribe to the many false teachings of Kent Hovind and the like. Now to my points...


   # I - My first issue with Evolution is the dishonest tactic of trying to separate Evolution from Abiogenesis or any other theory of the origin of life. I've heard many times, and understand your argument that they are completely separate sciences, I just don't think that argument holds any water. It seems more like a cop-out and/or damage control, since for the longest time they were considered part of the same theory, and only seem to have been separated after Abiogenesis and Spontaneous Generation have all but been refuted. Mainly because it would essentially dismantle your entire theory before even getting started if you continued to link the two. I think it's a little dishonest to claim you know all the facts of life, and how every living thing from amebas, plants and animals all derived from a single common ancestor, spanning over billions of years, yet not have a single explanation for, or even acknowledgment to the origins of said common ancestor. I've seen you reference multiple biology books quoting their definitions of Evolution as a means to separate the two, however, you dishonestly omit and ignore the portions of those very same text books that mention, and emphasize the importance of the origins of life to the theory. Also, if you're going to separate the two, then it makes absolutely no sense what so ever to ever debate Evolution vs Creation since they're both explanations of two completely different topics. That's like debating Digital vs Solid State, rather than Digital vs Analog or Tube vs Solid State... to make a music reference. It just makes no sense.


I realize misinformation is pervasive throughout our society, but abiogenesis is not even related to evolution nor spontaneous generation either.

Spontaneous generation: Proposed by Anaximander in the sixth century BCE, and disproved in a series of experiments from 1668 to 1861: the proposition that fermentation and putrefaction activate a latent “vitalism” (life force) in once-living matter, thus recycling organic refuse such as old meat, rotting vegetables and feces into new forms of already complex, albeit vile, viruses and living organisms from bacteria all the way to animals such as flies and even mice.

Abiogenesis: A collection of overlapping hypotheses explaining the origin of life; proposed by Rudolph Virchow in 1855 and coined by Thomas Huxley in 1870: the proposition that the formation of life requires a prior matrix, thus genetic and metabolic cells must have developed through an intricate sequence of increasingly complex chemical constructs, each having been naturally enhanced by particular constituent and environmental conditions.

Evolution: Unless otherwise specified, the scientific context always refers to an explanation of biodiversity via population mechanics; summarily defined as ‘descent with inherent [genetic] modification’: Paraphrased for clarity, it is a process of varying allele frequencies among reproductive populations; leading to (usually subtle) changes in the morphological or physiological composition of descendant subsets.  When compiled over successive generations, these can expand biodiversity when continuing variation between genetically-isolated groups eventually lead to one or more descendant branches increasingly distinct from their ancestors or cousins.

Do you  understand and accept that these definitions are accurate? Because I can prove that they are, and you can't contest that. Spontaneous generation was a supernatural belief that was disproved by an "evolutionist". Despite what even dictionaries say today, abiogenesis was never in any way related to spontaneous generation. Nor could "decent with inherent genetic modification" possibly apply to something having no genetic ancestors, obviously. That's why it is not remotely dishonest to separate these accordingly. Understood?  

We do have quite a lot of information about the origin of life, almost all of the most important parts in fact, but not quite everything yet. Again, if I need to, I can explain all that too, but I'd rather stick to the topic.

# II - My second issue is the claim that all living things are "related" simply because they are as you say, "eukaryotes." Scientists claim that Humans and apes are 96-99% related by our DNA, and actually classify us as apes because of this. However, that's a very dishonest, and misleading statistic.


While it is true that humans share 96-99% of our DNA, that is not the reason we were classified as apes. Carolus Linneaus was a pre-Darwinian creationist who first classified chimpanzees and orangutans as human subspecies. He also famously issued the following challenge to the scientific community of his day:

"I demand of you, and of the whole world, that you show me a generic character -one that is according to the generally accepted principles of classification- by which to distinguish between Man and Ape. I myself most assuredly know of none. I wish somebody would indicate one to me. But, if I had called man an ape, or vice versa, I would have fallen under the ban of all ecclesiastics. It may be that as a naturalist, I ought to have done so.”

Having said this centuries before our genetic link with the other apes was even discovered, the statistic that you said was “dishonest and misleading” isn't a statistic at all and wasn't even a factor. You have a tendency to accuse honest people of dishonest things. Stop doing that, and realize that your own side is entirely dishonest by necessity.

Not only do apes have 24 chromosomes while we only have 23,


While the other apes do have 24 chromosomes to our 23, that is because of a fusion of chimpanzee chromosome 2 and their 24th chromosome. Even Christian geneticists like Francis Collins and Kenneth Miller admit this openly.

[youtube]zi8FfMBYCkk[/youtube]

There are many major differences in almost a quarter of our DNA sequences that scientists couldn't decide how to interpret, so they literally just ignored it and only compared the remaining 3/4 instead. It's only in that 3/4 of our DNA after completely ignoring the other 25% do we get a 96% similarity. That's just one of literally dozens if not hundreds of dishonest propaganda tactics by scientists to push this false narrative of Evolution, and why I have many doubts of it's validity.


You accused me of dishonest propaganda to promote a false narrative. Yet you got this from a Christian propaganda site. The irony is strong with you wanna-believers. The first time I happened across this particular bit of dishonest of propaganda was three years ago, when it was brought up by Subboor Ahmad, whom I later debated in person. Back then I contacted a geneticist friend of mine to ask, "what's he talking about?" This was my friend's response:  

He's quoting Svante Pääbo's assessment of interspecific genome alignments and Jonathan Cohen's article (linked just below) and how hopeless it is to try to define what "interspecific homology" really is, depending on how you define and count it


http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/biology/franz/biology38/_files/1836.pdf

A good paper to start:
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/15/12/1746.full

Some simple quotes:
"Single-nucleotide divergence was estimated at ∼1.23%, with ∼1% corresponding to fixed species divergence and the remainder representing species-specific polymorphisms (The Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium 2005). While insertion-deletion (indel) events were fewer, they represented 40-45 Mb in each species, i.e., ∼90 Mb difference between the two, giving an ∼3% divergence in this category. Thus, the overall divergence between the genomes is closer to 4%, in keeping with two recent studies (Britten 2002; Watanabe et al. 2004), but far greater than most previous estimates, which were made using shorter alignable sequence fragments. Fortunately, orthologous proteins are still extremely similar, with almost a third being identical, and the typical protein differing only by two amino acids between human and chimpanzees. Thus, the oft-repeated “<1% difference” still applies to amino acid sequences (The Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium 2005). However, a substantial proportion of the differences will likely be neutral with respect to understanding the human condition."

To kind of summarize his misunderstanding:
1.  There have been structural changes to the genome involving non-coding regions:  gaps and insertions of repetitive DNA.
2.  Those sequences don't always align, so we use repetitive DNA masking and gapped alignments when we compare genomes.
3.  If you look at protein sequences, the part that's exposed to purifying selection / evolution, the sequences between chimp and human are 99% identical.
4.  Scientists quibble between 1 and 6% differences, depending on whether you count the structural changes (like chromosome fusions, increases in highly repetitive non-coding DNA, gene order shuffling) in that number, but the basic relatedness is not in question.
5.  All of this matters not to the question of whether chimps are our closest cousins (no scientist disputes that), but whether our genetic differences can be explained by the 1% of differences that are in coding regions, or the 4% of total differences that represent the regions around the genes (intergenic regions).

There are 30 million DNA bases different between chimps and humans when they are aligned with gaps (1% of genome).
There's 90 million bases of rearranged genome (3% of genome)

He confused (I think) the different types of differences.  The 1% number comes from an examination of only the protein-coding DNA regions of the two genomes (which is about .... and only includes the heritable single nucleotide differences.  It ignores the changes on the larger level:  loss of whole genes, rearrangement of gene order, loss or gain of regions of chromosomes.  If you include those additional changes, the difference between chimp and human genomes climbs to 4%... and researchers think these large-scale changes may have played a bigger role in our evolution from a common ancestor with chimpanzees.

Additionally, all this is starting from a false assumption, that similarities in our DNA, or simply having DNA automatically means we're all related, and share a common ancestor. There is absolutely nothing to reasonably suggest this what so ever, besides the fact that we can determine our family heritage using DNA, but the process is not even remotely the same.


The last line in that email from c0nc0rdance was, "There is no question in the minds of anyone studying the comparative genomics of chimp and human that they are our closest cousins, not just because of the degree of homology or genetic similarity is high, but because of the specific signatures of selection." Do you understand how this definitely does suggest a biological relationship?

Not to mention we've only known about DNA for just over 60 years and know relatively very little about it yet. There could very easily still be a major discovery absolutely proving beyond any doubt that there is in fact zero relation between different species.


It's too late for that. We know enough about genetics now that not only have we already disproved the specific claims of intelligent design pseudoscientists, but we can use genomic sequence analyses to track our phylogenetic ancestry, both within and beyond human migration. We also have peer-reviewed studies of genomic sequences positively linking numerous other species too.

Claiming all living things share a single common ancestor simply because they all have DNA, is completely unsubstantiated, baseless speculation. Beings there are very limited and very specific conditions in which to sustain life, it stands to logical reason that all living things would share in common traits and basic DNA make-up in order to live. This in no way proves or even suggests relation or Evolution.


Understand that evidence is a body of objectively verifiable facts which are positively indicative of, and/or exclusively concordant with one available position over any other. All of these facts, and many more that we haven't mentioned yet, unanimously and exclusively support evolution. Note also that there is no data in existence which either contradicts evolution nor implies a magical creation instead.  

# III - My Third and final issue is the simple fact that there is zero proof, and very little evidence that evolution exists, let alone is the single explanation and cause of all biological diversity.


Once again, I remind you that evolution is descent with inherent genetic modification. That is and has been a directly observed phenomenon throughout agriculture for centuries. Virtually every creationist accepts that this is indeed solidly factual. You even admitted this yourself below. So that definitely counts as significantly more than "zero proof" that evolution happens, don't you think?   

One of your main "proofs" of evolution you love to boast is Taxonomy or Phylogeny. The fact that we can classify things into groups based on similarities isn't proof of anything, other than humans have the ability to classify things based on similarities and differences. As mentioned before, similarities do not automatically make relatives. I have demonstrated the absurdity of this by taking a random pile of trash, and developed categories based on diagnostic characteristics. I showed the incremental, superficial changes, slowly compiled on top of successive tiers of fundamental similarities, establishing taxonomic clades... Thus proving that a stale spaghetti noodle is related to, and the ancestor of a travel sewing kit... I'd be more than happy to show you my work if you're interested.


So you can demonstrate how a travel sewing kit actually becomes spaghetti noodles? I'm calling your bluff here, because we both know you're lying.

The point is, classification is simply that, and not proof of evolution, and if that's one of your best proofs, you're in trouble.


It is one of my best "proofs" (a word that should not be pluralized). To show how much trouble that is for you, let me invite you to take the Phylogeny Challenge, which no creationist dares answer.

[youtube]_r0zpk0lPFU[/youtube]

Another popular so-called proof that I hear every day, is that there are hundreds of thousands of examples of observed speciation. This is plain and simply a lie.


You're right about that. By my count, there are only dozens of such incidents, not hundreds of thousands of them. Where did you read that there were hundreds of thousands of observed speciation events? Because I don't believe you. I think you're lying again.

I've had a challenge for nearly ten years now for anyone to provide me even one example of observed speciation, and I have yet to be satisfied. Literally every example I get, is some bacteria, worm or fruit fly that under very specific, controlled and artificial conditions, (nothing like what would be experienced in nature) eventually mutated into another kind of said bacteria, worm etc... that apparently has never been seen before. That is not speciation, it's not the development of a new species, and even if that were to ever actually occur, it would in no way prove that to be the process in which all biological diversity came about.


So I guess you've already seen the list of observed speciation events and maybe even some more observed speciation events, but you reject them because you still don't know what speciation is? You seem to be suffering from the same error as Hovind is, imagining that something should turn into a fundamentally different "kind" of thing that isn't even related to its ancestors. That is a common lie among creationists; that any new species of fruit fly or fish doesn't count as evolution because "it's still a fly" or "it's still a fish". That's a lie because (1) evolution never taught nor even allowed that, and (2) it directly contradicts the evolutionary laws of biodiversity and monophyly, which don't allow anything to grow out of its ancestry. Understand that "descent with inherent modification" means that every new genus or species that ever evolved was just a modified version of whatever its ancestors were. It will never become a fundamentally different "kind", like creationists pretend that it should.  

Micro-evolution happens all the time, but it's also falsely conflated, and labeled as speciation as just another dishonest tactic to push the false narrative.


You've got to quit accusing other people of dishonesty, at least while you're telling lies yourself. I'm calling you out again. You cannot cite any academic lesson on evolution which conflates speciation with microevolution. And the reason that you can't is that speciation is mAcroevolution, not micro.

  • Microevolution: “Small scale” evolution within a single species / interbreeding population.
  • Macroevolution: “Large scale” evolution between different species / populations: The emergence of new taxa at or above the species level.


These are and always were the academic definitions, ever since evolutionary biologists invented these words. Do I need to prove that? Or will you concede this point now?
 

As a matter of population mechanics over many generations, the larger the breeding population, the more it restricts the emergence of novel mutations, by blending them back with the standard. But they do still arise, and more quickly in relatively isolated groups. If a population is genetically isolated, unique mutations continue to build up in each group that are no longer shared between each group: such that differences will soon be visible, allowing us to determine on sight whether some lone individual came from this group or that one.

A subspecies classification is where every member of one group shares a trait that is not present in any member of the other group. This is what you would call microevolution, when they are still willing and able to cross breed, should compatible pairs meet.

Macroevolution occurs when it becomes a new species. In sexually-reproductive animals, this is generally identified when the genetic differences minimize the chances of producing fertile offspring: such that all that are produced are sterile hybrids. The next stage is when these differences build to the point that hybrids are no longer even viable.

Do you understand and accept this most basic of all instructions on evolution? This is key to understanding anything. So I need you to comprehend this.     

It has never been shown to even be possible let alone probable, and to suggest that's the process in which all life derived is nothing less than absurd.


It has been shown to be possible and it has even been verified, both in the lab and in naturally-controlled conditions in the field. In fact, this has happened so many times that four different types of speciation have been observed and documented. Look up allopatric, peripatric, parapatric, and sympatric speciation. Because of this, virtually every creationist in the world, including all the creationist propaganda mills like AnswersInGenesis and Institute For Creation Research--accepts that speciation is undeniable. So are you ready to change your mind about that? Or do you want to try to deny what not even Kent Hovind can deny?   

I've studied this nearly my entire life.


That's obviously a lie, or else I wouldn't have to give you the introductory primer now. You've already demonstrated that you don't even know what evolution is. If you don't even know the basics, then how can you pretend to have studied it at all?

I've also diligently studied scripture for even longer.


Your mastery of mythology will be entirely irrelevant here.  

You made the claim in your challenge that quote "It is not possible to defend creationism honestly, not against someone who knows both sides of this issue better than you know your own alone." I'm not doubting you know more about Evolution than I do considering you've dedicated your entire life to it. But I know enough to hold my own, and to be very skeptical of it's validity.


No, you don't know anything, and you've already been dishonest multiple times. Not a great start.  

However, I can guarantee you do not know my side of the issue better than me...


You can't guarantee that, and you've already proven otherwise.

This is very apparent by the many many false claims, and misunderstood arguments I've heard you make against the Bible time and again.


Unlike you, I've never made a false claim. Everything I said is defensibly accurate, while everything you said is embarrassingly wrong.

You began this discussion by saying,

“You're so wrong on almost every word you spewed...”


That was over 1,200 words. Do you really think you can prove me wrong 1,200 times? Obviously not, so that was your first error. I can prove (and have already proved) that every point I made in that video is precisely correct. You cannot show that ANY point I made in that whole presentation was wrong, not even the few points you tried (and failed) to challenge in your first comment to me. Wherein you then said,

A scientific theory is not a fact... It’s merely the best explanation at the time, and is always subject to change...


But as I pointed out, atomic theory, the theory that all matter is made of atoms—is also a fact; a fact being a point of data that is objectively verifiable. Cell theory, that the cell is the basis of all biology on earth—is also a fact. The theory of gravity, the theory that “matter attracts matter”, while not nearly as well-established as the theory of evolution, is still an objectively verifiable fact, as is the germ theory of disease. While there are numerous causes of disease, we know that “germs” (viral and bacterial pathogens) account for the majority of those cases. And as we will soon see in this thread, evolution too can be objectively confirmed to happen, both previously and presently.

Understand that there is a difference in criteria between mathematic and scientific theories, and that of course I am only talking about scientific theories here. So worthless duds like string theory or chaos theory will be irrelevant to this conversation.

You went on to say,

But the only reason evolution is even considered the best explanation, is because the one world religion that is secular science, wants to oppress any notion of a creator, and indoctrinate the masses into believing that we are all gods...


That is seven errors in one sentence.

(1) There are multiple reasons that evolution is the best explanation. One is that it accounts for all the evidence without exception or contradiction. There is also overwhelming evidence in support of it, and it can be tested and traced several ways. It also has a number of natural laws as well as mechanisms specific to it too.

