Evolution Is Religion--Not Science

[Doulos Iesou]

Jesus got the death penalty. Does that mean we shouldn't listen to anything he said? If we can't listen to anything a man says who went to prison, it would seem pretty logical not to listen to a man who was sentenced to death.

The TOG​

Was Jesus actually guilty of anything? No. Was Kent Hovind? Most assuredly, yes. Fallacy of the weak analogy.

 

[Barbarian]

Your right, we should definitely disregard any of his teachings because he got in some trouble.

Because he is dishonest, and lied under oath. Why would anyone trust anyone who claims to follow God while serving an different master?

Kent Hovind is what I believe a saved man

If he's willing to lie in court for money, why wouldn't he lie to you for money? Hes a scammer, who preys on people's faith in God. There aren't many people lower than that.

Jesus got the death penalty. Does that mean we shouldn't listen to anything he said?

Hovind went to prison for dishonesty. Jesus got the death penalty for telling the truth. Hovind is about as far from being Jesus as it's possible for a human to be.

Notice the same message we get for other such schemes: "I can't tell you what it's about; you have to watch the video."

You bet. If there was anything of substance in it, they'd be telling you all about it. Ask yourself what motive they would have for hiding what's in it, so you have to watch it to find out. Are any possible motives honest? I can't think of one.

 

[TOG]

Was Jesus actually guilty of anything? No. Was Kent Hovind? Most assuredly, yes. Fallacy of the weak analogy.

Weak, perhaps, but still valid. Jesus taught many things. To take just one example, he taught us that we should love our neighbors as we love ourselves. He wasn't executed for that, though. Many accusations were brought against him, but ultimately he was executed for treason - for claiming to be a king, when the only recognized king was Caesar. The sentence he received had nothing to do with his teachings, so it has no bearing on whether we believe we should love our neighbor or not. Was Kent Hovind sentenced to prison for not believing in evolution? No. He was sentenced to prison for not paying taxes. It had nothing to do with the things he taught, and should not have any bearing on whether we listen to what he said about evolution or not.

The TOG​

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Weak, perhaps, but still valid. Jesus taught many things. To take just one example, he taught us that we should love our neighbors as we love ourselves. He wasn't executed for that, though. Many accusations were brought against him, but ultimately he was executed for treason - for claiming to be a king, when the only recognized king was Caesar. The sentence he received had nothing to do with his teachings, so it has no bearing on whether we believe we should love our neighbor or not. Was Kent Hovind sentenced to prison for not believing in evolution? No. He was sentenced to prison for not paying taxes. It had nothing to do with the things he taught, and should not have any bearing on whether we listen to what he said about evolution or not.

The TOG​

Kent Hovind demonstrated that he was a liar, which directly relates to the things he teaches.

 

[duari91]

Not the biggest fan of Hovind, but saying his teachings are invalid because he was arrested is intellectually dishonest. In fact, it is an ad hominem fallacy (which means against the man). On that logic, everyone here has a false conclusion on life because we are all liars. Does that make sense? Not really, but now is a good time to start learning why.

Be careful when making such statements like "he is as far away from Jesus as you could possibly be." One glance at your thought life would show us the same or even worse. Pointing out his said imperfections have merely defined the human condition. No one here is better off, we are all far from Jesus.

Some of the conclusions here are absolutely terrifying lol.

 

[TOG]

Because he is dishonest, and lied under oath. Why would anyone trust anyone who claims to follow God while serving an different master?

Can you honestly (lol) say you've never lied? Have you never been stopped by the police and said something like "Honest officer, I didn't see the stop sign" or "Really? Was I going that fast? I had no Idea."

If you have ever said something like that or lied in any other way, then according to your own logic, we shouldn't listen to anything you say about evolution. But if you tell us you have never lied, then you are lying and we shouldn't listen to what you say about evolution.

The TOG​

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Not the biggest fan of Hovind, but saying his teachings are invalid because he was arrested is intellectually dishonest.

His behavior is in line with his teachings, both are dishonest.

In fact, it is an ad hominem fallacy (which means against the man).

It's common sense, if a man lies through his teeth in a court of law, and also teaches the brothers a host of lies. Why should one trust a person?

