Response to Youtube's AronRa

[ExgamerLegends]

Youtube's AronRa has challenged me to answer three problems he has with creation. His problems are below.

1.) "to produce a single creationist who did NOT lie when arguing for creationism over evolution or the rest of natural science. "

Lie - a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood. (dictionary.com)

The key word here is intent. As we cannot read someone's mind it is impossible for you or I to know someone's intent when making a statement. It is true that creationists have made statements about evolution that were not true. This however does not mean that they were lying because you do not know if they knew it were untrue unless he admits it.

2.) "To produce an evolutionary scientist who lied in the act of promoting evolution against creationism."

As previously stated it is impossible for anyone to know someone was intentionally making false statements unless they admit it.There are very few evolutionists (or people in general) who would admit to lying but here are two.

Jerry Coyne (professor of ecology)- "After all, we want our grants funded by the government, and our schoolchildren exposed to real science instead of creationism. Liberal religious people have been important allies in our struggle against creationism, and it is not pleasant to alienate them by declaring how we feel. This is why, as a tactical matter, groups such as the National Academy of Sciences claim that religion and science do not conflict. But their main evidence — the existence of religious scientists — is wearing thin as scientists grow ever more vociferous about their lack of faith."

Eugenie Scott (NCSE) -"It's clear that Haeckel may have fudged his drawings somewhat to look more like his ideal than they actually are. Now does that actually take away from what we know about the relationship of embryology to evolution? Not a bit."

3.) "that there has never been a single verifiably accurate argument of evidence indicative of miraculous creation over biological evolution or any other avenue of actual science."

The book of Romans states that all the evidence of God's creation is clearly seen in the world.

-Abiogenesis: The study of how life can arise spontaneously from non life has been an ongoing study for many years and so forth all tests prove negative. Scientists such as Pastuer and Pouchet are early scientists who confirmed that life cannot arise spontaneously and there are many who came after them who tried to prove otherwise and failed. There are still scientists today who try to form life from non life but they all fail. Every failure of abiogenesis strengthens the idea that life can only form from life. The only logical conclusion to form from the evidence is that we were all created supernaturally as there is no natural process that can bring life into being.

-Irreducible complexity: Some evolutionists try to deny the existence of irreducible complexity but some admit that it is a serious problem for organic evolution. Examples of IC are:
1) The origin of novel regulatory complexes governing gene behavior.
2) The hoped-for evolution of genes that have novel functions relative to their supposedly ancestral genes.
3) The origin of new proteins that have a very different function from the presumably ancestral proteins.

Evolutionists try to point to instances of simultaneous changes in gene expression. However, the observed phenotypic effects are always small. The simultaneous appearance of several mutations, even if neutral or beneficial, is not yet proof that any combination of them can produce even one new irreducibly complex system.

My challenge to AronRa is to present any example of new information arising from mutation.

 

[Tenka]

Lie - a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood. (dictionary.com)

The key word here is intent. As we cannot read someone's mind it is impossible for you or I to know someone's intent when making a statement. It is true that creationists have made statements about evolution that were not true. This however does not mean that they were lying because you do not know if they knew it were untrue unless he admits it.

I believe a lie can be reasonably suspected if someone is stating as true, a falsity that they should be expected to be aware of if debating a certain topic or the fact can be easily researched and found to be false.

As previously stated it is impossible for anyone to know someone was intentionally making false statements unless they admit it.There are very few evolutionists (or people in general) who would admit to lying but here are two.

Jerry Coyne (professor of ecology)- "After all, we want our grants funded by the government, and our schoolchildren exposed to real science instead of creationism. Liberal religious people have been important allies in our struggle against creationism, and it is not pleasant to alienate them by declaring how we feel. This is why, as a tactical matter, groups such as the National Academy of Sciences claim that religion and science do not conflict. But their main evidence — the existence of religious scientists — is wearing thin as scientists grow ever more vociferous about their lack of faith."

I read this a couple of times but I'm not seeing the lie.

Eugenie Scott (NCSE) -"It's clear that Haeckel may have fudged his drawings somewhat to look more like his ideal than they actually are. Now does that actually take away from what we know about the relationship of embryology to evolution? Not a bit."