(2) Every religion universally accepted as such is a faith-based belief-system posting the notion that some supernatural essence of self somehow survives the death of the physical body to continue on in some other form. Neither evolution nor any other avenue of actual science posits any such thing: and all science works exactly opposite of faith, because of how auto-deceptive faith always is. So evolution is not a religion in any sense.

(3) There is no “one world religion” either. The very word, “secular” means that religion is ignored as irrelevant. Every religion is a faith-based belief-system with required beliefs and prohibited beliefs. Science is an example of free thought. There are Christian, Muslim, Jewish and Hindu scientists, and there are scientists who don’t subscribe to any religion. Yet they all agree on evolution.

(4) Neither evolution nor any other application of actual science wants to oppress anything. In science, it doesn’t matter what you believe. All that matters is why you believe it. What is your evidence? If you don’t have any evidence, we literally have nothing to talk about. Hitchens’ razor says that what is asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.

(5) Religion is into indoctrination, taking advantage of susceptible poorly-educated people, usually before they even learn how to reason. Religion tells you what to think. Science only teaches HOW to think. That’s why every argument for God is a logical fallacy.

(6) If there was such things as gods or magic or immortal spirits, there should be someone like Obiwan, Spock, Gandolf or Hermione who could demonstrate that reliably, so that even if science couldn’t explain it, we’d still have evidence of it. As it is, we don’t have that. There is absolutely no evidence that anything you believe even could be true, and we have substantial evidence that it’s all bullshit.

(7) Do you think scientists are all Mormons or something? Because they definitely don’t want everyone to think we’re all gods. Gods are magical anthropomorphic immortals. We know that such things are not even possible. Why would you imagine that any scientist would want everyone to believe such nonsense?

Then you railed at what you called my “constant false assertions that literally everything in the Bible has been proven wrong”. But what can you say against that? Every important point the Bible makes is either impossible absurdities that can’t be substantiated or it’s impossible absurdities that we know didn’t and couldn’t really happen. The garden of Eden, Cain and Abel, Noah’s Ark, the Exodus, the Ten Commandments, the necromancer raising an army of the undead, all of that is just fairy tales even in the educated opinions of leading Bible scholars. So what can YOU say?

It's not my fault that the Bible teaches that the earth is flat either. Again, even scholars recognize this, especially if they’ve also done comparative mythology. Because the way the Bible describes the snow-globe firmament model is the same across the Orient regardless of religion.

Unlike every professional creationist, I am not dishonest. Nor has anyone ever exposed me as a liar or a fraud, though Hovind’s ilk have all been so exposed.

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support that anything in the Bible really happened nor that it even could have,

and or even your notion that it teaches a flat Earth, is just further proof that you're a dishonest, pseudo intellectual hack, and an exposed liar and fraud...


No, every professional creationist may be a fraud, but I am definitely not. I couldn't offer this challenge if I were.  

There's far more proof verifying the validity and accuracy of the Bible, particularly the New Testament, than your pseudo science lie of evolution...


Understand that a lie is misinformation or information misrepresented with deliberate intent to deceive. That describes the entirety of creationist pseudoscience, but evolution is demonstrably real, and this discussion will prove that to your satisfaction--unless you keep lying about it like you already have been.

Evolution is the foundation of modern biology and is one of the best supported theories in all of science. So every single point I made is verifiably correct, and absolutely every point you made is absolutely wrong.

I edited this because in re-reading it, I found a number of typos, some of which could be confusing.


So do you understand why your own propaganda fails in this case?

The very concept that micro-evolution would eventually result in macro-evolution given enough time, is purely speculative, and based entirely on unsubstantiated assumptions.


Direct observation is not speculation or assumption. The way it works is that every individual has a number of mutations right from the point of conception. Humans, for example, have an average of 128 mutations per zygote, and we continue to gain more as we mature. In animals like us, these mutations can be inherited if gamete cells are among the mutants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm neutral here and enjoying this way more than Dr. Kent's challenge (being unironic)! Mark is smarter than he sounds compared to Kent and his followers, but anyway I think both of you are being genuine and would like to point out that we make mistakes but that doesn't mean we have to admit that we have lied to ourselves! That being said it's all perspective and we will reach understanding.
I like to bring a thought experiment based on Dr. Kent's Dogs! He's actually right about Dogs except as Aron will point out is redundant at best and is bollocks at worst. Anyway, I too have a theory: Dogs will revert to their original wolf kind! #LifeAfterPeople incoming!
premises:
1. Dogs have gone Feral!
2. Dogs have formed into packs! Stage 1
3. Dogs have intimate contact with wolves! Stage 2
4. Wolf Dogs (hybridization) Stage 3
Hypothesis: Assuming all/most dog breeds have escaped into the wild we enter stage 1. Knowing artificial selection, with dogs especially, we can predict who's going to survive the 1st stage. (You guys can discuss this in greater detail.) Once we enter stage 2 we can predict who's going to have 1st contact with wolves! (I'm letting you guys think it through). Once dogs have become intimately close to wolves we can enter stage 3, in which we can predict hybridization occurs and may even lead to a whole new species/kind! (given time of course, but also given we come up with a new name for it.) Keep in mind not only will Evolution will occur here, but Dogs will revert to being like wolves after which Evolution continues from this point on.
Experiment:  We can simply list the advantages and disadvantages of each breed of dog and determine how they would fair in the wild before and after stage 2.

Again being neutral here, I like to contribute whatever way I can!
P.s #RipSpaceBar And I would like to see you and AIGs react to Kent's Destruction of Evolution on the NonSequitor Show together. I want to join too if possible and try to debate Kent Hovind myself. But first I wanna know where and how you guys get into a group chat like is it through discord or somewhere else? Have Fun!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I actually said (in the video you're talking about) was, “Creationism is just pretending to know what no one even can know. It doesn’t even count as a hypothesis, because it isn’t backed by any evidence at all, it doesn’t make any testable predictions, and you guys will never accept that it has already been proven wrong every way that it can be.” Biblical Creationism DOESN'T even count as a hypothesis, it ISN'T backed by any evidence at all, and it HAS been disproved every way that it can be. I can go into detail about all of that if you want me to, beginning with my 8-part video series on how various fields of science independently disprove Noah’s flood. So my statement was objectively true on all points.

The problem here is trying to compare the Bible to a scientific hypothesis. It's not intended to be such, and shouldn't be treated as such. The purpose of scripture is not to make testable predictions, but to give knowledge of the Word of God, and instructions on how to obtain Salvation. The Bible can be true or false, but that doesn't change what the authors' intentions were. However, while we might not be able to so-call "prove" the actual creation event, other than through the Bible itself, we can grant credence to what the Bible says by verifying it's validity the same way you would verify any other text or manuscript. This has been done in spades, and more so than any other ancient Latin or Greek text in history, including Plato, Aristotle and many others. Once we have verified the validity of scripture, which I believe has been done to satisfactory, it's no longer circular reasoning or appeal to authority to accept the Bible as an authority. Biblical Creation isn't intended to be a hypothesis, it is in fact backed by ample evidence through the validation of authority of those who have written about it, and has NOT been disproved as far as I can tell by any stretch of the imagination. As far as Noah's flood, that's a topic I'm just beginning to fully dissect both scientifically, and scripturally, but one I definitely would eventually love to return to.

Do you  understand and accept that these definitions are accurate? Because I can prove that they are, and you can't contest that. Spontaneous generation was a supernatural belief that was disproved by an "evolutionist". Despite what even dictionaries say today, abiogenesis was never in any way related to spontaneous generation. Nor could "decent with inherent genetic modification" possibly apply to something having no genetic ancestors, obviously. That's why it is not remotely dishonest to separate these accordingly. Understood?  


 
 We do have quite a lot of information about the origin of life, almost all of the most important parts in fact, but not quite everything yet. Again, if I need to, I can explain all that too, but I'd rather stick to the topic.

As I mentioned in my original post, I've heard, and understand this argument. I don't even disagree that we should separate these accordingly as you said. What I find dishonest, is how you can assert as a fact, that every living thing today shares a single common ancestor, yet have zero explanation, or even a seeming desire to explain how this single common ancestor came to be. To me, it seems like it would be a very important, if not the most important piece to the puzzle. The very idea of Evolution or ‘descent with inherent [genetic] modification’ hinges entirely on the conception of that original life from. Without the specimen itslef, or an explanation for it's conception, there is no theory, only speculation. That is, after all, how science works is it not?

You accused me of dishonest propaganda to promote a false narrative. Yet you got this from a Christian propaganda site. The irony is strong with you wanna-believers. The first time I happened across this particular bit of dishonest of propaganda was three years ago, when it was brought up by Subboor Ahmad, whom I later debated in person. Back then I contacted a geneticist friend of mine to ask, "what's he talking about?" This was my friend's response: 

There is no doubt dishonest propaganda running rampant throughout both the secular science world and the religious world. To suggest otherwise is the first sign of indoctrination regardless of which side you fall on. However, I did not get this from a Christian propaganda site. I know better than to cite such sources in debates like this, even though, being a Christian source in no way automatically dismisses the argument the way you would like to assert it does. This is as far as I know, widely accepted within the science community. According to physician-geneticist Francis Sellers Collins, the second director of the National Center for Human Genome Research, the project only compared protein-coding segments of the genome, which in humans, account for just 2% of the total. The remaining 98% is what Francis once termed “junk DNA.” Collins has since admitted, this “junk DNA” serves regulatory roles that determine how other genes are expressed, particularly in the brain. It's literally this remaining 98% of our "junk DNA" that makes up the differences between apes and humans, and not the 1% myth that the Evolution propagandists push. Our DNA is not 99% identical to that of chimpanzees, and even if it were, claiming that makes us related or sharing in common ancestors is reductionist philosophy. This fact is not Christian propaganda and does not fail in this case.

The last line in that email from c0nc0rdance was, "There is no question in the minds of anyone studying the comparative genomics of chimp and human that they are our closest cousins, not just because of the degree of homology or genetic similarity is high, but because of the specific signatures of selection." Do you understand how this definitely does suggest a biological relationship?

I suppose if this were true, which I believe I just demonstrated it's not, it could theoretically suggest biological relationship. However, we can't prove it. Just because one of our chromosomes appear to have fused from 2 other ape chromosomes doesn't prove that's what happened. In fact, there's increasing evidence against it. Human's have been known to fuse chromosomes in the past and even today. This could just as easily suggest the fusion was from a previous human ancestor, rather than a common ancestor of humans and apes. Additionally, there's evidence that fusion couldn't have even occurred especially at the intron of a functional gene. The fusion site also contains an important sequence of DNA called a transcription factor binding site. This is a sequence to which a molecule can attach so as to regulate how often the gene is used. So not only is the fusion site right in the middle of a functional gene, it is actually found in a region that helps to regulate how that gene is expressed. That makes it even more difficult to understand how a fusion could have taken place there. Furthermore, there is a known genetic process called neocentromere formation, which forms a second centromere in the genome which is the entire foundation of the fusion theory. What makes any of these explanations any less valid than Evolution from a common ancestor?

Once again, I remind you that evolution is descent with inherent genetic modification. That is and has been a directly observed phenomenon throughout agriculture for centuries. Virtually every creationist accepts that this is indeed solidly factual. You even admitted this yourself below. So that definitely counts as significantly more than "zero proof" that evolution happens, don't you think?

When I say "zero proof" for Evolution, I'm referring specifically about the theory that all living things evolved from a common ancestor, not any other phenomenon that loosely gets tied in or conflated with the theory.

So you can demonstrate how a travel sewing kit actually becomes spaghetti noodles? I'm calling your bluff here, because we both know you're lying.

Actually, it was how spaghetti noodles become a travel sewing kit. But I'm not lying. Being facetious, maybe, but it's to demonstrate how there's no more proof linking the phylogenetic tree, than there is for linking the items in the trash together.

It is one of my best "proofs" (a word that should not be pluralized). To show how much trouble that is for you, let me invite you to take the Phylogeny Challenge, which no creationist dares answer.

"Proofs" is grammatically correct, but I'm not gonna get caught up in petty nonsense. But regarding your Phylogeny Challenge... I'm quite familiar with this so-called challenge, and take many issues with it. First and foremost, the entire challenge is fallacious from the start. It can neither be proven nor disproven, and starts from a false preconceived notion. The phylogenetic tree is constantly changing, and thus making you able to make up the rules as you go. Also, you've already expressed that the only evidence you need to accept that evolution is true, and that everything is related, is the simple fact of being eukaryotes. Therefore there is literally no answer, or explanation anyone can give that you'll accept as meeting your challenge. I could go far more in depth of the issues I have with your challenge, but that's an entirely different debate all on it's own. However, in the meantime you need to quit dishonestly saying no creationist will dare answer it, because that's objectively false. In fact, you've been called out many times of the fallacious issues with your challenge, and now you can add one more to boot...

You're right about that. By my count, there are only dozens of such incidents, not hundreds of thousands of them. Where did you read that there were hundreds of thousands of observed speciation events? Because I don't believe you. I think you're lying again

Nope, again not lying. This is just an argument I hear literally every day by keyboard warrior evolutionists that are very arrogantly ignorant in their world view. They will go to a website like a published journal search engine, and search for keyword "evolution," get 500,000 results, and will falsely assert that means there are 500,000 proven examples of speciation.

So I guess you've already seen the list of observed speciation events and maybe even some more observed speciation events, but you reject them because you still don't know what speciation is? You seem to be suffering from the same error as Hovind is, imagining that something should turn into a fundamentally different "kind" of thing that isn't even related to its ancestors. That is a common lie among creationists; that any new species of fruit fly or fish doesn't count as evolution because "it's still a fly" or "it's still a fish". That's a lie because (1) evolution never taught nor even allowed that, and (2) it directly contradicts the evolutionary laws of biodiversity and monophyly, which don't allow anything to grow out of its ancestry. Understand that "descent with inherent modification" means that every new genus or species that ever evolved was just a modified version of whatever its ancestors were. It will never become a fundamentally different "kind", like creationists pretend that it should.

A lot to unpack here. For starters, I don't stand by Hovind's argument that "a dog never produces a non dog..." But there you go again loosely using that term "related." "Related" is to you, what "kind" is to Hovind. To you, everything is related, so no amount of diversity or differences between species will ever satisfy you of being a different "kind" or different from it's supposed ancestors. This is one of the major issues I have with your Phylogeny Challenge. As far as your examples, I guess it all depends on your definition of "speciation." My understanding is that it's the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution. A mutated fruit fly is still just a fruit fly. It doesn't meet the requirements of a new species unless you want to play loose and easy with definitions. And sifting through your links, it was nothing more than what I've seen hundreds of times before. For starters, the vast majority are plant hybrids where they literally spliced the genes, which I think we can all admit is not the evolutionary process and would never occur in nature. And the rest were mostly fly or insect hybrids, which lead to sterile offspring, much like a mule. Again, this is nothing more that micro-evolution, and variations within a species, and not the true definition of speciation. You've really have to stretch to make that argument. And again, even if this were to ever be demonstrated, you couldn't possibly use it as proof for Macro-evolution.

You've got to quit accusing other people of dishonesty, at least while you're telling lies yourself. I'm calling you out again. You cannot cite any academic lesson on evolution which conflates speciation with microevolution. And the reason that you can't is that speciation is mAcroevolution, not micro.



[*]Microevolution: “Small scale” evolution within a single species / interbreeding population.
[*]Macroevolution: “Large scale” evolution between different species / populations: The emergence of new taxa at or above the species level.


These are and always were the academic definitions, ever since evolutionary biologists invented these words. Do I need to prove that? Or will you concede this point now?

I certainly can cite academic lessons on evolution which conflates speciation with micro-evolution. I'll start with the two links you just provided above. And I'll end with just about any other link you want to challenge. I'm aware that speciation is macro-evolution, which is one of my main arguments against it. Because Macro-evolution has never been observed and admittedly so by any scientist worth his salt, and as I just explained, hybridization is the only example of so-called speciation that's been observed in animals, and almost always leads to sterility. You kind of put your foot in your mouth, and proved my point on this one...

Macroevolution occurs when it becomes a new species. In sexually-reproductive animals, this is generally identified when the genetic differences minimize the chances of producing fertile offspring: such that all that are produced are sterile hybrids. The next stage is when these differences build to the point that hybrids are no longer even viable

I might be misunderstanding what you're saying here, but it sounds to me like you're conceding that these mutations will eventually lead to sterile hybrids and die off... So where is the evolution? Where are the new species? This is this kinds of stuff right here that makes me wonder how anyone could ever swallow this nonsense... This isn't even a matter of a God or no god, evolution is complete bollocks regardless of where life originated...

It has been shown to be possible and it has even been verified, both in the lab and in naturally-controlled conditions in the field. In fact, this has happened so many times that four different types of speciation have been observed and documented. Look up allopatric, peripatric, parapatric, and sympatric speciation. Because of this, virtually every creationist in the world, including all the creationist propaganda mills like AnswersInGenesis and Institute For Creation Research--accepts that speciation is undeniable. So are you ready to change your mind about that? Or do you want to try to deny what not even Kent Hovind can deny?  