On that logic, everyone here has a false conclusion on life because we are all liars. Does that make sense? Not really, but now is a good time to start learning why.

Not quite, none of us are convicted felons who lied in a court of law. Also, none of us earn our living by peddling lies to uneducated people. It's about the degree to which he has lied, not the simple fact that he has at one time lied.

Be careful when making such statements like "he is as far away from Jesus as you could possibly be." One glance at your thought life would show us the same or even worse.

I won't judge where he stands, that is God's part. But if he were here today I would rebuke him for his falsehoods, as we should per Paul's counsel.

Pointing out his said imperfections have merely defined the human condition. No one here is better off, we are all far from Jesus.

Some of the conclusions here are absolutely terrifying lol.

Conclusions about a man who is a convicted felon, who has not even now told the truth and admitted to what he has done.

He makes a mockery of the Christian faith. The harm this man has done goes far beyond convincing uneducated fundamentalists that evolution is "wrong." He is an continued motivation for unbelief.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Can you honestly (lol) say you've never lied? Have you never been stopped by the police and said something like "Honest officer, I didn't see the stop sign" or "Really? Was I going that fast? I had no Idea."

I've never done that, and I especially haven't lied about $840,000 in taxes and did so while under oath.

It's amusing to see people try and justify his actions.

If you have ever said something like that or lied in any other way, then according to your own logic, we shouldn't listen to anything you say about evolution. But if you tell us you have never lied, then you are lying and we shouldn't listen to what you say about evolution.

Again, we are discussing the DEGREE to which he has lied, not only in his teachings but before a court of law. For which he is now serving felony convictions in a federal prison.

Not only that, he is unrepentant of his falsehoods.

 

[TOG]

I've never done that, and I especially haven't lied about $840,000 in taxes and did so while under oath.

Never lied at all? What would your mother say if I asked her about it? And what does lying about taxes have to do with evolution?

It's amusing to see people try and justify his actions.

I didn't try to justify his actions. I just said that his actions regarding his taxes are irrelevant to what he says about evolution. If Hovind points out an error, something outdated or possibly an intentional falsehood in a textbook, does the outdated information become newer and do falsehood and error become accurate when he goes to prison? The two have nothing to do with each other. The problem is that you have no answer for his arguments, so you attack him personally.

Again, we are discussing the DEGREE to which he has lied.

So, it's ok to lie a little but not to lie a lot? We shouldn't listen to a man who lied about his taxes, because that's a big lie, but when "scientists" get caught repeatedly fabricating evidence to support evolution, we should listen to them, because those are just little lies?

The TOG​

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Never lied at all? What would your mother say if I asked her about it? And what does lying about taxes have to do with evolution?

I was referring to your example of lying to a police officer. He lies about evolution and his taxes, it's consistent with his character.

I didn't try to justify his actions. I just said that his actions regarding his taxes are irrelevant to what he says about evolution.

You shall know them by their fruit.

If Hovind points out an error, something outdated or possibly an intentional falsehood in a textbook, does the outdated information become newer and do falsehood and error become accurate when he goes to prison? The two have nothing to do with each other. The problem is that you have no answer for his arguments, so you attack him personally.

I have no answers to his arguments? Present just one of his arguments here (not an hour long video which no one has time for) and I will deal with it here and now.

We are simply pointing out facts, Kent Hovind is a known liar who peddle scientific falsehoods.

So, it's ok to lie a little but not to lie a lot?

Everyone lies a little, and that's not okay. I am not a liar to the degree that I am spending over a decade in a federal prison though. He is also, as I mentioned, unrepentant.

We shouldn't listen to a man who lied about his taxes, because that's a big lie, but when "scientists" get caught repeatedly fabricating evidence to support evolution, we should listen to them, because those are just little lies?

Give me one citation of a popular scientist, or scientific group, "repeatedly fabricating evidence." There is no conspiracy, evolution really is true.

So provide one argument of Hovinds, and provide sources for the so called fabricated evidence for evolution.

 

[Barbarian]

Actually, I haven't lied to a police officer. Call me old-fashioned. Hip guys like Hovind see that as just another tactic to get what they want. So if he lies under oath, he thinks he's still a good Christian.