Haeckel's work was published in the mid to late 1800's and he tried to support an idea of evolution which was somewhat different to Darwin's, which already had wide support.
For the most part, his work on comparative embryology was excellent for the time and lead to a very real and useful area of study.

The book of Romans states that all the evidence of God's creation is clearly seen in the world.

And even the people who believe that can't agree if it's clearly special creation of earth and species or creation using physical laws that we discover through scientific examination...so not really a useful statement.

-Abiogenesis: The study of how life can arise spontaneously from non life has been an ongoing study for many years and so forth all tests prove negative. Scientists such as Pastuer and Pouchet are early scientists who confirmed that life cannot arise spontaneously and there are many who came after them who tried to prove otherwise and failed. There are still scientists today who try to form life from non life but they all fail. Every failure of abiogenesis strengthens the idea that life can only form from life. The only logical conclusion to form from the evidence is that we were all created supernaturally as there is no natural process that can bring life into being.

OK, firstly 'spontaneous generation' is not a part of any evolutionary theory, had Pastuer and Pouchet succeeded it would have falsified what we knew about evolutionary biology.
Secondly, you're arguing "abiogenesis against created kinds", not "diversification of species via evolution versus created kinds".

-Irreducible complexity

IC always hits a wall in that, you can't prove positively that such a system cannot be evolved and IC does not offer a testable alternative.

All you've pointed to here are 2 gaps in our scientific understanding, not positive evidence for special creation of species.

Evolutionists try to point to instances of simultaneous changes in gene expression. However, the observed phenotypic effects are always small. The simultaneous appearance of several mutations, even if neutral or beneficial, is not yet proof that any combination of them can produce even one new irreducibly complex system.

If you're copying straight from AIG, at least link the article.
Irreducible complexity: some candid admissions by evolutionists

 

[Aron-Ra]

Youtube's AronRa has challenged me to answer three problems he has with creation. His problems are below.

1.) "to produce a single creationist who did NOT lie when arguing for creationism over evolution or the rest of natural science. "

Lie - a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood. (dictionary.com)

The key word here is intent. As we cannot read someone's mind it is impossible for you or I to know someone's intent when making a statement. It is true that creationists have made statements about evolution that were not true. This however does not mean that they were lying because you do not know if they knew it were untrue unless he admits it.

Wrong. As I explained in an earlier video, there are only two things you must do in order to determine whether someone is lying; (1) show that their statement is wrong, and (2) show that they knew it to be wrong before they said it. I have done this with dozens of creationist claims already. Can you do the same with even one “evolutionist”?

As you haven't named any creationist whom we cannot show to have lied in his promotion of superstition over science, you failed the first part of the challenge.

2.) "To produce an evolutionary scientist who lied in the act of promoting evolution against creationism."

As previously stated it is impossible for anyone to know someone was intentionally making false statements unless they admit it.There are very few evolutionists (or people in general) who would admit to lying but here are two.

Jerry Coyne (professor of ecology)- "After all, we want our grants funded by the government, and our schoolchildren exposed to real science instead of creationism. Liberal religious people have been important allies in our struggle against creationism, and it is not pleasant to alienate them by declaring how we feel. This is why, as a tactical matter, groups such as the National Academy of Sciences claim that religion and science do not conflict. But their main evidence — the existence of religious scientists — is wearing thin as scientists grow ever more vociferous about their lack of faith."

Eugenie Scott (NCSE) -"It's clear that Haeckel may have fudged his drawings somewhat to look more like his ideal than they actually are. Now does that actually take away from what we know about the relationship of embryology to evolution? Not a bit."

3.) "that there has never been a single verifiably accurate argument of evidence indicative of miraculous creation over biological evolution or any other avenue of actual science."

In order to claim that a given statement is a lie, before you can show that the claimant knew the statement was wrong, you must first show that it actually is wrong. But all these statements are verifiably true. How then could you present any of them as lies?

So you've failed the 2nd part of the challenge too.

The book of Romans states that all the evidence of God's creation is clearly seen in the world.