Again, that depends on your definition of Speciation... If speciation is the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution, then no, I'm not ready to change my mind, because this has NEVER been shown or proven to any capacity. It sounds once again like you're playing fast and loose with the terms and definitions to further push your narrative.

That's obviously a lie, or else I wouldn't have to give you the introductory primer now. You've already demonstrated that you don't even know what evolution is. If you don't even know the basics, then how can you pretend to have studied it at all?

You don't need to give me the introductory primer... I've demonstrated quite adequately I know what "evolution" is... I'm very aware of the basics, I just find it to be completely unsubstantiated speculation, and so far, you haven't provided me with anything substantial to prove otherwise... You do what you accuse creationists of doing, and cherry pick whatever evidence supports your theory, and dismiss the rest. Only you do so in a very arrogant and pompous fashion. You assert "Facts" where there is no possible way to test or verify those "facts"...

Your mastery of mythology will be entirely irrelevant here. 

Not quite... You haven't even begun to understand the relevance my friend...

No, you don't know anything, and you've already been dishonest multiple times. Not a great start.

I know more than you're prepared to defend, and So far, you're the dishonest one...

You can't guarantee that, and you've already proven otherwise.

I can guarantee that, and I will be more than happy to oblige... You've displayed your lack of knowledge of scripture for years in almost every video you've posted on the topic...

Unlike you, I've never made a false claim. Everything I said is defensibly accurate, while everything you said is embarrassingly wrong.

Almost every claim you've made has been false... Especially claims made about the Bible... Nothing you said is defensibly accurate, and I can back and verify all my arguments... I'm going to just leave it here for now, because the rest is either petty personal attacks, or just repetition of what has already been said... In fact, I probably shouldn't have even taken it this far...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The problem here is trying to compare the Bible to a scientific hypothesis. It's not intended to be such, and shouldn't be treated as such. The purpose of scripture is not to make testable predictions, but to give knowledge of the Word of God, and instructions on how to obtain Salvation. The Bible can be true or false, but that doesn't change what the authors' intentions were. However, while we might not be able to so-call "prove" the actual creation event, other than through the Bible itself, we can grant credence to what the Bible says by verifying it's validity the same way you would verify any other text or manuscript. This has been done in spades, and more so than any other ancient Latin or Greek text in history, including Plato, Aristotle and many others. Once we have verified the validity of scripture, which I believe has been done to satisfactory, it's no longer circular reasoning or appeal to authority to accept the Bible as an authority. Biblical Creation isn't intended to be a hypothesis, it is in fact backed by ample evidence through the validation of authority of those who have written about it, and has NOT been disproved as far as I can tell by any stretch of the imagination. As far as Noah's flood, that's a topic I'm just beginning to fully dissect both scientifically, and scripturally, but one I definitely would eventually love to return to.


I encourage you to watch my series on the Noah’s Ark myth. That will help this exchange enormously.

Of course the Bible has been disproved on every important statement that it tries to make, as I already pointed out in that series and in my previous post. Equally important, none of the fables therein have been verified either. If they had, you'd be able to show peer-reviewed documentation of that even from secular sources. You can't show there is any truth there at all, where I have already shown you truth about evolution. .  

Since we are talking about science, we must stay within the context of science; in which case, you have no evidence supporting your logically fallacious arguments. If the Bible can't be considered scientifically hypothetical, then what you're saying is that the problem here is that we have science versus not-science.

It's not "the Bible" versus science either. The Jewish Torah, the Christian gospels, the Qur’an of Islam, the Kitabi-Aqdas of Bahá’u’lláh, the Hindu Vedas, the Avestas of Zarathustra, the Adi Granth of the Sikhs, Vedic scriptures, the Mahabarata’s Bhagavad Gita, the Book of Mormon, and the Urantia Book are all declared by some of their devotees to be the “absolute truth” and the “revealed word” of the “one true god,” and believers of each say the others are deceived. The only logical probability is that they are all deceived, at least to some degree. Apologists for each of these faiths all have similar arguments of circularity defending their sacred scriptures sounding much like yourself attempting to the defend [what isn't really] the singular uniqueness of your Bible.

The Bible certainly does not and cannot count as "knowledge" of anything, because knowledge is demonstrable, testable with measurable accuracy. But if you can't verify the truth of your claims to any degree at all by any means whatsoever, then you cannot actually know what you merely believe. That's why I say, "if you can't show it, you don't know it". That's also why my friend, Peter Boghossian, (professor of philosophy at Portland State) says that "faith is pretending to know what you don't know".
 

Quote

Do you  understand and accept that these definitions are accurate? Because I can prove that they are, and you can't contest that. Spontaneous generation was a supernatural belief that was disproved by an "evolutionist". Despite what even dictionaries say today, abiogenesis was never in any way related to spontaneous generation. Nor could "decent with inherent genetic modification" possibly apply to something having no genetic ancestors, obviously. That's why it is not remotely dishonest to separate these accordingly. Understood?  


We do have quite a lot of information about the origin of life, almost all of the most important parts in fact, but not quite everything yet. Again, if I need to, I can explain all that too, but I'd rather stick to the topic.
 

 
As I mentioned in my original post, I've heard, and understand this argument. I don't even disagree that we should separate these accordingly as you said. What I find dishonest, is how you can assert as a fact, that every living thing today shares a single common ancestor, yet have zero explanation, or even a seeming desire to explain how this single common ancestor came to be. To me, it seems like it would be a very important, if not the most important piece to the puzzle. The very idea of Evolution or ‘descent with inherent [genetic] modification’ hinges entirely on the conception of that original life from. Without the specimen itslef, or an explanation for it's conception, there is no theory, only speculation. That is, after all, how science works is it not?
 


No, it is not. You’re not thinking logically. First off, we both agree that there was a point when there was no life on this planet, and then there was. I think that happened naturally. You think it happened magically. I have a body of knowledge including several peer reviewed studies of different types of scientific evidence to back this up. All you have is a story book, which you have already admitted cannot compete with or compare to science.   

However life began doesn't matter. We do have substantial evidence sufficient to demonstrate a natural origin of life. But even if we didn't have that, the theory of biodiversity doesn't care how life began. Evolution is about how already living populations become more diverse.

Imagine that we're both looking at a line of dominoes falling in very slow motion. Even though we can prove that they're falling and measure how fast they're falling, you're trying to argue that it's only speculation that they're falling at all--until or unless we know what toppled the first one. Obviously there is no logical link there. It's a non-sequitur because it literally does not follow. It doesn't matter how or why that first domino fell. Regardless whatever independent explanation there might be for how it started, that would not change the fact that it is happening. You don't get to dismiss the observation by calling it "speculation", because that is obviously and demonstrably not the case. Even if God created life, it still evolved from there, and not in any way that could justify your folklore as an alternative. So evolution does not "hinge on" abiogenesis in any sense.

Not only is the origin of life not "the most important thing" to evolution, it's not even relevant. If you want, I can also prove abiogenesis to your satisfaction on the same terms. You said I had “zero explanation or even a seeming desire to explain" how life began, but I did explain that in a number of videos already, including my presentation for Darwin Day in Denver this last Sunday..

[youtube]drkV3VYsJPg[/youtube]

What I find dishonest is asserting blind baseless speculation as though it were a matter of verifiable fact, like all religions do That's why I won't say something is so unless I can show the evidence indicating that, as I did in the video above, and as I am doing for you personally now. It is amazing to me that you have the same opinion. I've never been able to get a Christian to admit that before—for obvious reasons. Yet you did so voluntarily. That'll make this a lot easier; especially as that undermines every religious position. I'm glad we agree that it would be a lie to pretend to know things we can't show (and therefore don't know) or to assert claims of fact that aren't verifiable and therefore aren't facts.   

 

Quote

There is no doubt dishonest propaganda running rampant throughout both the secular science world and the religious world. To suggest otherwise is the first sign of indoctrination regardless of which side you fall on. However, I did not get this from a Christian propaganda site. I know better than to cite such sources in debates like this, even though, being a Christian source in no way automatically dismisses the argument the way you would like to assert it does.


Thank you for admitting that there is dishonest propaganda running rampant in the religious world. But you will still need to show there is any of that in the "secular science world"; by which I can only assume you're referring to the study of evolution. I'm not sure because you follow a pattern of fallacious thinking. You tend to conflate creationism with religion in general in a false dichotomy wherein you contrast that against "secular science".

Any site that identifies as specifically Christian is going to be suspect because they actually do what you falsely accused me of doing. They're apologists promoting a preferred belief based on contrived appearances regardless whether it's true or not. Remember that the core difference between us is not that you believe in magic and I don't; it's that what we can show to be true matters more to me than whatever I might rather believe, because believing isn’t my goal; understanding is. Belief is YOUR goal. So what you want to make-believe matters more to you than whatever the truth is. Consequently religion is not and does not like the truth.

To prove my point there, and to show you the severity of this contrast, I’ll offer another challenge within this one. Name one evolutionary scientist who ever lied in the act of promoting evolution over creationism. I know you already think you can answer this question, but no one ever has.

First, name the scientist, anyone working in a field relevant to evolution, be it a geneticist, embryologist, geologist, zoologist, etc. Of course, that person should also accept the mainstream scientific position, and not be on the payroll of Answers in Genesis or some similarly biased organization. Quote their alleged lie verbatim, then show how we know their statement was false. Finally you’ll need to explain how we can tell whether the scientist in question should have known it was false when they said it.
 
Remember we’re only talking about those who lied in their critique of creationism or as an attempt to promote evolution by comparison. I’m not saying there are no dishonest scientists—there are, and I can name a few of them off the top of my head. But they don’t lie about this as there is no reason to.
 
Just to show how bad it really is, I’ll offer this challenge in two parts. For the second part of the challenge, name a professional creationist who did NOT lie when trying to defend creationism or condemn evolution, because they all have. They have to--every single one of them. That's why no one has ever answered this challenge either, even though it is easier. You just name the person, someone who actually makes their living by promoting belief in creationism. I will bear the burden of proof to show you where that person lied, why what they said was wrong and how we know they should have known that was wrong when they said it.
 
I’m glad that we can do this agreeing up front that it is dishonest to assert anything as fact when there is no evidence to indicate that. That makes my part of this second challenge easier too. Because it really is that bad.

That's why every creationist organization I'm aware of posts a public "statement of faith", wherein they boast--as if this were something to be proud of—that they assume their conclusions at the onset for reasons that have nothing to do with factual information, and more importantly, where they refuse to ever admit when they’re wrong. They even brag in advance that they refuse to be reasoned with!

“By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.”
—Answersingenesis.org

“[V]erbal inspiration guarantees that these writings, as originally and miraculously given, are infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific [sic] and historical as well as moral and theological.”
—Institute for Creation Research

“[This school] . . . stresses the Word of God as the only source of truth in our world.”
—Canyon Creek Christian Academy

“[T]he autographs of the 66 canonical books of the Bible are objectively inspired, infallible and the inerrant Word of God in all of their parts and in all matters of which they speak (history, theology, science, etc.).”
—Mark Cadwallader’s Creation Moments

“The Bible is the divinely inspired written Word of God. Because it is inspired throughout, it is completely free from error—scientifically, historically, theologically, and morally. Thus it is the absolute authority in all matters of truth, faith, and conduct. The final guide to the interpretation of the Bible is the Bible itself. God’s world must always agree with God’s Word, because the Creator of the one is the Author of the other. Thus, where physical evidences from the creation may be used to confirm the Bible, these evidences must never be used to correct or interpret the Bible. The written Word must take priority in the event of any apparent conflict.”
—Mark Ramsey’s Greater Houston Creation Association

“Revealed truth: That which is revealed in Scripture, whether or not man has scientifically proved it. If it is in the Bible, it is already true without requiring additional proof. “. . .
Fallacy: that which contradicts God’s revealed truth, no matter how scientific, how commonly believed, or how apparently workable or logical it may seem.”
—Bob Jones University, Biology Student Text, vol. 2 (3rd ed.)
 
Each of these organizations announces that they will automatically and thoughtlessly reject—without consideration—any and all evidence that might ever arise should it conflict with their interpretation of Bronze Age folklore. So they have already rejected all the evidence there could ever be, no matter what we may discover in the future, or how conclusive that is. In other words, no matter how true the truth really is, no amount of proof will ever change their minds. It simply can't get more dishonest than that.

 

 

Quote

This is as far as I know, widely accepted within the science community. According to physician-geneticist Francis Sellers Collins, the second director of the National Center for Human Genome Research, the project only compared protein-coding segments of the genome, which in humans, account for just 2% of the total. The remaining 98% is what Francis once termed “junk DNA.” Collins has since admitted, this “junk DNA” serves regulatory roles that determine how other genes are expressed, particularly in the brain. It's literally this remaining 98% of our "junk DNA" that makes up the differences between apes and humans, and not the 1% myth that the Evolution propagandists push.


You obviously didn't understand why your citation of this argument failed. Your numbers are all wrong too. I suggest you reference the original source material to find out why for both. You might also inquire why Francis Collins is a Christian yet he's also a strong proponent of evolution. He's said a number of things that creationists aren't happy about.

Quote

A high profile article appeared in Christianity Today last June, in which the following quotes appeared:

 


and

Collins has not restricted himself to the printed word, however, as he has been saying things like this all over the country, including a recent address he gave at Pepperdine University, when he said:
 

 

 
“Collins’s 2006 bestseller, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief[4] … reported scientific indications that anatomically modern humans emerged from primate ancestors perhaps 100,000 years ago—long before the Genesis time frame—and originated with a population that numbered something like 10,000, not two individuals.”
 
 
“In a recent pro-evolution book from InterVarsity Press, The Language of Science and Faith, Collins and co-author Karl W. Giberson escalate matters, announcing that ‘unfortunately’ the concepts of Adam and Eve as the literal first couple and the ancestors of all humans simply ‘do not fit the evidence’.”5
 
 
“There is no way you can develop this level of variation between us from one or two ancestors.”
 

 

How could Francis Collins, a self-described evangelical Christian and head of the Human Genome Project hold this position if what you say is true?

Another of my friends is a professor of developmental biology. In this presentation, he said we have only 20,000 genes among 3 billion base pairs in the total genome. Of that, only 1.5% of our genome is coding DNA while another 3% is regulatory. If we include all other categories of functional DNA, including ribosomal, transfer, and microRNA genes, it still amounts to only 5% of the total genome. He then explained how another 10% of the genome is essentially random gibberish created by a buggy enzymatic process; 21% is parasitic viral copies; and 13% is copies of copies, while 8% of the genome was made by endogenous retroviruses. This is when a virus inserts its own DNA into a gamete cell, which is inherited by all the descendants of that organism. So the summary is that only 5% of the human genome is functional DNA, 10% is structural DNA, and 45% is known to be useless parasitic DNA. The remaining 40% he described as “job security for molecular biologists,” because it isn’t all yet understood. But he added that some of that remaining percentage is already known to be pseudogenes, maybe formerly functional genes but that are now broken and disabled.
[youtube]DRsN7w7iW08[/youtube]
I don't expect you to watch this video. I only put it here because it addresses what we're talking about. And because peer-reviewed publications don't want to specifically disprove the claims of religious pseudoscience, so the professor chose an appropriate venue to do just that. If could impact your argument.

 

Quote

Our DNA is not 99% identical to that of chimpanzees,


Once again, according to geneticists, “If you look at protein sequences, the part that's exposed to purifying selection / evolution, the sequences between chimp and human are 99% identical”. Who should I believe? You or them?
 

Quote

and even if it were, claiming that makes us related or sharing in common ancestors is reductionist philosophy. This fact is not Christian propaganda and does not fail in this case.


Yes it does, multiple ways, as we’ll get to in a moment.
 

Quote

The last line in that email from c0nc0rdance was, "There is no question in the minds of anyone studying the comparative genomics of chimp and human that they are our closest cousins, not just because of the degree of homology or genetic similarity is high, but because of the specific signatures of selection." Do you understand how this definitely does suggest a biological relationship?

 

 

 

 

I suppose if this were true, which I believe I just demonstrated it's not, it could theoretically suggest biological relationship. However, we can't prove it.
 


Earlier you asked how science works. Creationists commonly misunderstand what a fact or a law is compared to hypothesis or theory. I try to bridge the deliberately contrived communication gap by using colloquial language. In summary, when scientists find evidence that is concordant with a given theory or hypothesis, they don’t ever say “this proves our theory”. Newspapers might say that but scientists don’t. Instead we acknowledge "there is evidence to support this" as opposed to saying "there is no evidence of that".

Let’s link this concept to our earlier agreement that it is dishonest to assert that anything is true without evidence to back that up. We call that Hitchens’ razor, that “what is asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence”. Science only cares about what is supported by the evidence. Whatever is not supported does not warrant serious consideration. Come back when you can show that there’s a THERE there. Until then, we literally have nothing to talk about.  

If we're talking science, we should talk like scientists. Present the evidence supporting your position or admit there isn't any. We've seen things evolve, but we've never seen anything created. Nor is there any indication of any creator.

Any hypothesis should be falsifiable too. So you should also determine what evidence would indicate that you're wrong. I've done that many times, usually pertaining to taxonomy, since that is my interest. I even made a video showing how to falsify phylogeny.