I don't get that kind of thinking.

And I notice there's still no one willing to step up and tell us any claim Hovind makes in the video. For the obvious reasons.

 

[TOG]

I have no answers to his arguments? Present just one of his arguments here (not an hour long video which no one has time for) and I will deal with it here and now.

I had time for it. I watched it in two parts, since I had to go and do other things, but I did watch it all. If I can do it, then anyone else here can as well, if they want to. The problem is not a lack of time, but a lack of will.

So provide one argument of Hovinds, and provide sources for the so called fabricated evidence for evolution.

Certainly. One of the things Hovid mentions in the video is termites. But since you won't believe someone who didn't pay their taxes, here's an excerpt from an article on termites on Wikipedia (emphasis mine).

All termites eat cellulose in its various forms as plant fibre. Cellulose is a rich energy source (as demonstrated by the amount of energy released when wood is burned), but remains difficult to digest. Termites rely primarily upon symbiotic protozoa (metamonads) such as Trichonympha, and other microbes in their guts to digest the cellulose for them and absorb the end products for their own use. Gut protozoa, such as Trichonympha, in turn, rely on symbiotic bacteria embedded on their surfaces to produce some of the necessary digestive enzymes. This relationship is one of the finest examples of mutualism among animals.

Source

In case you don't trust Wikipedia, here's an excerpt from Encyclopedia Britannica (emphasis mine).

Cellulose digestion in lower termite families depends upon symbiotic flagellate protozoa, which live anaerobically (without oxygen) in the termite hindgut and secrete enzymes (cellulase and cellobiase) that break down cellulose into a simple sugar (glucose) and acetic acid. The termites depend entirely on protozoans for cellulose digestion and would starve without them. Newly hatched nymphs acquire protozoa from older, infected termites during anal feeding, a type of feeding necessary to lower termites that harbour protozoans.

Source Section: Cellulose

The termites can't live without the protozoans. They would starve. But the protozoans can't live without the termites either. Which evolved first? And that's just the example that was mentioned in the video. There are many other examples of symbiosis in plants, animals and fungi where neither organism can live without the other. How does evolution explain that?

As for the fabricated evidence, there are many examples to choose from. Even though it is no longer being taught, I can't resist the opportunity to mention Piltdown Man. A "fossil" (which later turned out not to be a fossil at all) was found in 1912. for 40 years it was presented in textbooks as proof of evolution, until it was proven to be a hoax in 1953. The main reason that it took so long to reveal this lie was because nobody got to handle the actual "fossil". Scientists only got to work with models of it. But somebody did handle the original. Some scientists knew that it was a lie, and they hid that fact. But get this - Piltdown man had still not been removed from biology text books when I was in high school in the early to mid 70's! It wasn't honesty or scientific integrity that made them remove all references to this lie. If it were, it wouldn't have taken them over 20 years to do it. It just took that long for it to become common knowledge and for the evolutionists to become laughing stocks for teaching this rubbish as fact.

Another example of fabricated evidence, which is still being taught, is the supposed evolution of the horse. Supposedly, Eohippus is the ancestor of modern horses. It was Othniel Charles Marsh (October 29, 1831 – March 18, 1899) who originally proposed this evolution based on fossils found in many places around the world. The various species have never been found in the order Marsh put them and modern horses have even been found in the same layers as Eohippus. How can Eohippus then be the ancestor of modern horses, if they existed at the same time?

The TOG​

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I had time for it. I watched it in two parts, since I had to go and do other things, but I did watch it all. If I can do it, then anyone else here can as well, if they want to. The problem is not a lack of time, but a lack of will.

Not all of us are "Professional Flaneurs." It happens to be a slow Friday at work for me, that is why I am able to respond, though even if I did have an hour completely free to myself I would not waste it watching an entire hour of Hovind's teachings. I have watched several of his debates, which served as decent entertainment.

Certainly. One of the things Hovid mentions in the video is termites. But since you won't believe someone who didn't pay their taxes, here's an excerpt from an article on termites on Wikipedia (emphasis mine).

Excellent, this should be good.