The Book of Romans can neither qualify as evidence, nor even an argument, and it certainly isn’t verifiably accurate. Instead it’s only a plea for an assumed conclusion, several in fact, and all of them erroneous. We must first assume that if anything exists, something else must have created it. We should also pretend that it can’t be eternal in some form. We must further imagine that it can’t be natural either, because we’re also supposed to suppose that someONE else must have made it. This is an outrageous proposition already. But we still have to pile more assumptions atop those by asserting that the superstitious primitives who wrote these fables knew what they were talking about, even when the Bible shows that they clearly did not, and that they somehow knew that the creator couldn’t have been Brahma, nor any other force or entity not already imagined in the folklore of ignorant goat herders who believed the world was flat. Depending on who you’re talking to, we’re only permitted to jump to the unwarranted conclusion that it was either Jesus or his alleged father, El/Allah/Abba/YHWH. And we're just expected to swallow all of that nonsense without question, and for absolutely no reason at all.

Are you seriously saying that out of the whole of creationist apologetics, if you had to choose one argument to present as verifiably accurate, this would be it?! You've failed every part of this challenge. I'll give you another chance, but if this is the best you can do, why keep trying?

-Abiogenesis: The study of how life can arise spontaneously from non life has been an ongoing study for many years and so forth all tests prove negative. Scientists such as Pastuer and Pouchet are early scientists who confirmed that life cannot arise spontaneously and there are many who came after them who tried to prove otherwise and failed. There are still scientists today who try to form life from non life but they all fail. Every failure of abiogenesis strengthens the idea that life can only form from life. The only logical conclusion to form from the evidence is that we were all created supernaturally as there is no natural process that can bring life into being.

Yes folks, my opponent really did say that when faced with something we cannot yet adequately explain, we just give up trying to find the real answer, because the only ‘logical’ conclusion we can make is that it must have happened by magic. People like him said that about volcanoes, lightning, comets, epilepsy, and disease, (among many other things) and his explanation has turned out to be the wrong one in each case. Only when we've gone beyond supernatural excuses have we ever found the truth, and the real answer is always far more complex than the mystics would have us beleive. In fact, even though you've failed every challenge to this point, I have another one: Name one time in the history of science when assuming a supernatural explanation has ever improved our understanding of anything. I'll bet you can't even name one time when assuming supernatural explanations didn't actually hinder that process.

Creationists have to argue from a position of willful ignorance. Do you seriously expect me to believe that in all your earlier debates no one ever told you the difference between the origin of life (abiogenesis) and the diversification of life (evolution)? Or that you somehow never knew the difference between abiogenesis and spontaneous generation? That's why I wanted our discussion to be in public archives; so that whomever you debate in the future will know that you already knew better than the nonsense you'll still be repeating then.

Spontaneous generation: (proposed by Anaximander in the 6th century BCE, and disproved in a series of of experiments from 1668 to 1861) is the idea that fermentation and putrefaction activates a latent 'vitalism' in all matter, thus recycling organic refuse (garbage) into new forms of already complex [albeit vile] organisms from virus and bacteria all the way to fully-formed animals such as flies and even rats.

Abiogenesis: Propoosed by Rudolph Virchow in 1855, and coined by Thomas Huxley in 1870; the current hypothesis replacing spontaneous generation as an explanation of the origin of life, proposing that developtment of life requires a prior matrix, thus an intricate sequence of chemical stages must have enhanced naturally occuring replicative proteins enabling the development of genetic precursers in protobiont cells which would then begin to evolve.

Just so you know, we've made significant progress in abiogenesis research. We've recently shown how already replicative organic chemicals naturally and automatically become increasingly complex when subjected to the right sequence of repeated inundation, dehydration, and irradiation, until they auto-synthesize ribonucleotides. And we've discovered that the Miller-Urey expeiment was more successful than anyone previously realized.

• Organic chemicals observed spontaneously assembling RNA
• Forgotten Experiment May Explain Origins of Life
• Organism Sets Mutation Speed Record, May Explain Life’s Origins
  
• Proof That Meteors Could Have Sparked Life on Earth
• A Theory of Evolution for Evolution (how evolution begins)
  

There aren't many more stages left to in our explanation of abiogenesis; how life began.