[youtube]91UAzMNUDLU[/youtube]

We both have to play by the same rules. One is that neither of us gets to PROVE anything absolutely or in a mathematic sense, only in the legal sense of being a compelling case indicated by an overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond reasonable doubt. Although we're both allowed to disprove anything that we can.
 
So in this case, you admit not only the proper scientific definitions (which are usually a hurdle for believers) but also that both the linear count of matching codons (degree of homology) and the specific signatures of selection in genomic analysis actually do count as evidence of a biological relationship. That’s fine progress for only our second round, but there is still much more to come.
 

Quote

Just because one of our chromosomes appear to have fused from 2 other ape chromosomes doesn't prove that's what happened.


I guess you didn't watch the video then. Kenneth Miller, a self-described ":traditional Christian" shows how they found the evidence proving that really is what happened.  

[youtube]zyjAoA0c1Cc[/youtube]

 

Quote

In fact, there's increasing evidence against it.


No, there isn't.

Quote

Human's have been known to fuse chromosomes in the past and even today. This could just as easily suggest the fusion was from a previous human ancestor, rather than a common ancestor of humans and apes.


It could well have been a human ancestor. I don’t think we have the genome of Homo erectus, certainly not Homo habilis or any deme as old as that. But it doesn’t really matter whether it was a human species or some other Hominin prior to the dawn of our genus, does it? What difference would it make?

Quote

Additionally, there's evidence that fusion couldn't have even occurred especially at the intron of a functional gene. The fusion site also contains an important sequence of DNA called a transcription factor binding site. This is a sequence to which a molecule can attach so as to regulate how often the gene is used. So not only is the fusion site right in the middle of a functional gene, it is actually found in a region that helps to regulate how that gene is expressed. That makes it even more difficult to understand how a fusion could have taken place there. Furthermore, there is a known genetic process called neocentromere formation, which forms a second centromere in the genome which is the entire foundation of the fusion theory. What makes any of these explanations any less valid than Evolution from a common ancestor?


First off, what you’re calling a “fusion theory” was determined under the leadership of a handful of geneticists who were rather famously Christian. What convinced them was that we’re only on the first page of the evidence of evolution. There’s lots more to come, where everything everywhere aligns with the scientific theory of biodiversity and there’s nothing anywhere to support creationism or even allow it as a possibility. That's why your alternate explanation isn't equally valid. Even if is possible, it's not supported by anything else like evolution is, and your explanation doesn't account for anything else that evolution does.
 
I could probably prove my case by only citing Christian scientists. For example, one of my own biology instructors was a geneticist working for the Human Genome Project under Francis Collins. She was also active in her church, smoothing the division between fact and faith. She wrote: “I am a Christian and I can accept that Noah’s Ark was a folk tale told by mouth until it was written down around Moses’ time—it is not a firsthand account! Only literal Bible readers get bogged down trying to prove that the Creation story, Adam and Eve, and Noah’s Ark are absolute fact.”

More importantly, she also said this:
 

Quote

The evidence of taxonomic relationships is overwhelming when you look at the comparisons between the genomic (DNA) sequences of both closely related and even distantly related species. The DNA of yeast and humans share over 30% homology with regard to gene sequences. Comparison of the human and mouse genome shows that only 1% of the genes in either genome fails to have an orthologue with the other genome. Comparison of nongene sequences, on the other hand, shows a huge amount of divergence. This type of homology can be explained only from descent from a common ancestor. The probability of these things being a coincidence, which I guess would be the argument of creationism and intelligent design, is statistically so small as to be negligible.”


When you see a broad swath of the evidence from multiple fields as a whole, it becomes rather perverse to try to imagine that God created everything with all these deceptively apparent indications of evolution but with only a book of fables to say otherwise. The idea that all these facts just happen to coincide for no reason and without any meaningful significance is just obtuse, as is the way apologists ignore all the glaring absurdities, atrocities, inconsistencies and contradictions from the their obviously erroneous assumption of authority.
 

Quote

Once again, I remind you that evolution is descent with inherent genetic modification. That is and has been a directly observed phenomenon throughout agriculture for centuries. Virtually every creationist accepts that this is indeed solidly factual. You even admitted this yourself below. So that definitely counts as significantly more than "zero proof" that evolution happens, don't you think?

 

 

 

 
When I say "zero proof" for Evolution, I'm referring specifically about the theory that all living things evolved from a common ancestor, not any other phenomenon that loosely gets tied in or conflated with the theory.
 


I’m not “conflating” anything. Knowing what we do about how evolution works, there is always a common ancestor, correct? Did hundreds of recognized breeds of dogs come from only a few genetic strains of Asiatic wolves? Or were hundreds of different wolf species already interbreeding to make only three or four dog breeds? If you understand how evolution works—at whatever level you accept—then you must understand how one population will produce a distinctly different second variant over time, especially if the population is divided and genetically isolated for several generations. Do you understand and accept this? Because this goes back to one of my first questions, which I guess you still haven't answered.

 

Quote

So you can demonstrate how a travel sewing kit actually becomes spaghetti noodles? I'm calling your bluff here, because we both know you're lying.

 

 

 

 
Actually, it was how spaghetti noodles become a travel sewing kit. But I'm not lying. Being facetious, maybe, but it's to demonstrate how there's no more proof linking the phylogenetic tree, than there is for linking the items in the trash together.
 


But we CAN actually prove a genetic ancestry. In some recent cases, we can even identify specific mutations leading to particular strains, to show exactly how this parent set really did become this daughter group. As I've already told you, we have genetic orthologues definitely linking several different species. For example, check out this 2005 study of Genome sequence, comparative analysis and haplotype structure of the domestic dog
nature04338-f10.2.jpg
 

 

Quote

But regarding your Phylogeny Challenge... I'm quite familiar with this so-called challenge, and take many issues with it. First and foremost, the entire challenge is fallacious from the start.


When I say something is fallacious, I can name the fallacy and show why it is one. So what do you imagine is the fallacy behind my challenge?

Quote

It can neither be proven nor disproven, and starts from a false preconceived notion.


It CAN be proven or disproven. It’s not a preconceived notion either. We both agree that there is some level of relatedness between organisms of any given group, because that already has been proven so solidly that even creationists gave up trying to contest it. If there were special creations unrelated to anything else, then there would be some means to distinguish them. They certainly would not be members of even higher taxonomic groups. Even if they were, there would be some way to show that those higher clades were arbitrarily defined, not verifiably real. But the history of taxonomy shows Christians being frustrated at the fact that there evidently really is a family tree of life.  

 

Quote

The phylogenetic tree is constantly changing, and thus making you able to make up the rules as you go.


No. Humans did figure out the rules, much as we determine what the laws of nature. But just as we don't get to make our own natural laws, we don’t get to make these rules up either. The rules are already there. We just have to figure out what they are.
 

Quote

Also, you've already expressed that the only evidence you need to accept that evolution is true, and that everything is related, is the simple fact of being eukaryotes.


Nowhere did I ever say that. In fact, quite the opposite, I always refer to the overwhelming preponderance of numerous different types of evidence just within taxonomy, but also from many other independent fields of study.  
 

Quote

Therefore there is literally no answer, or explanation anyone can give that you'll accept as meeting your challenge.


In that challenge, I asked a handful of yes or no questions. I only cared about where you answer “no”. I do expect that you should defend where you say no, because you and I both agree that it would be dishonest to state that as true if you can't show reasons to support that.
 

Quote

I could go far more in depth of the issues I have with your challenge, but that's an entirely different debate all on it's own.


I’m all ears, yet I think we both know you got nuthin’.
 

Quote

However, in the meantime you need to quit dishonestly saying no creationist will dare answer it, because that's objectively false. In fact, you've been called out many times of the fallacious issues with your challenge, and now you can add one more to boot.


There’s another lie. That’s why you won’t be able to show even one link from anyone ever answering the simple yes-or-no questions in that challenge. I can’t add you “to boot” because you made no attempt to answer either. All you did was misunderstand and misrepresent my challenge and myself as well.
 

Quote

Where did you read that there were hundreds of thousands of observed speciation events? Because I don't believe you. I think you're lying again.

 
Nope, again not lying. This is just an argument I hear literally every day by keyboard warrior evolutionists that are very arrogantly ignorant in their world view. They will go to a website like a published journal search engine, and search for keyword "evolution," get 500,000 results, and will falsely assert that means there are 500,000 proven examples of speciation.
 

You should know that most of the research papers on evolution probably don't have the word "evolution" in there.

 

So I guess you've already seen the list of observed speciation events and maybe even some more observed speciation events, but you reject them because you still don't know what speciation is? You seem to be suffering from the same error as Hovind is, imagining that something should turn into a fundamentally different "kind" of thing that isn't even related to its ancestors. That is a common lie among creationists; that any new species of fruit fly or fish doesn't count as evolution because "it's still a fly" or "it's still a fish". That's a lie because (1) evolution never taught nor even allowed that, and (2) it directly contradicts the evolutionary laws of biodiversity and monophyly, which don't allow anything to grow out of its ancestry. Understand that "descent with inherent modification" means that every new genus or species that ever evolved was just a modified version of whatever its ancestors were. It will never become a fundamentally different "kind", like creationists pretend that it should.

 

 

 
A lot to unpack here. For starters, I don't stand by Hovind's argument that "a dog never produces a non dog..." But there you go again loosely using that term "related." "Related" is to you, what "kind" is to Hovind. To you, everything is related, so no amount of diversity or differences between species will ever satisfy you of being a different "kind" or different from it's supposed ancestors.
 


Rest assured that whenever I expect you to account for the claims of creationists, I’ll be able to cite a prominent apologist publishing that claim to a broader audience of financial supporters, rather than referencing some anonymous internet nobody as if that person represents anyone.


You should know that most of the research papers on evolution probably don't have the word "evolution" in there.

 

Not true. To me—to science—all life is EVIDENTLY related, and there is no evidence of separately created unrelated “kinds”; which there definitely would be if such were really the case. Nor would all life be classed in such obvious and uneschewable clades if they were created unrelated.
 

Quote

This is one of the major issues I have with your Phylogeny Challenge. As far as your examples, I guess it all depends on your definition of "speciation." My understanding is that it's the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution. A mutated fruit fly is still just a fruit fly. It doesn't meet the requirements of a new species unless you want to play loose and easy with definitions.


Since I’m always careful to keep my definitions as precise as possible, and never “play fast and loose” with them the way creationists typically do, then I have to ask: Since evolution is "decent with inherent modification" and a mutated fly is a modification of its ancestor, themselves mutated flies being modified from their ancestors, then why doesn't it count as speciation when they meet all the required criteria of each definition? What WOULD you accept as a new species of whatever?   

Quote

And sifting through your links, it was nothing more than what I've seen hundreds of times before. For starters, the vast majority are plant hybrids where they literally spliced the genes, which I think we can all admit is not the evolutionary process and would never occur in nature. And the rest were mostly fly or insect hybrids, which lead to sterile offspring, much like a mule. Again, this is nothing more that micro-evolution, and variations within a species, and not the true definition of speciation. You've really have to stretch to make that argument. And again, even if this were to ever be demonstrated, you couldn't possibly use it as proof for Macro-evolution.


I would agree that hybridization or splices aren’t typical of the evolutionary process. Hybrid species have appeared, even in prehistory, but only very rarely. And modifying the genes is just a matter of efficiency. Rather than waiting for random mutations, make one. That also helps map out what parts of the genome do what and how. So they’re all examples of speciation, even if they’re not typical.
 
Maybe you’d only accept field examples like the mice of Madiera? In 1419, Portuguese sailors discovered a few volcanic islands west of the strait of Gibraltar. They settled around the area and accidentally imported a few European mice to each of these settlements. Five centuries later, French biologist Janice Britton-Davidian laid out hundreds of mousetraps in forty locations around the semitropical island of Madeira. She discovered that these very small and isolated populations of mice have evolved into six different genetically distinct species. They all look about the same, but the ancestral European mice have 40 chromosomes, and the Madeiran mice range from 22 to 30 chromosomes. They didn’t lose DNA; rather, some of their chromosomes fused, much like chromosome 2 in humans, packing more DNA into fewer units. This is a different type of speciation, because such a chromosomal variance could qualify them as distinct species even if they can still interbreed.
 
But then they’re just “mutated mice”, right? Because they didn’t turn into something else? What do you think speciation is? And where do you imagine evolution requires and teaches whatever you think speciation is? While you’re pondering that, here is a link to a description of speciation provided by Berkeley University’s introductory primer, Evolution 101. And here is a more detailed explanation from the Public Library of Science.
 

Quote

You've got to quit accusing other people of dishonesty, at least while you're telling lies yourself. I'm calling you out again. You cannot cite any academic lesson on evolution which conflates speciation with microevolution. And the reason that you can't is that speciation is mAcroevolution, not micro.


Microevolution: “Small scale” evolution within a single species / interbreeding population.
Macroevolution: “Large scale” evolution between different species / populations: The emergence of new taxa at or above the species level.
These are and always were the academic definitions, ever since evolutionary biologists invented these words. Do I need to prove that? Or will you concede this point now?

 
I certainly can cite academic lessons on evolution which conflates speciation with micro-evolution.
 

What about the nylon bug? Or the new discovery of plastic-eating bacteria? In either case, we have a population of one microbial species, but then one subset of that population develops a uniquely distinctive trait exclusive to that population. That’s the definition of unicellular speciation, isn’t it? If leading scientists call this speciation and even the barking mad pseudoscience nuts like Institute for Creation Research and Answers In Genesis accept speciation, even though they’re desperate to deny all the science they can, then what justification do you have to dismiss it?  
 


If you could have, you would have.  
 

Quote

I'll start with the two links you just provided above. And I'll end with just about any other link you want to challenge.


You’ve already failed on both citations, as neither of the links I cited even mention microevolution, much less “conflate” speciation with that. Try again—as many times as you need to before you're able to admit that it was never there in the first place.   
 

Quote

I'm aware that speciation is macro-evolution, which is one of my main arguments against it. Because Macro-evolution has never been observed and admittedly so by any scientist worth his salt,


Any scientist worth his salt? I guess now would be a good time to cite another Christian. Theodosius Dobzhansky was a pioneer in genetics, famous for publishing the paper, Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except In The Light of Evolution. He was also the first to document unambiguous speciation, which the entire scientific communuty and ever creationist organizations accept. So what excuse do you have for dismissing his work?

 

Quote

and as I just explained, hybridization is the only example of so-called speciation that's been observed in animals, and almost always leads to sterility. You kind of put your foot in your mouth, and proved my point on this one...

 


I might be misunderstanding what you're saying here, but it sounds to me like you're conceding that these mutations will eventually lead to sterile hybrids and die off... ...

 

 
Macroevolution occurs when it becomes a new species. In sexually-reproductive animals, this is generally identified when the genetic differences minimize the chances of producing fertile offspring: such that all that are produced are sterile hybrids. The next stage is when these differences build to the point that hybrids are no longer even viable.
 


Yeah, you definitely misunderstood everything I just said. Let me go over this again more explicitly, filling in the gaps that you missed.
 
Macroevolution occurs when [a separated and increasingly distinct population] becomes a new species [from the ancestral of sister population]. In sexually-reproductive animals, this is generally identified when the genetic differences [between the two now-isolated groups] minimize the chances of producing fertile offspring: [should a pair of wanderers from both groups encounter each other in neutral territory] such that all that are produced are sterile hybrids [sired by one member of each population]. The next stage is when these differences [between the two different populations] build to the point that hybrids are no longer even viable [should any strays have a romantic rendezvous].
 

 

Never mind. I just realized the answer to my own question: because there are theologians who are considered wise even though they believe things that really are that dumb.
 

 

Quote

It has been shown to be possible and it has even been verified, both in the lab and in naturally-controlled conditions in the field. In fact, this has happened so many times that four different types of speciation have been observed and documented. Look up allopatric, peripatric, parapatric, and sympatric speciation. Because of this, virtually every creationist in the world, including all the creationist propaganda mills like AnswersInGenesis and Institute For Creation Research--accepts that speciation is undeniable. So are you ready to change your mind about that? Or do you want to try to deny what not even Kent Hovind can deny?

 

 

 

 
Again, that depends on your definition of Speciation... If speciation is the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution, then no, I'm not ready to change my mind, because this has NEVER been shown or proven to any capacity. It sounds once again like you're playing fast and loose with the terms and definitions to further push your narrative.
 

 

I can’t do something “once again” that I’ve never done before.
 

Quote

You don't need to give me the introductory primer... I've demonstrated quite adequately I know what "evolution" is... I'm very aware of the basics,


Obviously not. Go back and read what you just wrote and how I had to correct it. No, you have no bragging rights here. You don’t know anything about this other than [maybe] some of the little bits that I’ve taught you so far.
 

Quote

I just find it to be completely unsubstantiated speculation,


Once again, I repeat, the objectively verifiable facts I’ve been showing you are observations, not speculation—like your own belief is.
 

Quote

and so far, you haven't provided me with anything substantial to prove otherwise...


If I had to explain the language analogy to you, then we obviously need to take baby steps. That’s why I’m starting out with definitions first, (so that you can’t “play fast and loose”. Then we move onto concepts before we really get into it another couple rounds from now. That’s if you make it that far. Y’all usually don’t.   
 