The termites can't live without the protozoans. They would starve. But the protozoans can't live without the termites either. Which evolved first? And that's just the example that was mentioned in the video. There are many other examples of symbiosis in plants, animals and fungi where neither organism can live without the other. How does evolution explain that?

So the charge is that termites cannot live without protozoans. Is this true? Yes, but only for lower termites.

Lower Termites have a pH range of 6.0 to 7.6 and therefore do not have the capacity to break down cellulose of their own power and developed a symbiotic relation with one of the oldest of life forms, the protozoans. However, in higher termites of the family Termitidae, has a pH in their hind-gut of 9.5 or greater and does not require the aid of protozoans.[1] What would have been important is for the Termite to produce it's own Cellulase enzymes, which the higher termites can.

This is yet another example where Hovind's arguments leave out important bits of data, and tries to create something that is a problem for evolution... but in reality isn't actually one.

As for the fabricated evidence, there are many examples to choose from. Even though it is no longer being taught, I can't resist the opportunity to mention Piltdown Man. A "fossil" (which later turned out not to be a fossil at all) was found in 1912. for 40 years it was presented in textbooks as proof of evolution, until it was proven to be a hoax in 1953. The main reason that it took so long to reveal this lie was because nobody got to handle the actual "fossil". Scientists only got to work with models of it. But somebody did handle the original. Some scientists knew that it was a lie, and they hid that fact. But get this - Piltdown man had still not been removed from biology text books when I was in high school in the early to mid 70's! It wasn't honesty or scientific integrity that made them remove all references to this lie. If it were, it wouldn't have taken them over 20 years to do it. It just took that long for it to become common knowledge and for the evolutionists to become laughing stocks for teaching this rubbish as fact.

An example of something that was corrected and no longer taught... moving on.

Another example of fabricated evidence, which is still being taught, is the supposed evolution of the horse. Supposedly, Eohippus is the ancestor of modern horses. It was Othniel Charles Marsh (October 29, 1831 – March 18, 1899) who originally proposed this evolution based on fossils found in many places around the world. The various species have never been found in the order Marsh put them and modern horses have even been found in the same layers as Eohippus. How can Eohippus then be the ancestor of modern horses, if they existed at the same time?

Ahh, this is a common charge made my creationists. The Evolution of horses is widely documented, and their ancestry lying with the Hyracotherium is widely accepted among paleontologists. You have stated that the this species of horses lived at the same time as modern horses, my appealing to them being found in the "same layer." This is a naked assertion as it is not supported by any kind of scientific evidence for the claim, and since the burden of proof is on you for going against the status quo. You must demonstrate definitely how evolutionists are wrong on the matter.

So, please provide evidence that the Eohippus and modern horses existed at the same time.


[1] http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01245699#page-2

 

[Barbarian]

All termites eat cellulose in its various forms as plant fibre. Cellulose is a rich energy source (as demonstrated by the amount of energy released when wood is burned), but remains difficult to digest. Termites rely primarily upon symbiotic protozoa (metamonads) such as Trichonympha, and other microbes in their guts to digest the cellulose for them and absorb the end products for their own use. Gut protozoa, such as Trichonympha, in turn, rely on symbiotic bacteria embedded on their surfaces to produce some of the necessary digestive enzymes. This relationship is one of the finest examples of mutualism among animals.

It is indeed. It's an irreducibly complex symbiosis, in which neither organism can live without the other. But irreducibly complex symbioses can evolve. Indeed, we have directly observed such a case:
Trends Cell Biol. 1995 Mar;5(3):137-40.
Bacterial endosymbiosis in amoebae.
Jeon KW.

Abstract
The large, free-living amoebae are inherently phagocytic. They capture, ingest and digest microbes within their phagolysosomes, including those that survive in other cells. One exception is an unidentified strain of Gram-negative, rod-shaped bacteria that spontaneously infected the D strain of Amoeba proteus and came to survive inside them. These bacteria established a stable symbiotic relationship with amoebae that has resulted in phenotypic modulation of the host and mutual dependence for survival.

There are many other examples of symbiosis in plants, animals and fungi where neither organism can live without the other. How does evolution explain that?