But just so we don't get distracted into an off-topic discussion here, evolution explains the origin of species, not the origin of the origin of life. It is a process of varying genetic frequencies among reproductive populations; leading to (usually subtle) changes in their morphological or physiological composition, which –when compiled over successive generations- can increase biodiversity when continuing variation between genetically-isolated groups eventually lead to one or more descendant branches increasingly distinct from their ancestors or cousins. Thus evolution can be summarized as a variation of allele frequencies amongst reproductive populations amid environmental dynamics. According to the University of California at Berkeley, evolution is defined as an explanation of biodiversity via descent with inherent genetic modification. Thus it is a matter of population genetics, one that obviously requires that there must already be ancestors to inherit genes from.

-Irreducible complexity: Some evolutionists try to deny the existence of irreducible complexity but some admit that it is a serious problem for organic evolution. Examples of IC are:
1) The origin of novel regulatory complexes governing gene behavior.
2) The hoped-for evolution of genes that have novel functions relative to their supposedly ancestral genes.
3) The origin of new proteins that have a very different function from the presumably ancestral proteins.

Evolutionists try to point to instances of simultaneous changes in gene expression. However, the observed phenotypic effects are always small. The simultaneous appearance of several mutations, even if neutral or beneficial, is not yet proof that any combination of them can produce even one new irreducibly complex system.

You seem to be getting your fallacies confused. Creationists are the ones arguing for irreducible complexity, even after each of those arguments were exposed as false, both scientifically and in a court of law. Otherwise I have to wonder who you're talking about, since no one I know of “hopes for” anything in this list. Nor should we, given our understanding of how evolution works. Understand that evolution must adhere to the laws of phylogenetics and population mechanics. That means evolution never permits one thing to 'turn into' another fundamentally different 'kind' of thing, nor does it ever require any suite of simultaneous mutations. Evolution at every level is just a series of usually superficial changes compiled atop tiers of fundamental similarities. Creationists ignore that, and that's one reason why so many of their contentions against it are so straw-men.

My challenge to AronRa is to present any example of new information arising from mutation.

Creationists' arguments rely on undefined terms, words like 'information' and 'kind' which have variable meanings. This is so they can "move the goal posts" whenever one of their challenges is answered. This also allows them to lie in such a way that they think no one will notice, like when they say that it takes more 'information' to make a dinosaur than it does a bird, or that breeding dogs from wolves is a loss of 'information'. But of course if you can't measure information in either case, then you can't honestly make either of these claims.

Scientists can’t do things like that because science adheres to rigid definitions. A scientist given this challenge would likely refer to virtually any of the thousands of transposon mutations documented on PubMed, since any information that is different than what was already there is -by definition- "new". Many of these result in novel traits as well, as I explained in my videos on the 8th and 11th foundational falsehoods of creationism. But upon hearing this, the creationist must conjure some excuse as to why that doesn’t count, -no matter what that example is. They will never issue any challenge they think science could actually answer because that might falsify their claim, and they will never accept that their position could be wrong.

However none of that changes the fact that evolution is a fact. In the only video of mine that you said would even watch under duress, I asked the question, "How could creationism not be dishonest?" From 7:55 to 9:39 of that video, I list some of the more important facts of evolution, those things we can objectively verify really are true. Since you told me your intention was to "destroy the teachings of Darwinian evolution", then which of the facts that I listed -if any- do you specifically reject, and why?

BTW the periphrial discussion of our debate can be found here.

 

[ExgamerLegends]

"Wrong. As I explained in an earlier video, there are only two things you must do in order to determine whether someone is lying; (1) show that their statement is wrong, and (2) show that they knew it to be wrong before they said it. I have done this with dozens of creationist claims already. Can you do the same with even one “evolutionist”?

As you haven't named any creationist whom we cannot show to have lied in his promotion of superstition over science, you failed the first part of the challenge"


You cannot prove that they knew the statement was wrong unless you can read their minds. As we both know you clearly can't it is impossible to tell if someone is lying unless they admit it. Or unless you put hook them up to a lie detector. You may claim to have done this with other creationists but you are wrong. You may strongly believe that they have lied but that is not the same as knowing. I have not failed the first part of your challenge because you asked me to do something that is impossible.

"In order to claim that a given statement is a lie, before you can show that the claimant knew the statement was wrong, you must first show that it actually is wrong. But all these statements are verifiably true. How then could you present any of them as lies?