Quote

You do what you accuse creationists of doing, and cherry pick whatever evidence supports your theory, and dismiss the rest.


There’s another lie. What evidence have I ever dismissed?  
 

Quote

Only you do so in a very arrogant and pompous fashion. You assert "Facts" where there is no possible way to test or verify those "facts".


. A fact—by definition—is objectively verifiable. So if I say something is a fact, challenge me and I’ll prove it. If you say something is a fact, then I* guess I’ll have to have faith, and I don’t.  
 

Quote

Your mastery of mythology will be entirely irrelevant here.

 

 

 

 
Not quite... You haven't even begun to understand the relevance my friend...
 

 


Nor have you. Nor has anyone.  
 

Quote

No, you don't know anything, and you've already been dishonest multiple times. Not a great start.

 

 

 

 
I know more than you're prepared to defend, and So far, you're the dishonest one...
 


Of course not, since everything I said is true and accurate, and you can only respond with “I know you are but what am I”.  
 

 

 

 

Quote

Unlike you, I've never made a false claim. Everything I said is defensibly accurate, while everything you said is embarrassingly wrong.

 

 

 

 
Almost every claim you've made has been false... Especially claims made about the Bible... Nothing you said is defensibly accurate, and I can back and verify all my arguments... I'm going to just leave it here for now, because the rest is either petty personal attacks, or just repetition of what has already been said... In fact, I probably shouldn't have even taken it this far...
 


I’m not going to play “no YOU are; no YOU are” with you. I’m just going to continue to prove my points and wait ‘til you decide whether to change your mind or keep lying to yourself and others.

It's frustrating that every time a believer gets into a formal discussion with me, they waste the first few rounds are always wasted in pointless posturing, bluffing and puffing up. Don't. There's no point in it. You can't intimidate me. I've been doing this for more than twenty years, and you're just one more carbon copy of every other arrogant believer saying pretty the same empty threats and boasts as everyone before you. Stahp. If you were right and I was wrong, I would want you to point that out, so that I don't stay wrong. Because unlike you, I don't want to keep believing things that aren't evidently true.

As an aside, as I told you before, our discussion is my trial run of this forum, and I have a list of complaints to share with the engineers. This post has been particularly frustrating just trying to get everything formatted properly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like this is getting a little off track from the topic at hand with a lot of the focus being on trivial throw away statements and personal attacks instead of the actual arguments, which is a tactic I've noticed you like to employ quite often. It's almost like a combination of ad hominem, and the "Gish Gallop" you love to accuse creationists of all the time, and is especially ironic since you started the debate by asking me not to "overwhelm" you. The last thing I want, is for this discussion to devolve into the shit show that was supposed to be your latest "Debate" with Kent Hovind (Blame is on both sides as far as I'm concerned...) I'm sure throughout the course of this discussion, we'll both deliver a few personal jabs and possibly flat out insults, which is to be expected. I'm more than OK with this, and take no offense what so ever. However, I feel we need not waste valuable time and effort responding to each and every one, in a back and forth of insults the way you and Hovind did. Mainly because in most cases, it's not actually relevant to either one of our arguments and serves no real purpose other than to distract, discredit, and muddy up the waters... For that reason, and for the sake of keeping this to a reasonable length, I will ignore any portions of this discussion that appear to be nothing more than superficial rhetoric, that deviate from the original topic at hand, and if you feel I missed something important either intentionally or unintentionally, I hope you will inform me, and I will do my best to address it... That being said, let's get back into it...

I encourage you to watch my series on the Noah’s Ark myth. That will help this exchange enormously.


 
Of course the Bible has been disproved on every important statement that it tries to make, as I already pointed out in that series and in my previous post. Equally important, none of the fables therein have been verified either. If they had, you'd be able to show peer-reviewed documentation of that even from secular sources. You can't show there is any truth there at all, where I have already shown you truth about evolution. . 
 
Since we are talking about science, we must stay within the context of science; in which case, you have no evidence supporting your logically fallacious arguments. If the Bible can't be considered scientifically hypothetical, then what you're saying is that the problem here is that we have science versus not-science.
 
It's not "the Bible" versus science either. The Jewish Torah, the Christian gospels, the Qur’an of Islam, the Kitabi-Aqdas of Bahá’u’lláh, the Hindu Vedas, the Avestas of Zarathustra, the Adi Granth of the Sikhs, Vedic scriptures, the Mahabarata’s Bhagavad Gita, the Book of Mormon, and the Urantia Book are all declared by some of their devotees to be the “absolute truth” and the “revealed word” of the “one true god,” and believers of each say the others are deceived. The only logical probability is that they are all deceived, at least to some degree. Apologists for each of these faiths all have similar arguments of circularity defending their sacred scriptures sounding much like yourself attempting to the defend [what isn't really] the singular uniqueness of your Bible.

 The Bible certainly does not and cannot count as "knowledge" of anything, because knowledge is demonstrable, testable with measurable accuracy. But if you can't verify the truth of your claims to any degree at all by any means whatsoever, then you cannot actually know what you merely believe. That's why I say, "if you can't show it, you don't know it". That's also why my friend, Peter Boghossian, (professor of philosophy at Portland State) says that "faith is pretending to know what you don't know".


I lost count in all the ways you're grossly wrong throughout this entire first part of your response. For starters, as I previously mentioned, Noah's Ark is a topic I'm still learning both Scripturally and Scientifically. I do not need to, nor am I going to go watch your entire series on the the topic for the sake of this exchange. That's just more of you muddying the waters as I just mentioned by trying to overwhelm me with irrelevant red herrings, that are nothing more than your own erroneous opinions anyways. I may watch it in the future, but not right now. Not only is it irrelevant, but if I were to watch it, I would also have to give just as much time and devotion to the opposing side as well, which is completely irrational for the sake of this discussion alone. Plus, based on what I've seen you demonstrate in the past, a large part of your arguments against the Bible, is your lack of understanding. In other words, you like to create a strawman when it comes to the Bible. You're dismantling a false, non existent villain, and claiming victory. The Bible most certainly has not been disproved on every important statement it makes, as you like to assert. As I previously mentioned, the Bible has in fact been verified more so than any other ancient Latin or Greek Text in history. This is a very well established fact. As I also pointed out previously, you do not need "peer-reviewed" documentation to verify this fact. Peer review, after all means absolutely nothing, other than to people like you who choose to appeal to authority. If you can simply dismiss the Bible as nothing more than the words of mere fallible men, then I can do the same for your precious peer review process. It's nothing more than the words of mere fallible men, only in this case, fallible men with an extreme confirmation bias and incentivized agenda... The peer review process has been exposed numerous times especially recently as corrupt, and basically meaningless with gate keepers, and hidden political agendas... Particularly in the world of academia. I'll refer you no further than to the "peer reviewed" paper entitled "The Conceptual Penis" to prove my point. For these, and many other reasons, I cannot, and will not accept anything as fact simply because it's "peer reviewed", nor will I dismiss anything as untrue simply because it's not peer reviewed, and you shouldn't either. But since this is a major point in which your entire argument hinges upon, I doubt you will be honest enough to concede this fact. This is a classic example of the Appeal to Authority Fallacy, which is a common favorite among evolutionists...  As far as your dishonest notion of this being a case of Science vs Non-Science, that's again objectively false... The Bible itself is not a science book, or intended to be some scientific hypothesis. However, it does make claims, and in many of these cases, the claims can be verified scientifically and otherwise. Your attempt to falsely equate the Bible to other religious texts such as the Torah, Qur'an etc... is also erroneous because non of those texts, have been proven to be valid, and/or historically accurate to even a fraction of the degree that the Bible has. In fact, many of them such as the Book of Mormon and others, have been proven to be frauds despite what's declared by their devotees... Whether God is real or not, you cannot deny the amount of knowledge and wisdom that is found all throughout scripture... and it's all testable, demonstrable, and measurably accurate. In fact, going back to Noah's Ark for a second, how can you explain to me how Moses, or whoever you want to credit for writing the book of Genesis, knew what dimensions to use to build the Ark... A feet that had never been attempted up to this point, and got the dimensions so scientifically and mathematically precise, that it's been proven that it would in fact be seaworthy, and is so effective, that even the US Navy, use it's precise dimensions on their very own ships..? Seems a little advance for a bunch of primitives in the bronze era eh?? The Bible is chalked full of these otherwise impossible bits of knowledge that could have only come from either modern day technology, or divine knowledge.... Take your pick...

What I find dishonest is asserting blind baseless speculation as though it were a matter of verifiable fact, like all religions do That's why I won't say something is so unless I can show the evidence indicating that, as I did in the video above, and as I am doing for you personally now. It is amazing to me that you have the same opinion. I've never been able to get a Christian to admit that beforefor obvious reasons. Yet you did so voluntarily. That'll make this a lot easier; especially as that undermines every religious position. I'm glad we agree that it would be a lie to pretend to know things we can't show (and therefore don't know) or to assert claims of fact that aren't verifiable and therefore aren't facts.   


I won't deny religions, including most Christian denominations assert a lot false things to be true... However, so do evolutionists and secular science as a whole... You just said you won't say anything is so unless you can show the evidence indicating it... but that's exactly what you do all the time. Your entire belief system is based on blind speculation that you have no evidence for other than the speculation itself. And your 45 minute video, (yet another red herring) is just more of the same... And once again, to no surprise, you're misrepresenting what I said. And for the record, I don't subscribe to any "religion"... The text of the Bible in and of itself, is not a religion. However, man has taken what's written in the Bible, and bastardized it, and twisted it to create various religions for their own personal gain. I simply subscribe to the truth, much in the same way you claim to, and there is an abundance of truth to be found in the Bible. The problem is, you're starting from a false preconceived notion, and cherry picking the evidence which supports your position...

To prove my point there, and to show you the severity of this contrast, I’ll offer another challenge within this one. Name one evolutionary scientist who ever lied in the act of promoting evolution over creationism. I know you already think you can answer this question, but no one ever has.


The next part of your response is quite long, but it all seems to boil down to this "challenge," so that's what I will focus on. Just to to rehash, as I understand it, your challenge comes in two parts. 1, name an evolutionary scientist who has ever lied in the act of promoting evolution, and 2, name a creationist who did NOT lie either defending creation, or condemning evolution. To begin, I'll start by noting your own criteria for proving a lie. First you must prove what they said was wrong, and then you must prove that they knew it was wrong when they said it... While I agree with this generally, it does however make it nearly impossible to "prove." However, there are in fact many exposed lies and frauds among evolutionary science. So much so in fact, I actually find it surprising and ballsy that you would even present such a challenge... We'll start with Nebraska man. Nebraska man was discovered, or should I say a mere tooth was discovered by geologist Harold Cook. The tooth then got passed to Zoologist William K. Gregory, who heralded it as the first higher primate of North America. It was later exposed that this tooth was simply a pigs tooth. We know William K. Gregory knew this before lying about it, because along with him, the tooth was also passed to orthodontist Dr. Milo Hellman, who instantly identified the tooth as a pigs tooth, yet didn't stop them from continuing with their hoax of a supposed missing link. Next, we'll talk about Piltdown Man, which actually came before Nebraska Man. This was a very well known and admitted hoax from the beginning. It was perpetrated by archeologist Charles Dawson, and Paleontologist Arthur Smith Woodward, who admittedly created a forgery of a lower jaw bone of an orangutan, combined with a fully developed cranium of a modern human, and tried to pass it off as another "missing link."  Another major hoax would be "Lucy" which I'm sure you'll try to defend, but in reality there is no defense. This one starts from the incentivized agenda I talked about earlier. Paleoanthropologist Donald Johanson was given a grant to specifically find the quote, "missing link," and coincidentally enough, just 2 weeks before his grant money expired, he just so happened to discover "Lucy."  The scull of Lucy was completely crushed, but that didn't stop them from depicting her as a human like ape, with human characteristics. There were no hands or feet bones found, yet once again, didn't stop them form depicting Lucy with human like hands and feet. Lucy was later exposed as nothing more than a typical tree swelling orangutan, and not at all the Australopithecus Afarensis it was purported to be. There's much more we could get into about Lucy, but I'll just leave it at that for now. There are many more lies and frauds I could mention, but I think 3 of the most infamous ones should suffice, since you so boldly asserted "...no one ever has" lied about evolution before. As far as your second part of the challenge, naming creationists who didn't lie, I feel quite honestly is a moot point. I can't determine whether or not they lied, but what I can guarantee is that there are no major hoaxes among the creationists the way there is running rampant within the secular science world. Plus, just about every example of creationist organizations you named, I won't argue with you about. I disagree with most of them on about as many things as I disagree with you on. So I will not even attempt to defend them. In fact, I believe most of them are doing a disservice to the entire creation argument... These are all well established and undeniable hoaxes by evolutionary scientists, that lied in their promotion of evolution. I trust this will meet your challenge and that you won't try anymore dishonest tactics in attempt to defend these obvious blatant liars...

You obviously didn't understand why your citation of this argument failed. Your numbers are all wrong too. I suggest you reference the original source material to find out why for both. You might also inquire why Francis Collins is a Christian yet he's also a strong proponent of evolution. He's said a number of things that creationists aren't happy about.


I'm not really interested in your cherry picked list of creationists who also subscribe to evolution. These kinds of people are simply Christians who can't stand firm in there beliefs out of fear of being ridiculed by the likes of arrogant bullies such as yourself. Because in this corrupt, post-modern, pseudo intellectual world we live in today, no one will accept you as an intellectual unless you subscribe to the pseudo science that is evolution... But even with your lame attempt to cherry pick a man with no spine, you seem to have missed the point that he conceded his previous beliefs of evolution, because he discovered just how flawed they were...

Once again, according to geneticists, “If you look at protein sequences, the part that's exposed to purifying selection / evolution, the sequences between chimp and human are 99% identical”. Who should I believe? You or them?


Again, 99% of the protein sequences of the genome, only make up about 2% of the entire human genome... Just more cherry picked confirmation bias...

Let’s link this concept to our earlier agreement that it is dishonest to assert that anything is true without evidence to back that up. We call that Hitchens’ razor, that “what is asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence”. Science only cares about what is supported by the evidence. Whatever is not supported does not warrant serious consideration. Come back when you can show that there’s a THERE there. Until then, we literally have nothing to talk about. 


There's that dishonest concept you love to hide behind, which in your mind doesn't allow you to ever be wrong on anything... I understand that the entire idea and spirit of science is to only concern itself with what is supported by evidence. But science, just like any other field in the world is ran and controlled by infallible and dishonest men... You're basically claiming that anything science says is gospel, which if you don't see the irony and hypocrisy in that, then there is no helping you. This right here is why many components, (myself NOT included) consider evolution to be a religion... I wouldn't quite take it that far, but it is undeniably a belief system that is NOT evidence based as you like to claim...

If we're talking science, we should talk like scientists. Present the evidence supporting your position or admit there isn't any. We've seen things evolve, but we've never seen anything created. Nor is there any indication of any creator.


First of all, we've NEVER seen things "evolve" in the sense of the Theory of Evolution. We've only seen variations within species, and mostly in controlled, forced and unnatural environments which is a far cry from anything that would occur in nature or proving that all life derives from a single common ancestor...  And even if we were to ever witness life being created, people like you would just dishonestly twist it to meet your belief of evolution rather than evidence that it takes a creator to create life... And your assertion that there is no indication of any creator is objectively false... As far as myself and millions of others are concerned, the similarities in life that you assert prove evolution and common ancestry, we assert with just as much authority prove common designer and common design... You're appeal to authority when it comes to "science" is astounding, especially coming from someone who dedicates their entire life trying to disprove religion and unproven pseudo science... It's so obvious that your entire world view is completely based on your refusal to believe in God... It's never been more apparent.

I’m not going to play “no YOU are; no YOU are” with you. I’m just going to continue to prove my points and wait ‘til you decide whether to change your mind or keep lying to yourself and others.



 It's frustrating that every time a believer gets into a formal discussion with me, they waste the first few rounds are always wasted in pointless posturing, bluffing and puffing up. Don't. There's no point in it. You can't intimidate me. I've been doing this for more than twenty years, and you're just one more carbon copy of every other arrogant believer saying pretty the same empty threats and boasts as everyone before you. Stahp. If you were right and I was wrong, I would want you to point that out, so that I don't stay wrong. Because unlike you, I don't want to keep believing things that aren't evidently true.


There's more I wanted to respond to, and I'm sure you can tell I didn't get to it all, but between it getting so long, and the fact I've had to rewrite most of this twice already because it won't let me save my draft for some reason, I'm just gonna leave it at what I got and address your final statement. As I mentioned earlier, If I missed something you feel is important, just let me know and I will address it. And understand that I didn't in any way attempt to avoid or gloss over anything. It's simply a matter of time, and certain glitches that you admittedly are taking up with the engineers of the forum...