See above. Pretty simple. Two independently-living organisms form a symbiosis, and gradually evolve to depend on each other. We now know that some wood roaches have the same genus of endosymbionts that termites do. And the giant termite is anatomically intermediate between wood roaches and other termites. So it's obvious that the symbiosis between termites and their gut organisms came about in the same way we observed it to happen with the amoebae and bacteria.

As for the fabricated evidence, there are many examples to choose from. Even though it is no longer being taught, I can't resist the opportunity to mention Piltdown Man. A "fossil" (which later turned out not to be a fossil at all) was found in 1912. for 40 years it was presented in textbooks as proof of evolution, until it was proven to be a hoax in 1953.

You've been misled about that. It was always given brief treatment in science texts, because the idea of an ape first forming a large brain, and only later a manlike body, was contrary to evolutionary theory. We don't know who did the hoax, but we do know that evolutionists were the ones to debunk it.

A

nother example of fabricated evidence, which is still being taught, is the supposed evolution of the horse. Supposedly, Eohippus is the ancestor of modern horses. It was Othniel Charles Marsh (October 29, 1831 – March 18, 1899) who originally proposed this evolution based on fossils found in many places around the world. The various species have never been found in the order Marsh put them and modern horses have even been found in the same layers as Eohippus. How can Eohippus then be the ancestor of modern horses, if they existed at the same time?

Well, let's take a look...

This diagram marks only one of many branches on the horse evolution bush, the particular one that led to modern horses. As you see, the different species are indeed in sequential order. I too would like to see the evidence for Equus (modern horses) in the same strata as Hyracotherium. When do you think you can post that, for us?

The ironic thing is, horses are one of the few cases were evolution was so gradual that we can show a very detailed and gradual change, sometimes even at the species level.

If you doubt this, I can show you the details of the line that led to modern horses, with so little difference between adjacent species that you can find greater differences within many modern species.

Let me know if you'd like that, and be sure to show us that evidence for Equus and Hyracotherium being in the same strata.

 

[duari91]

Actually, I haven't lied to a police officer. Call me old-fashioned. Hip guys like Hovind see that as just another tactic to get what they want. So if he lies under oath, he thinks he's still a good Christian.

I don't get that kind of thinking.

So I guess telling a lie to a police officer is worse than telling a lie to anyone else?

That kind of thinking goes through every believer in one way or another. We are fallen because we are sinners, and we are saved in a state of sin.

The original concept of Ad Hominem still stands, and the same about everyone's character here. If a lie justifies the discredit of his work, everyone in this thread is in serious trouble.

Now, the verification of his work is questionable. Which is why I am not a Hovind fan.

 

[TOG]

Not all of us are "Professional Flaneurs."

So insults is all you have. I see.

The TOG​

 

[TOG]

Well, let's take a look...

This diagram marks only one of many branches on the horse evolution bush, the particular one that led to modern horses. As you see, the different species are indeed in sequential order.

Yep. I can't deny it. It's right there on the chart. I guess that proves I'm wrong.

The TOG​

 

[Barbarian]

So I guess telling a lie to a police officer is worse than telling a lie to anyone else?

Yep. The police are responsible for public safety, and lying to them is often a crime, as well as interfering with their duties. But of course, Hovind lied under oath, which is not only a crime, but a serious sin.

The original concept of Ad Hominem still stands, and the same about everyone's character here. If a lie justifies the discredit of his work, everyone in this thread is in serious trouble.

If he'll lie after swearing to tell the truth, he'll lie for anything.

 

[Barbarian]

Yep. I can't deny it. It's right there on the chart. I guess that proves I'm wrong.

You could shoot all that down, if you'd show us some checkable evidence for your claim that Equus and Hyracotherium are found in the same strata. When do you think we'll be seeing that?

The most recent fossil of Hyracotherium is about 45 million years old. The oldest known fossil of Equus is about 3.5 million years old.

That's a big gap to fill in. Let's see what you have.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

So insults is all you have. I see.

The TOG​

I just quoted from your profile, if it's an "insult" why do you self-ascribe such a representation. That's like calling yourself an idiot, and then being insulted if I agree with you.

And that's not all I have, but it seems you don't want to address the substance of my post. You raised an objection, which I and Barbarian refuted. It is noted that you dodged both of our answers.