So you've failed the 2nd part of the challenge too. "

Jerry Coyne admitted that evolutionists lie to religious when saying that evolution and the bible can mix. It is pretty obvious that they don't as the bible says God created the earth and everything in it in six days and evolution says the earth and all the life on it was formed of the course of billions of years. Evolutionists lie about this so that they can use religious leaders against creationists.

Haeckel's embryos is a no brainer. Not only did his drawings not accurate resemble what the actual embryos but he also claimed that the stages that he drew were all early stages when they were really mid stages of their development. He lied. I claim victory over the second part of your challenge no matter how irrelevant it is.

talkorigins(dot)org/faqs/wells/haeckel(dot)html

"The Book of Romans can neither qualify as evidence, nor even an argument, and it certainly isn’t verifiably accurate."

Actually I never said the book of Romans qualifies as evidence. My evidence was in abiogenesis. I spoke of the book of Romans to show that the scientific evidence does supports what the bible says. And it does. Remember in my youtube e-mail I told you one of my goals was to spread the truth of the gospel. Expect to see a lot of quotes from the bible in relation to scientific evidence. Also I noticed that you ranted. I specifically remember telling you I had no use or interrest in your monologue. The next time you feel the need to go on a rant...don't.

"Are you seriously saying that out of the whole of creationist apologetics, if you had to choose one argument to present as verifiably accurate, this would be it?! You've failed every part of this challenge. I'll give you another chance, but if this is the best you can do, why keep trying?"

There are many evidences of creation that I could put forth but I don't need them. No evolutionist so far has proven to me that either evolution was possible or that life can arise from non life. Once someone shows me otherwise then I'd be forced to use other arguments from creation. I have not failed any part of this challenge. You asked me to show you one creationist who's never lied when presenting information and I clearly showed it was impossible. You asked me to show you an evolutionist who's lied when presenting evolution I showed you two. Also, I linked you to a talkorigins page in this post that not only admitted Haeckel lied but also tried to brush it off as irrelevant, proving that talkorigins doesn't see anything wrong with lying to support evolution.

"Yes folks, my opponent really did say that when faced with something we cannot yet adequately explain, we just give up trying to find the real answer, because the only ‘logical’ conclusion we can make is that it must have happened by magic."

That isn't what I said at all. I'm now adding you as the third example of evolutionists who lie. My argument was that because their is no natural way for life to arise the only other way is supernatural. And that is true. In science, if the result of you test do not prove your theory, it proves the exact opposite. That's exactly what Pasteur and the others did. They proved there was no natural process that can form life from non life. But their are currently more than 6 billion examples of life only coming from life in the human genome alone. The evidence speaks for itself.

"Creationists have to argue from a position of willful ignorance. Do you seriously expect me to believe that in all your earlier debates no one ever told you the difference between the origin of life (abiogenesis) and the diversification of life (evolution)? Or that you somehow never knew the difference between abiogenesis and spontaneous generation? That's why I wanted our discussion to be in public archives; so that whomever you debate in the future will know that you already knew better than the nonsense you'll still be repeating then."

I don't need an evolutionist to tell me the difference between abiogenesis and evolution. I already know the difference. You merely assumed that I believed they were the same when no where in my post I said that abiogenesis disproves evolution. That's a strawman (lie). In the third part of your request you asked me to present scientific evidence to support creation and that's what I did. And the difference between spontaneous generation and abiogenesis is like the difference between creation and intelligent design. Two different ways of looking at the exact same idea.

"Just so you know, we've made significant progress in abiogenesis research."

In regards to your links, this is nothing new. Scientists can always form parts that are essential to life but it is far from forming life itself. And it took a lot of intelligence for them to even get that far. Even TalkOrigins admits that all those parts forming together in the way they did is highly improbable. You call these stories "significant progress"? "Forgotten Epiriment "MAY" Explain Origins of Life", Organism Sets Mutation Speed Record, "May" Explain Life's Origin, Proof that Meteors "Could Have" Sparked Life on Earth". (emphasis added). Your "significant progress" is just a bunch of just-so stories.

"You seem to be getting your fallacies confused. Creationists are the ones arguing for irreducible complexity, even after each of those arguments were exposed as false, both scientifically and in a court of law."

I know that creationists argue for IC. Not it's not a fallacy and no, not a single one of these arguments were exposed as false. Unless you'd like to prove otherwise with another link.