 Your final statement begins with you saying you're just gonna wait to see if I change my mind or continue lying.. This is almost verbatim how you first issued this challenge. It's that classic arrogant assertion that you are 100% correct, and that I will either concede to your stance, or I will be a liar... This is a very dishonest way of you framing the discussion so no matter what the outcome, you deem yourself the victor... If you change my mind to your way of thinking, you win... If I don't, you simply label me a dishonest liar, and you still win... It's actually quite telling as to your intentions of this entire debate. In fact, I've had many people tell me not to even waste my time talking to you because of this very reason. But I feel like there aren't any creationists putting forth very good arguments, and that too many arrogant puppets are blindly subscribing to your nonsense, that I felt compelled to at least try to at least put creationism on the map, especially in this post-modern, pseudo world we're living in today. You're accusing me of being just another carbon copy of every other arrogant believer, but I've already mentioned and demonstrated how that's not the case... Although you're clearly just another carbon copy of every other pseudo evolutionist that seems to have more invested in disproving religion than proving evolution... You end your statement by accusing me of "wanting" to keep believing in things that aren't evidently true.. Again, that's just another unsubstantiated insult, and seeming projection by your own insecurities... Every single thing I believe is because it's ALL evidently true, and anytime I'm confronted with a possible discrepancy, more often than not, after a little due diligence, I discover I was right all along... So much in the same way as you waiting to see if I change my mind, or keep lying... I'm waiting to see if you concede your arrogance, or keep diluting yourself...
Top

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like this is getting a little off track from the topic at hand with a lot of the focus being on trivial throw away statements and personal attacks instead of the actual arguments, which is a tactic I've noticed you like to employ quite often.


It’s not a tactic I employ ever. That’s why I kept telling you that’s what you’re doing and to get back on track. Note as we continue, that you stay off-track and that I’m the one still trying to reason with you despite all your feeble attacks.  

It's almost like a combination of ad hominem, and the "Gish Gallop" you love to accuse creationists of all the time,


Except without any aspect of either of those.

and is especially ironic since you started the debate by asking me not to "overwhelm" you. The last thing I want, is for this discussion to devolve into the shit show that was supposed to be your latest "Debate" with Kent Hovind (Blame is on both sides as far as I'm concerned...)


Then stahp! Quit dragging this disussion down to that level and answer my points and queries sincerely, without all the false accusations and assumptions, like I keep asking you to.  

I'm sure throughout the course of this discussion, we'll both deliver a few personal jabs and possibly flat out insults, which is to be expected. I'm more than OK with this, and take no offense what so ever. However, I feel we need not waste valuable time and effort responding to each and every one, in a back and forth of insults the way you and Hovind did. Mainly because in most cases, it's not actually relevant to either one of our arguments and serves no real purpose other than to distract, discredit, and muddy up the waters... For that reason, and for the sake of keeping this to a reasonable length, I will ignore any portions of this discussion that appear to be nothing more than superficial rhetoric, that deviate from the original topic at hand, and if you feel I missed something important either intentionally or unintentionally, I hope you will inform me, and I will do my best to address it...


That's fine. But if I make a point relevant to this topic, you should admit it. And if my sentence ends in a question mark, you should answer it.

That being said, let's get back into it...


Thank for honoring my request at the onset, or at least saying that you will.

I encourage you to watch my series on the Noah’s Ark myth. That will help this exchange enormously.

Of course the Bible has been disproved on every important statement that it tries to make, as I already pointed out in that series and in my previous post. Equally important, none of the fables therein have been verified either. If they had, you'd be able to show peer-reviewed documentation of that even from secular sources. You can't show there is any truth there at all, where I have already shown you truth about evolution.   
Since we are talking about science, we must stay within the context of science; in which case, you have no evidence supporting your logically fallacious arguments. If the Bible can't be considered scientifically hypothetical, then what you're saying is that the problem here is that we have science versus not-science.

It's not "the Bible" versus science either. The Jewish Torah, the Christian gospels, the Qur’an of Islam, the Kitabi-Aqdas of Bahá’u’lláh, the Hindu Vedas, the Avestas of Zarathustra, the Adi Granth of the Sikhs, Vedic scriptures, the Mahabarata’s Bhagavad Gita, the Book of Mormon, and the Urantia Book are all declared by some of their devotees to be the “absolute truth” and the “revealed word” of the “one true god,” and believers of each say the others are deceived. The only logical probability is that they are all deceived, at least to some degree. Apologists for each of these faiths all have similar arguments of circularity defending their sacred scriptures sounding much like yourself attempting to the defend [what isn't really] the singular uniqueness of your Bible.

The Bible certainly does not and cannot count as "knowledge" of anything, because knowledge is demonstrable, testable with measurable accuracy. But if you can't verify the truth of your claims to any degree at all by any means whatsoever, then you cannot actually know what you merely believe. That's why I say, "if you can't show it, you don't know it". That's also why my friend, Peter Boghossian, (professor of philosophy at Portland State) says that "faith is pretending to know what you don't know".

I lost count in all the ways you're grossly wrong throughout this entire first part of your response.


For starters, as I previously mentioned, Noah's Ark is a topic I'm still learning both Scripturally and Scientifically. I do not need to, nor am I going to go watch your entire series on the the topic for the sake of this exchange. That's just more of you muddying the waters as I just mentioned by trying to overwhelm me with irrelevant red herrings, that are nothing more than your own erroneous opinions anyways.


None of my suggestions could be interpreted as distractions. My opinions are not erroneous, and that series is not based on my opinions anyway. Almost all of those episodes references scientists. Several of those scripts were largely written by professional scientists, and one of them was even a Christian. Nor do I intend to overwhelm you with the overwhelming preponderance of evidence against your position. I want you to understand the basics first and learn from there. The goal, remember, is to get you to understand it.

I may watch it in the future, but not right now. Not only is it irrelevant, but if I were to watch it, I would also have to give just as much time and devotion to the opposing side as well, which is completely irrational for the sake of this discussion alone.


There is no opposing side. And as you keep trying to argue for Biblical inerrancy and authority, that series is certainly relevant. But again, in due time.  

Plus, based on what I've seen you demonstrate in the past, a large part of your arguments against the Bible, is your lack of understanding.


Soon enough you will see that it’s actually your misunderstanding.  

In other words, you like to create a strawman when it comes to the Bible. You're dismantling a false, non existent villain, and claiming victory.


Never once have I straw-manned your position. I demand that you quote me verbatim and defend yet another false accusation. Because it is false, and we’re not going to keep doing this. You started your post saying that you weren’t gonna make any more false accusations, but that didn’t last long, did it?  

The Bible most certainly has not been disproved on every important statement it makes, as you like to assert.


Yes, it definitely has. For example, we know that the stories of Adam & Eve in the Garden of Eden were adapted from a handful of unrelated myths, specifically Enki & Ninhursag in the Garden of Innana, Adamu/Adapa and the Epic of Gilgamesh. Noah’s Ark and the Tower of Babel were both apparently gross exaggerations of real events originally attributed to other gods, but which were adopted and adapted into Judaism. Moses too is obviously based on a half dozen real people in history, where Moses himself is fictional. I could go on and on. The point is that the Bible only makes two kinds of claims, empty assertions of impossible nonsense that can’t be verified or falsified, and empty assertions of impossible nonsense that have already been falsified. You don’t have anything in the Bible that has been verified.  

As I previously mentioned, the Bible has in fact been verified more so than any other ancient Latin or Greek Text in history. This is a very well established fact.


One that Bible scholars seem to be completely unaware of. They can’t even verify whether David or Solomon existed, and they know Moses didn’t. Even if any other famous person named in those stories really lived, we have no reason to believe that the stories surrounding them ever happened.
 

As I also pointed out previously, you do not need "peer-reviewed" documentation to verify this fact.


In this specific instance, yes, you definitely do. Otherwise you can't claim any facts in evidence.

Peer review, after all means absolutely nothing, other than to people like you who choose to appeal to authority.


Wrong again. What it really does mean is that the experts in the field post their conclusions for other experts to challenge if they can or concede when they can’t. This is how we end up with a Bible that can’t be verified in any way at all, because there’s no truth to it, nothing we can show to be true.

If you can simply dismiss the Bible as nothing more than the words of mere fallible men, then I can do the same for your precious peer review process.


It's nothing more than the words of mere fallible men, only in this case, fallible men with an extreme confirmation bias and incentivized agenda...


You got that completely backwards. It is defenders of the faith who have both the bias and the incentivized agenda. Science has policies in place to minimize or eliminate bias, where religion promotes both. The only way to become rich and famous in science is to overturn the status quo, by proving the experts wrong.  

Otherwise, we both start on equal footing. You have mere fallible men telling unbelievable whoppers unsupported by anything at all, while pretending that one of the worst-written books in all of history was actually written by an infallible god (even when they know better) and where every story is contradicted by other fables in the same book. I on the other hand have tangibly real things that that are not mere assertions of fallible men, not things we could just make up, but that we can actually show and test and confirm to be true—despite whatever bias you still cling to.

The peer review process has been exposed numerous times especially recently as corrupt, and basically meaningless with gate keepers, and hidden political agendas... Particularly in the world of academia.


Ah, the vast conspiracy of the Illuminati, I suppose? What “hidden political agenda” do you imagine there could be? What is a “gate keeper”? How can I tell whether anything you ever say is really true?

I'll refer you no further than to the "peer reviewed" paper entitled "The Conceptual Penis" to prove my point.


In any discussion of science, you are expected to provide links to whatever studies you cite. I looked this one up myself, and saw that one of my associates, Michael Shermer wrote that article as a test to see if reviewers were paying attention. He said himself that it was ridiculous and “should never have been published”, but that it was published; fortunately not by Science, Nature or PLOS, but by some obscure International Journal for Masculinity Studies. Shermer’s purpose of writing a deliberately deceptive article was that he is the founding publisher of Skeptic Magazine, and he always challenges those who are supposed to be skeptical but who aren’t paying adequate attention, or (as in this case) were never skeptics in the first place.

Science doesn’t work without skepticism, and articles like his and a few others are designed to keep reviewers skeptical and humiliate them when they’re not, which is exactly what he did.  
 

For these, and many other reasons, I cannot, and will not accept anything as fact simply because it's "peer reviewed", nor will I dismiss anything as untrue simply because it's not peer reviewed, and you shouldn't either.


So you won’t accept anything that all the experts that have studied it agree is really true, but you will believe the empty assertions of know-nothing make-believers who can’t show any reason to believe them at all. Got it. Doesn’t matter, I can still prove my point.  

But since this is a major point in which your entire argument hinges upon, I doubt you will be honest enough to concede this fact.


Don’t ever question my honesty, and don’t assert “facts” that aren’t facts. I don’t assume that just because it’s peer-reviewed means that it’s above reproach. That means it’s perpetually vulnerable to critical analysis. I am on record for calling out a respected professor of paleontology at Cambridge University for shoddy research. Then I contacted other scientists to re-evaluate his erroneous findings. Stop assuming things that aren't remotely true.  

This is a classic example of the Appeal to Authority Fallacy, which is a common favorite among evolutionists...


Wrong again, as always. First of all, the fallacy is called “Appeal to FALSE authority”, like when your creationist, Dr Jobe Martin was declared to have once been an evolutionary biologist but in fact he was only a dentist. I am perfectly justified in citing any authority in the specific field that they're trained in. However, so far I have made no appeal to authority of any kind.

Neither you nor I will accept any unsupported or uncorroborated study as if it weren’t still subject to ongoing critique. But you have to understand, I can’t accept empty vague assertions of something some anonymous “they” allegedly discovered, or what some guy supposedly said. Maybe not every study is perfectly accurate or factual, but if it is a fact, there WILL be peer reviewed resources to show that. If you have evidence of your position, that’s how you’ll present it. Urban legends aren’t going to cut it. I have to see the study itself or it doesn’t even count as evidence. Do you understand this? Because I know you can’t contest it.

As far as your dishonest notion of this being a case of Science vs Non-Science, that's again objectively false...


No, it is objectively true, and I’m not the one being dishonest about that. If you have no peer reviewed evidence, no testable hypotheses, no experiments, no theoretical construct, nor natural laws specific to that point, nor means of falsification either, then you obviously can’t honestly claim to have any science.

The Bible itself is not a science book, or intended to be some scientific hypothesis.


Then why are we still talking about it as if it had any credence on a scientific topic?  

However, it does make claims, and in many of these cases, the claims can be verified scientifically and otherwise.


Nope, not once, especially not in any area that would be relevant to our current discussion. We’re talking about population genetics, remember? Do you think snakes lost their legs because they were cursed? Do you think there’s any way that a snake could talk? Do you think that bats are birds? Or that whales are fish? Or that rabbits chew cud? Or that if cattle mate while looking at striped sticks that they’ll produce striped calves? Or will you concede now that genetics got right what Genesis got wrong?  

Your attempt to falsely equate the Bible to other religious texts such as the Torah, Qur'an etc... is also erroneous because non of those texts, have been proven to be valid, and/or historically accurate to even a fraction of the degree that the Bible has.


All of them claim to have been proven beyond the Bible. Hindus like to claim "Vedic knowledge verified by science”. Muslims also commonly cite various claims of scientific validity in the Qur’an that they insist Muhammad could not have known, that science confirms the Qur’an and that knowledge of science is required to understand the Qur’an. Here’s an example of one such group of Islamic apologists.
[youtube]z5rNtEdptaY[/youtube]

I can put you in touch with H. Krishna Susarla or Hamza Tzortzis; both of whom would be happy to explain how their scriptures are MORE scientifically valid and/or historically accurate than the Bible. But the reality is that while all of them make the same claims as you do, no religious scripture has been or can be verified at all. The best any of them can do is to show that some of the mentioned people and places were real; that’s it.

In fact, many of them such as the Book of Mormon and others, have been proven to be frauds despite what's declared by their devotees...


My family is Mormon. I tried to tell my mom how the Book of Mormon is fraudulent, but all she would say back to me is that the Book of Mormon has been verified by science because of all the archaeological evidence. So her argument is no different from yours and your position is no better than hers.

Whether God is real or not, you cannot deny the amount of knowledge and wisdom that is found all throughout scripture... and it's all testable, demonstrable, and measurably accurate.


So you think that the earth is flat, such that it’s possible to see all the kingdoms of the earth from a high mountain?

Here’s a snippet from my book regarding some of the “measurably accurate knowledge” in the Bible.

The biblical authors obviously knew nothing about the real state of this world nor the worlds beyond this one either. But we know what lies outside our atmosphere, and that proves that there is no water above where the firmament isn’t, and no windows to let it drain in if there was either water or firmament there.

Some Persians at that time said that the god Mithras had the stars sewn into the lining of his cloak, which he would drape over the crystalline firmament to bring on the night. But we know that night is not a veil to be spread over the missing firmament like a curtain (Psalms 104:2) or a tent. We also know that the stars are not made to stand in the span of this expanse (Isaiah 48:13) because they are not “high” in the firmament (Job 22:12); there is no firmament, and they are so far beyond our puny world that “height” is meaningless and inapplicable. They are much too far away to be blown out of place by any storm (2 Esdras 15:34–35) and they couldn’t be taken down by anything at all. We’ve also proven that the illusive heavenly firmament has no foundations either (2 Samuel 22:8), and neither does the earth (Job 38:4–6). There are no pillars holding Earth above the deep (1 Samuel 2:8) because there is no deep (Genesis 1:2). Outer space is not full of water!

We also now know what lies outside our gravitational field, and that proves that you can’t have any passage of days and nights without a sun (Genesis 1:13–14) to measure them against an Earth that constantly moves (Psalm 104:5). We also know that the sun cannot be made to set at noon (Amos 8:9), and that neither the sun nor the moon can be stopped in the sky (Joshua 10:12–13).

We also now know what is beyond our solar system, which means we know the stars can’t fall from the sky (Matthew 24:29). Even if they did, we still couldn’t stomp on them (Daniel 8:10) because they’re each thousands to millions of miles around, which makes it a bit silly to imagine a whole group of them having conscious minds (Judges 5:20) and ganging up in combat with a mere human being.

We even know now what lies beyond our galaxy. And that proves that nothing or no one could ever “seal up the stars” (Job 9:7). We also know that the earth with its fictitious firmament didn’t predate the “lights in the heavens” by any amount of time (Genesis 1:17–19) and that the stars weren’t “set” specifically to light the earth, because the earth is not at the center, or the beginning (Genesis 1:1) of the universe in any respect. The way the Bible depicts Earth in relation to the rest of the universe is wrong, and has been known to be wrong for thousands of years.

In fact, going back to Noah's Ark for a second, how can you explain to me how Moses, or whoever you want to credit for writing the book of Genesis, knew what dimensions to use to build the Ark...


The character that you know as Moses was originally Ziusudra, a Mesopotamian king. He already had his menagerie aboard a barge on his way to market when the flood of Shurippak occurred about 2900 BCE. This event drug him into the Persian gulf with no means of propulsion or steering, because his barge was in effect an ark, meaning “box” rather than a boat. So he had to drift to shore, which is fortunately easy to do there. This story was retold and the hero was recast a Utnapishtim, Atrahasis, Ubar-Tutu and eventually Noah. Of course it was also embellished, such that it engulfed the whole world, and it was blamed on a pantheon of gods who brought on the flood because they thought men had grown to noisy; all except for one god who whispered to the Noah character how to build the ark in time. Some of these earlier versions predate the Genesis version by at least a thousand years.  

A feet that had never been attempted up to this point, and got the dimensions so scientifically and mathematically precise, that it's been proven that it would in fact be seaworthy, and is so effective, that even the US Navy, use it's precise dimensions on their very own ships..?


What are you smoking? That never happened. On the contrary, it has been shown that Noah’s ark would NOT be seaworthy at all. Even unloaded, it would have to be very calm seas, which would definitely NOT be the case in this fable. The largest wooden ship that ever sailed was a fraction of that size and built by experienced shipwrights, yet it tore itself in half on the open ocean.

By the way, feet are what you walk/stand on. A feat is an achievement.

Seems a little advance for a bunch of primitives in the bronze era eh??


Yeah, unbelievably so. Steel ships have to be much bigger than Noah’s ark just to carry cattle across the Atlantic along with enough water and provisions to survive the three week cruise. It is absolutely impossible for anyone on Noah’s ark to survive even one week just due to methane poisoning, much less an immediately lack of food or fresh water.

The Bible is chalked full of these otherwise impossible bits of knowledge that could have only come from either modern day technology, or divine knowledge.... Take your pick...


I’ll take the third option: that these things obviously couldn’t work. That’s why there’s no indication that they did and proof that they didn’t.

You’re not thinking logically. First off, we both agree that there was a point when there was no life on this planet, and then there was. I think that happened naturally. You think it happened magically. I have a body of knowledge including several peer reviewed studies of different types of scientific evidence to back this up. All you have is a story book, which you have already admitted cannot compete with or compare to science.



Just more arrogant assertions with zero evidence, and I could just as easily assert how you're not thinking logically either.


Except that I am thinking logically, (where you are not) and I am showing you evidence, where you cannot. You just have to know what evidence means and then what would count as evidence and why. That’s why I said this has to be an educational process.

In fact, this is just another typical dishonest strawman that evolutionists love to employ... "I think that happened naturally. You think it happened magically..."  That's because you're falsely equating God, or a Creator to "magic" in a lame attempt to make it appear ridiculous.


Once again, I’m not being dishonest, and this isn’t a straw-man. A god is a magical anthropomorphic immortal, and the Bible is full of magical things. Curses and "blessings" are both magical enchantments. Adam was created by a golem spell. Then there's potions, incantations, necromancy, transformation, exorcism, purification rituals, weather control, ghosts, demons, angels, fire-breathing dragons, faith-healing, forecasting and water-bending.

Anything supernatural literally *is* magic. The words, “supernatural” and “magical” mean essentially the same thing. The words “magic” and “miracle” mean exactly the same thing. They’re both the evocation of supernatural forces or entities to control or forecast natural events in ways that are inexplicable by science because they defy the laws of physics and are therefore physically impossible.    

However, A creator makes perfect logical sense, even if we can't fully explain the origins of the creator.


Sorry, no, a supernatural creator is logically invalid and makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

The Bible says we're made in the image of God, and men are creators, it's something we can relate to with God...


So why is God in the image of an ape?  

No other species or animal can create anything except offspring, and in some cases habitats.


Here’s another failure in your logic. Imagine the Knight Industries Two Thousand saying he is not a car because he is smarter than any car. That may be, but that doesn’t change the fact that he is still a General Motors Pontiac Trans Am, and is thus still a car, albeit a smart one.  

However, life magically sprouting out of nowhere, for no apparent reason, with the ability to reproduce asexually, eventually evolving into every known plant, animal and slime we know today is what really seems like "magic" and a fairy tale...


I get that you don’t want to, and thus won’t understand this, but what we know of the early earth is that it was much more warmer and more radioactive than it is today, a bubbling cauldron cooking complex chemicals. Thanks to Urey-Miller and a number of other, similar experiments, we know that water, ammonia, methane and hydrogen generate amino acids when heated and charged with electricity. The same thing happens when you change the mix to include Carbon-dioxide, nitrogen, hydrogen-sulfide and sulfur-dioxide. Peptides can form spontaneously, drying into polypeptides. Because some of these chemicals become increasingly complex after repeated cycles of inundation, dehydration and irradiation. Then once the right phosphate is involved, they become ribonucleotides. If ribonucleotides come into contact with montmorillonite, they spontaneously produce strands of RNA. Activated RNA can not only replicate itself even without the usual enzyme, it also builds DNA. Then of course phospholipids automatically form a bilayered cell-wall upon contact with water, due to their combined polarity; allowing a haven for all these processes, with transport vesicles and other semi-permeable channels to keep fueling and exchanging the system. So if RNA and then DNA are contained within that incidental arrangement, then we have the first potentially-living cells.

See, the “reason” it happened is chemistry, and there’s nothing magical about it.
 

You have nothing more than the crazy rantings of mere fallible peer reviewed papers, and story books, while I have the divine Word of God.


No, you don’t. All you have the words of ignorant primitive superstitious savages pretending to speak for God, and who obviously had no idea what they were talking about. That’s why we can show that they’re wrong about everything.   

Which by the way, I never admitted cannot "compete" with science. I simply said, it's not intended to be science...


That means it can’t compete with science. Understand that logical fallacies like Special Pleading will not help you here.

So nice try with yet another dishonest tactic of misrepresentation, while falsely asserting your own flawed worldview as substantiated fact...


Yet again you falsely accuse me, ignoring your own ninth commandment, while I haven’t misrepresented anything. My “world view” isn’t flawed either, nor have I shown my world view to be a fact, because a world view cannot be a fact. You can’t seem to get anything right.  

It's obvious you're going to continue with this argument of how you just look at the "science" and "facts" while misrepresenting the Bible as simple folklore and dismissing any actual science or facts that disagrees with your beliefs...


No no no. I will not dismiss any actual science or facts that disagree with my position, like you already have.

When I first issued this challenge to you, I told you that it is not possible to defend creationism honestly, and that very early on, you'll either have to acknowledge and correct errors in your current misunderstanding, or you'll have to deny objective reality and be deliberately dishonest, ducking and dodging every point or query to defend your ill-placed faith. Already you’re denying reality by objecting to peer reviewed studies, because believers hate nothing more than the burden of proof. This while simultaneously lying about there being science against me, which you could only prove with peer-reviewed studies that you already know do not exist.

I intend to expose just how fallacious this ridiculous stance is throughout the course of this discussion...


You’ve already done a bang-up job showing how fallacious your own position is.

Imagine that we're both looking at a line of dominoes falling in very slow motion. Even though we can prove that they're falling and measure how fast they're falling, you're trying to argue that it's only speculation that they're falling at all--until or unless we know what toppled the first one. Obviously there is no logical link there. It's a non-sequitur because it literally does not follow. It doesn't matter how or why that first domino fell. Regardless whatever independent explanation there might be for how it started, that would not change the fact that it is happening. You don't get to dismiss the observation by calling it "speculation", because that is obviously and demonstrably not the case. Even if God created life, it still evolved from there, and not in any way that could justify your folklore as an alternative. So evolution does not "hinge on" abiogenesis in any sense.



So far all you've done is misrepresent everything I've said...


Not once yet, nor will I ever.

Probably because you're used to debating typical Young Earth Creationists who have a difficult time defending their own stance, let alone dismantling someone else's, and you're falsely equating me to them.


Not falsely, obviously.  

I can assure you I am not one of these people,


Yeah, you obviously are.  

and you are not prepared for what I have in store.


That’s what I’m saying to you, and it will turn out that I am right and not you.

Your dominoes analogy doesn't work because once again, you are misrepresenting my argument. My argument isn't that it's only speculation that the dominoes are falling because we don't know what toppled the first one. My argument is that there is no evidence or verifiable proof that the dominoes are even falling at all, and additionally you have absolutely no explanation as to how the first one could have possibly been toppled in the first place.


But I do have an explanation, and I’ve already told you that several times. Not only did you get that wrong, but you’re contradicting yourself again. You already admitted that evolution happens, and that the high degree of genetic homology and the specific signatures of selection all count as evidence of a biological relationship. So you can’t say there’s no evidence for evolution when you already admitted that there is. Now, since we both agree that it is dishonest to assert blind speculation as though it were fact, then what evidence do you have for creation?

And in the course of this fact being exposed, you dishonestly try to separate the two as if one doesn't depend on the other despite the fact that it absolutely does...


You didn’t expose what you meant to. Again, I’m not the one being dishonest about the fact that evolution “absolutely” does NOT depend on abiogenesis, which we actually DO have an explanation for anyway, and you don’t.

I never said Evolution hinges on "abiogenesis," I said it hinges entirely on the conception of the original life form regardless of how it came about. This is an undeniable truth...


Clearly not—since there is no alternative scenario that would even impact any fact of evolution.

This is going to be a long hard road for you if you're gonna keep misrepresenting everything I say, while ironically accusing me of misrepresenting Evolution...


You mean, we’re obviously not going to get anywhere if you keep accusing me of misrepresenting you when I don’t.

And as long as you continue to dishonestly dismiss the Bible as folklore, despite verified proof it's not, I will do the same for your peer reviewed propaganda..


folk·lore /ˈfōklôr/
noun: the traditional beliefs, customs, and stories of a community, passed through the generations by word of mouth.

Look it up. I have definitive proof that the Bible honestly *is* folklore, and you never had any evidence that it isn’t. Nor could you have. Once again, I’m not the one being dishonest.

As with most atheists, I have a strong suspicion your atheism leads back to a personal bad experience you had with religion, by an obviously false doctrine, and rather than seek the Truth of what's actually written in scripture, you simply set out to disprove it... I'm almost certain I'm right on this...


You are as wrong about this as you have been about everything else so far. I abandoned religion specifically because there is no truth in it but there are a whole lotta lies in literally all of it.

When I was reborn in Christ, I experienced that dizzying feeling of euphoria that so many others do. But I had the presence of mind to inquire, “how do I know whether this is really the power of Jesus? Or some psychosomatic symptom I’ve prompted within my own mind". My best friend at that time, (who is now an ordained Southern Baptist minister) told me with a beaming smile to “just keep telling yourself it’s Jesus until you believe it”. That was so obviously and completely dishonest that the spell was broken immediately. That was my last moment as a Christian. Because it's not about truth but I am.

I won't deny religions, including most Christian denominations assert a lot false things to be true... However, so do evolutionists and secular science as a whole...


No, they don’t. I won’t let you keep making all these false accusations without backing it up, and you already know you can’t.

You just said you won't say anything is so unless you can show the evidence indicating it... but that's exactly what you do all the time. Your entire belief system is based on blind speculation that you have no evidence for other than the speculation itself.


I don’t have a belief-system. Belief systems have required beliefs and prohibited beliefs. I’m a free thinker. So I follow the evidence that you keep denying even after you’ve already admitted it.  

And your 45 minute video, (yet another red herring) is just more of the same...


No, I’ve never posted any red herrings.

And once again, to no surprise, you're misrepresenting what I said.


I’ve never misrepresented anything you’ve said either.

And for the record, I don't subscribe to any "religion"... The text of the Bible in and of itself, is not a religion. However, man has taken what's written in the Bible, and bastardized it, and twisted it to create various religions for their own personal gain.


After some considerable study of the history of comparative world religions in college, I’ve come to realize that every religion universally accepted as such by both it’s adherents and critics is a faith-based belief-system positing the notion that a supernatural essence of self somehow survives the death of the physical body to continue on in some other form. If you believe that too, then you have a religion. Now which one is it?

There are many religions with three major ones based on the god of Abraham: Judaism—based only on the Tanakh, Christianity, which added a “New Testament”, and Islam, which considers your Bible to be “corrupted by man”, so that another prophet had to come after Jesus. In Islam, Jesus still lives and never died, but directs people to Muhammad as the true and final prophet. If your belief-system is based on the Old and New testaments together, then your religion is either Christian or Baha’i, and followers of Baha’u’llah cite the Kitab-I-Aqdas, not the Bible.

It is so annoyingly typical of Christian dishonesty to say that their religion isn’t a religion, as if it’s a philosophy, or it’s a relationship, or that they’re not even openly Christian, they’re just secretly Christian. Of course Christianity is a religion. It is [still] the world’s leading religion. If Christianity were not a religion, then Islam would be the dominant religion on earth. You know better than to say what you did. So yeah, you do subscribe to some variant of the Christian religion.   

I simply subscribe to the truth, much in the same way you claim to, and there is an abundance of truth to be found in the Bible. The problem is, you're starting from a false preconceived notion, and cherry picking the evidence which supports your position...


No sir. You have no interest in the truth. That’s why you’re constantly saying things that aren’t true. You don’t even know what truth is. The truth is what the facts are, and you don’t have those. There is no truth in the Bible. If there was, you’d have shown it by now, and I would have already found it decades ago.

To prove my point there, and to show you the severity of this contrast, I’ll offer another challenge within this one. Name one evolutionary scientist who ever lied in the act of promoting evolution over creationism. I know you already think you can answer this question, but no one ever has.



The next part of your response is quite long, but it all seems to boil down to this "challenge," so that's what I will focus on. Just to to rehash, as I understand it, your challenge comes in two parts. 1, name an evolutionary scientist who has ever lied in the act of promoting evolution, and 2, name a creationist who did NOT lie either defending creation, or condemning evolution. To begin, I'll start by noting your own criteria for proving a lie. First you must prove what they said was wrong, and then you must prove that they knew it was wrong when they said it... While I agree with this generally, it does however make it nearly impossible to "prove."


I proved that Kent Hovind is lying, didn’t I? Over and over again? I did the same with many other charlatan apologists.

However, there are in fact many exposed lies and frauds among evolutionary science. So much so in fact, I actually find it surprising and ballsy that you would even present such a challenge...


Nope, not a one that meets this challenge.

We'll start with Nebraska man. Nebraska man was discovered, or should I say a mere tooth was discovered by geologist Harold Cook. The tooth then got passed to Zoologist William K. Gregory, who heralded it as the first higher primate of North America. It was later exposed that this tooth was simply a pigs tooth. We know William K. Gregory knew this before lying about it, because along with him, the tooth was also passed to orthodontist Dr. Milo Hellman, who instantly identified the tooth as a pigs tooth, yet didn't stop them from continuing with their hoax of a supposed missing link.


You can’t get anything right ever, can you? The conditions of this challenge were that you (1) name the scientist, (2) quote the lie verbatim, then (3) show how we know that he knew it was wrong when he said it was true. You failed every point.

First of all, you got the wrong scientist. It was Henry Fairfield Osborne, curator of the American Museum of Natural Science. He discovered the tooth and thought that it might be that of an ape. But the entire scientific community rejected it, including his own student, William K. Gregory. Several scientists wrote articles calling the fossil into question. Because there was substantial evidence of early hominins in Europe, Asia and Africa, so much that one highly-questionable tooth couldn’t shift that over to America. Osborne needed more evidence. After five years of looking, he still couldn’t find any. That’s when he conceded that it probably was a badly eroded pig’s tooth.

That’s when Gregory finally got Dr Milo Hellman involved. Together they wrote:

“[The Nebraska tooth] combines characters seen in the molars of the chimpanzee, of Pithecanthropus, and of man, but . . . it is hardly safe to affirm more than that Hesperopithecus was structurally related to all three. . . . the prevailing resemblance of the Hesperopithecus type are with the gorilla-chimpanzee group.”
—Gregory and Hellman (1923)

See how Hellman did NOT “instantly identify it as a pig's tooth”? You got every part of this story wrong, and there was no lie.

Next, we'll talk about Piltdown Man, which actually came before Nebraska Man. This was a very well known and admitted hoax from the beginning. It was perpetrated by archeologist Charles Dawson, and Paleontologist Arthur Smith Woodward, who admittedly created a forgery of a lower jaw bone of an orangutan, combined with a fully developed cranium of a modern human, and tried to pass it off as another "missing link."


Again, you got everything wrong and failed the challenge on all points. Attorney Charles Dawson was only one of the suspects. There were two others.

Museum volunteer Martin Hinton apparently had issues with the authorities directing the British Museum. Recently, a trunk belonging to Hinton was found to contain several unfossilized bones that had been chemically stained and treated in the same way the Piltdown bones had been.

Then there was Arthur Conan Doyle, author of the Sherlock Holmes mysteries. Doyle was Dawson’s next door neighbor. He had previously written “The Lost World” which explained how to physically alter and chemically treat a bone to make a forgery of a fossil, and he knew exactly where his neighbor was going to dig. He also had a motive. Doyle hated the Museum of Natural History because they were “naturalists”, while he was a devoted proponent of mysticism, spiritualism, and psychic phenomena, including a strong belief in fairies!

But even if Dawson did do it, perhaps with both of these other men as accomplices, none of them were scientists, and that still wouldn’t count for this challenge, because the hoax was perpetrated to defraud and embarrass the museum. It had nothing at all to do with promoting evolution over creationism.  

Another major hoax would be "Lucy" which I'm sure you'll try to defend, but in reality there is no defense. This one starts from the incentivized agenda I talked about earlier. Paleoanthropologist Donald Johanson was given a grant to specifically find the quote, "missing link," and coincidentally enough, just 2 weeks before his grant money expired, he just so happened to discover "Lucy."  The scull of Lucy was completely crushed, but that didn't stop them from depicting her as a human like ape, with human characteristics. There were no hands or feet bones found, yet once again, didn't stop them form depicting Lucy with human like hands and feet. Lucy was later exposed as nothing more than a typical tree swelling orangutan, and not at all the Australopithecus Afarensis it was purported to be.


Once again, you got everything wrong. I don’t know how many they’re up to now, but a decade or so ago, scientists had already found over 120 individuals of the Australopithecus aferensis species, including hand and feet bones as well as concordant foot prints. That’s in addition to another 130 individuals of Australopithecus africanus and dozens of individuals from a handful of other similar species. None of them were ever shown to be “tree swelling orangutans”. You’re repeating lies again. So you will not be able to produce any documentation to back that up, whicy you will have to do or admit why you can't.

There's much more we could get into about Lucy, but I'll just leave it at that for now.


There’s more I could get into, and I will when you’re ready.

There are many more lies and frauds I could mention, but I think 3 of the most infamous ones should suffice, since you so boldly asserted "...no one ever has" lied about evolution before.


And you failed to produce one such instance, other than to repeat a handful of lies yourself.  

As far as your second part of the challenge, naming creationists who didn't lie, I feel quite honestly is a moot point. I can't determine whether or not they lied, but what I can guarantee is that there are no major hoaxes among the creationists the way there is running rampant within the secular science world.


You can’t guarantee that, because I can prove otherwise. What about the Paluxy man-track that was faked by George Adams? Or the fraudulent Ica stones that were sold as Pre-Columbian artifacts showing dinosaurs and flying saucers by Peruvian dentist, Javier Cabrera? Or the lead “dino-swords" hoax that is still promoted by familiar frauds, “Dr” Carl Bough and “Dr” Kent Hovind? Both of whom ARE frauds themselves. Or how about Noah’s Ark, the Ark of the Covenant, Jesus’ blood, or anything else Ron Wyatt pretends to have discovered? Creationism is full of hoaxes!

Plus, just about every example of creationist organizations you named, I won't argue with you about. I disagree with most of them on about as many things as I disagree with you on. So I will not even attempt to defend them. In fact, I believe most of them are doing a disservice to the entire creation argument... These are all well established and undeniable hoaxes by evolutionary scientists, that lied in their promotion of evolution.


No, there are no hoaxes by any evolutionary scientists. So I’m going to ask you again to produce documentation or admit when and why you can’t.  

I trust this will meet your challenge and that you won't try anymore dishonest tactics in attempt to defend these obvious blatant liars...


Once again, I’m not the one being dishonest. The obvious liars are the creationists.

You obviously didn't understand why your citation of this argument failed. Your numbers are all wrong too. I suggest you reference the original source material to find out why for both. You might also inquire why Francis Collins is a Christian yet he's also a strong proponent of evolution. He's said a number of things that creationists aren't happy about.



I'm not really interested in your cherry picked list of creationists who also subscribe to evolution.


Creationists DON’T subscribe to evolution. A creationist is a religious believer whose position is so extreme that they will deny science in defense of the assumed authority of their scripture. Christians and other religious believers who accept evolution are called “theistic evolutionists”.  

These kinds of people are simply Christians who can't stand firm in there beliefs out of fear of being ridiculed by the likes of arrogant bullies such as yourself.


I’m offering to prove my point to your satisfaction, and you call me a bully? While you’re literally doing all of the bullying?!

You’re also forgetting that it was Christians who discovered evolution and have historically been—and still presently are—it’s strongest champions. None of them even could be bullied by me. They are in many cases the leaders of evolutionary science. They bully creationists because you don't want to know what they're not afraid to explore.   

I take it, you think that being so unreasonable as to maintain a demonstrably false belief against all the evidence is a mark of strength? Being absolutely wrong about absolutely everything obviously doesn’t bother you or any other creationist that I know of, but it bothers honest people quite a bit pretty quickly. Some of them keep their religious beliefs and only drop the parts they’d otherwise have to lie about all the time.

Dr Robert Bakker is a Pentacostal Preacher and a leading paleontologist with two ivy-league doctorates. If he were in this conversation, he’d be bullying both of us. Same goes for petrogeologist, Dr Glen Morton. I once asked both of them to moderate a debate for me, and they used that platform to rail against atheists.

Because in this corrupt, post-modern, pseudo intellectual world we live in today, no one will accept you as an intellectual unless you subscribe to the pseudo science that is evolution...


Creationism is pseudo science by definition without justification or defense, while evolution is the foundation of modern biology. And you have to admit, it’s a little hard to consider someone an intellectual when they have religious extremist views that require them to deny reality and lie on behalf of delusion.

But even with your lame attempt to cherry pick a man with no spine, you seem to have missed the point that he conceded his previous beliefs of evolution, because he discovered just how flawed they were...


Wait, what? Who did? Francis Collins? Whom I just quoted as saying that “anatomically modern humans emerged from primate ancestors perhaps 100,000 years ago—long before the Genesis time frame” and that “the story of Adam and Eve doesn’t fit the evidence?” What gave you the impression that he ceded his position on evolution?  

Once again, according to geneticists, “If you look at protein sequences, the part that's exposed to purifying selection / evolution, the sequences between chimp and human are 99% identical”. Who should I believe? You or them?



Again, 99% of the protein sequences of the genome, only make up about 2% of the entire human genome... Just more cherry picked confirmation bias...


Uh-uh. Remember that he also said:

“The 1% number [99% homology] comes from an examination of only the protein-coding DNA regions of the two genomes (which is about .... and only includes the heritable single nucleotide differences.  It ignores the changes on the larger level:  loss of whole genes, rearrangement of gene order, loss or gain of regions of chromosomes.  If you include those additional changes, [remembering repetitive DNA masking and gapped alignments when comparing genomes] the difference between chimp and human genomes climbs to 4%...[96% homology].”

Clearly then, you’re the one cherry-picking, not me.

Let’s link this concept to our earlier agreement that it is dishonest to assert that anything is true without evidence to back that up. We call that Hitchens’ razor, that “what is asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence”. Science only cares about what is supported by the evidence. Whatever is not supported does not warrant serious consideration. Come back when you can show that there’s a THERE there. Until then, we literally have nothing to talk about.



There's that dishonest concept you love to hide behind, which in your mind doesn't allow you to ever be wrong on anything...


It’s not dishonest! And I can still be wrong about lots of things. Even you have the potential to show that I’m wrong about something, though you haven’t yet, and your past performances shows that’s not likely to happen either. But that’s your failure, not mine.

I understand that the entire idea and spirit of science is to only concern itself with what is supported by evidence. But science, just like any other field in the world is ran and controlled by infallible and dishonest men... You're basically claiming that anything science says is gospel, which if you don't see the irony and hypocrisy in that, then there is no helping you.


I see the irony and hypocrisy in you telling that lie while calling me a liar, but of course I never imagined anything any scientist ever said to be gospel. That would actually defeat the purpose, principle and practice of science.

What I see is that you are angry that you can’t defend your empty assertions because (1) you have no evidence of them, and (2) you already said it would be dishonest to assert these things without evidence.

This right here is why many components, (myself NOT included) consider evolution to be a religion... I wouldn't quite take it that far, but it is undeniably a belief system that is NOT evidence based as you like to claim...


I deny that it is a belief-system, not only for the reasons I have already explained, but also because evolution is neither a religion, nor a philosophy, nor a moral code.

If we're talking science, we should talk like scientists. Present the evidence supporting your position or admit there isn't any. We've seen things evolve, but we've never seen anything created. Nor is there any indication of any creator.



First of all, we've NEVER seen things "evolve" in the sense of the Theory of Evolution. We've only seen variations within species, and mostly in controlled, forced and unnatural environments which is a far cry from anything that would occur in nature or proving that all life derives from a single common ancestor...


Wrong again. Or should I say “still”? We DO see things evolve in terms of the theory of evolution, and not just in laboratory conditions, but throughout agriculture since the dawn of civilization. I mentioned the mice of Madeira as an example outside of any human control, but you ignored that to keep repeating a claim that you now know to be false.  

You’ve already admitted to microevolution, though you don’t seem to understand how that works. As I explained to you before, the way evolution works is that every individual has a number of mutations right from the point of conception. Humans, for example, have an average of 128 mutations per zygote, and we continue to gain more as we mature. In animals like us, these mutations can be inherited if gamete cells are among the mutants.

As a matter of population mechanics over many generations, the larger the breeding population, the more it restricts the emergence of novel mutations, by blending them back with the standard. But they do still arise, and more quickly in relatively isolated groups. If a population is genetically isolated, unique mutations continue to build up in each group that are no longer shared between each group: such that differences will soon be visible, allowing us to determine on sight whether some lone individual came from this group or that one.

A subspecies classification is where every member of one group shares a trait that is not present in any member of the other group. This is what you would call microevolution, when they are still willing and able to cross breed, should compatible pairs meet.

Macroevolution occurs when it becomes a new species. In sexually-reproductive animals, this is generally identified when the genetic differences minimize the chances of producing fertile offspring: such that all that are produced are sterile hybrids. The next stage is when these differences build to the point that hybrids are no longer even viable.

You replied to that with a gross distortion and a (I think deliberate) misunderstanding of what I said, which I had to clarify for you thus:

Macroevolution occurs when [a separated and increasingly distinct population] becomes a new species [from the ancestral of sister population]. In sexually-reproductive animals, this is generally identified when the genetic differences [between the two now-isolated groups] minimize the chances of producing fertile offspring: [should a pair of wanderers from both groups encounter each other in neutral territory] such that all that are produced are sterile hybrids [sired by one member of each population]. The next stage is when these differences [between the two different populations] build to the point that hybrids are no longer even viable [should any strays have a romantic rendezvous].

This is the second time I’ve had to ask you this, and it is key to you learning anything else that I’m trying to teach you. So do you understand and accept this most basic of all instructions on evolution? 


Each of these claims the Bible makes are testable, but they’re all demonstrably false--where you said they'd all be verifiably true. And that’s not even getting into the complete lack of wisdom, which the Bible anthropomorphizes as a woman. Otherwise the Bible teaches fallacious thinking almost exclusively. I can’t say there’s no wisdom at all, because there is that one passage out of Ecclesiastes, but it contradicts literally everything else!  


Less than once, it looks like.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And even if we were to ever witness life being created, people like you would just dishonestly twist it to meet your belief of evolution rather than evidence that it takes a creator to create life...


Nice of you to assume that someone has never been dishonest before would be anyway if the very conditions I asked for were met, which is just as wrong as everything else you’ve said. Are you merely projecting your frustration at there never being any evidence of anything ever being created?

And your assertion that there is no indication of any creator is objectively false...


I don’t think you understand what the word, “objectively” means. It means not dependent on imagination or determined by personal feelings or opinions. If there is evidence of a creator, then why do the heads of all major religions admit that it requires faith instead?

Remember that I’ll accept anything that qualifies as evidence, any body of objectively verifiable facts that are positively indicative of, or exclusively concordant with that position. We both know you can’t produce that, and that means that what I said was objectively true.

As far as myself and millions of others are concerned, the similarities in life that you assert prove evolution and common ancestry, we assert with just as much authority prove common designer and common design...


You don’t have ANY authority. You're just denying all the evidence, which I’m not going to let you do anymore. It would be good if you would address where Professor Myers refuted a specific claim of Intelligent Design creationism, since that contradicts what you had just said. However I will only insist that you address what Dr Kenneth Miller said about how we know that the human/Chimp chromosome #2 was fused.

You're appeal to authority when it comes to "science" is astounding, especially coming from someone who dedicates their entire life trying to disprove religion and unproven pseudo science...


I have never appealed to authority at all.

It's so obvious that your entire world view is completely based on your refusal to believe in God... It's never been more apparent.


How can you absolutely wrong about absolutely everything, 100% of the time for such a long time and still believe anything you say? I don’t "refuse" to believe in God! You just can’t produce any reason why I should. That’s your failure, not mine.

There's more I wanted to respond to, and I'm sure you can tell I didn't get to it all, but between it getting so long, and the fact I've had to rewrite most of this twice already because it won't let me save my draft for some reason, I'm just gonna leave it at what I got and address your final statement.


I sincerely apologize for the abysmal experience that this discussion board has been due to these technical issues. I will have the whole thing stripped, replaced or dropped altogether, but I’m not going to put up with having to type my whole response into a word document before pasting into the forum.  

Cut out all your meaningless personal attacks and all discussion of your mythology, and just stick to the topic. Here are the points you have yet to address, but should.

You said there’s no more proof of linking the phylogenetic tree, than there is for linking the items in the trash together". But I pointed out that we CAN actually prove a genetic ancestry. In some recent cases, we can even identify specific mutations leading to particular strains, to show exactly how this parent set really did become this daughter group. As I've already told you, we have genetic orthologues definitely linking several different species. For example, check out this 2005 study of Genome sequence, comparative analysis and haplotype structure of the domestic dog.
nature04338-f10.2.jpg

You also failed to answer the Phylogeny Challenge or even admit that you failed. You made another false accusation that it was fallacious but you couldn't explain how. You also need to admit why you can't produce any citation from any creationist who ever answered my simple yes or no questions in that Challenge; because you wrongly alleged that it is "objectively false” when it’s objectively verifiable, while pretending that I had been "called out" several times on this when it hadn’t even been challenged once.

You should admit that just as humans don't make up the natural laws of the universe, we have to figure out what they are, we also have to do that with the rules of phylogenetic ancestry. So you were wrong about that too.

You said that “certainly can cite academic lessons on evolution which conflates speciation with micro-evolution", but you failed to do so, and should admit why you could not.

This is the second time I’ve had to ask you this too. Since evolution is "decent with inherent modification" and a mutated fly is a modification of its ancestor, themselves mutated flies being modified from their ancestors, then why doesn't it count as speciation when they meet all the required criteria of each definition? What WOULD you accept as a new species of whatever?

Theodosius Dobzhansky was a pioneer in genetics, famous for publishing the paper, Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except In The Light of Evolution. He was also the first to document unambiguous speciation, which the entire scientific communuty and ever creationist organizations accept. So what excuse do you have for dismissing his work?

What about the nylon bug? Or the new discovery of plastic-eating bacteria? In either case, we have a population of one microbial species, but then one subset of that population develops a uniquely distinctive trait exclusive to that population. That’s the definition of unicellular speciation, isn’t it? If leading scientists call this speciation and even the barking mad pseudoscience nuts like Institute for Creation Research and Answers In Genesis accept speciation, even though they’re desperate to deny all the science they can, then what justification do you have to dismiss it?    

Regarding the new species of mice on Madeira, I asked if they’re just “mutated mice” in your opinion, because they didn’t turn into something else? What do you think speciation is? And where do you imagine evolution requires and teaches whatever you think speciation is? While you’re pondering that, here is a link to a description of speciation provided by Berkeley University’s introductory primer, Evolution 101. And here is a more detailed explanation from the Public Library of Science.  

As I mentioned earlier, If I missed something you feel is important, just let me know and I will address it. And understand that I didn't in any way attempt to avoid or gloss over anything. It's simply a matter of time, and certain glitches that you admittedly are taking up with the engineers of the forum...



Your final statement begins with you saying you're just gonna wait to see if I change my mind or continue lying.. This is almost verbatim how you first issued this challenge. It's that classic arrogant assertion that you are 100% correct, and that I will either concede to your stance, or I will be a liar...


I have been 100% correct so far, and you are demonstrating that it is indeed impossible to defend creationism honestly.  

This is a very dishonest way of you framing the discussion so no matter what the outcome, you deem yourself the victor...


Again, I’m not the one being dishonest.

If you change my mind to your way of thinking, you win... If I don't, you simply label me a dishonest liar, and you still win...


Not if you make it all the way through without repeatedly ignoring direct points and queries put to you.

It's actually quite telling as to your intentions of this entire debate. In fact, I've had many people tell me not to even waste my time talking to you because of this very reason. But I feel like there aren't any creationists putting forth very good arguments, and that too many arrogant puppets are blindly subscribing to your nonsense, that I felt compelled to at least try to at least put creationism on the map, especially in this post-modern, pseudo world we're living in today.


There are no creationists putting out good arguments for creationism because there aren’t any good arguments to put out. The movement depends entirely on frauds, falsehoods and fallacies.

You're accusing me of being just another carbon copy of every other arrogant believer, but I've already mentioned and demonstrated how that's not the case...


No, you've demonstrated that that *is* the case.

Although you're clearly just another carbon copy of every other pseudo evolutionist that seems to have more invested in disproving religion than proving evolution...


This is another lie disproved by all the times I’ve cited Christian scientists, explaining that whether you believe in God or not is irrelevant to this discussion in the end. Disproving God was never and will never be a part of this.

You end your statement by accusing me of "wanting" to keep believing in things that aren't evidently true.. Again, that's just another unsubstantiated insult, and seeming projection by your own insecurities...


I don't have insecurities, and still wouldn’t even if I doubted the veracity of my position.

Every single thing I believe is because it's ALL evidently true, and anytime I'm confronted with a possible discrepancy, more often than not, after a little due diligence, I discover I was right all along... So much in the same way as you waiting to see if I change my mind, or keep lying... I'm waiting to see if you concede your arrogance, or keep diluting yourself...


Then produce your evidence of creation, which you already know you can’t because it doesn't exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Guidelines