"Otherwise I have to wonder who you're talking about, since no one I know of “hopes for” anything in this list. Nor should we, given our understanding of how evolution works."

Dr. Koch

"Understand that evolution must adhere to the laws of phylogenetics and population mechanics. That means evolution never permits one thing to 'turn into' another fundamentally different 'kind' of thing, nor does it ever require any suite of simultaneous mutations."

Then how did all the "fundamentally different kinds" arise?

"Evolution at every level is just a series of usually superficial changes compiled atop tiers of fundamental similarities. Creationists ignore that, and that's one reason why so many of their contentions against it are so straw-men."

That's because it's not consistant with what we observe in nature. Evolutionists claim all life shares a common ancestor. By saying that and then by saying what you just said, you try to make believe that the differences between man, spiders, dogs, goats and birds are all just superficial. that is clearly absurd.

"Creationists' arguments rely on undefined terms, words like 'information' and 'kind' which have variable meanings...."

Creationist Dr. Werner Gitt in his book "In the beginning was information" defines information in three forms.

"1. Constructional/creative information: This includes all information that is used for the purpose of producing something. Before anything can be made, the originator mobilizes his intelligence, his supply of ideas, his know-how, and his inventiveness to encode his concept in a suitable way. There are many types of encoded blueprints, e.g., technical drawings for the construction of a machine, a cake recipe, details of the chemical processes for synthesizing polyvinyl chloride, an electrical circuit diagram, or the genetic information required for the construction of a living cell.
The criteria for evaluating the searched-for solution are found both in the conceptual stage (semantic aspect of the information) and in the sophistication of the implementation (pragmatics). One or more of the following catchwords characterize these criteria depending on the situation, as shown in Figure 22: underlying functional concept, degree of inventiveness, cleverness of the method of solution, achieved optimality, input strategy, brevity of construction time, applied technology, suitable programming, and degree of miniaturization (e.g., economical use of material and energy). The quality of the visible results (apobetics) can be evaluated in terms of the achieved goal, the efficiency of the input, the ingenuity of the operation, and the certainty of correct functioning (e.g., low susceptibility to interference).
2. Operational information: All concepts having the purpose of maintaining some “industry” in the widest sense of the word are included under this kind of information. Many systems require operational information in the form of programs for proper functioning. These programs are indispensable and ensure that the preconceived processes run as expected. A barrel-organ cannot function without the required cylinder, and the human body is viable only when the conceptual information is provided with all the interactions carried by the nervous system to and from the brain and all the bodily organs. The amount of information streaming through the deliberate as well as all involuntary activities of the human body is about 3 x 1024 bits per day. When this is compared with the total quantity of information stored in all the libraries of the world—1018 bits—we make an astounding discovery: The quantity of information processed in our bodies during the course of one day is one million times greater then all the knowledge represented in the books of the world.
Further examples of operational information as found in technology and in nature:
—the operating system of a computer (e.g., DOS programs),
—the program controlling a robot or a process computer,
—warning systems for airplanes and ships,
—pheromone languages of insects,
—bee dancing (see Figure 39 in appendix A2),
—the hormonal system of the body, and
—operational information in the animal kingdom, which we call “instincts” because of our lack of knowledge about their codes and methods of transfer (e.g., the navigational system of migrating birds as described in appendix A3.4.4.2).
3. Communication information: This is composed of all other kinds of information, e.g., letters, books, phone calls, radio transmissions, bird songs, and the message of the Bible. The apobetic aspect of such information does not include the construction of a product, neither is it involved in maintaining some process. The goals are transmission of a message, spreading joy, amusement, instruction, and personal confidences."

As for "Kind" I will agree that a difinitive definition eludes us. Though most creationists can easily tell one kind from another (as in the dog kind and cat kind). Generally if one kind of animal is the same kind of animal as another it should be able to reproduce. And if not it shouldn't be able to reproduce. Because humans and apes can't reproduce this shows that humans and apes are not of the same kind. Evolutionists similarly have a problem defining the term "species".

"A scientist given this challenge would likely refer to virtually any of the thousands of transposon mutations documented on Pumed since any information that is different than what was already there is -by definition- "new"."

Not if this "new" information was formed from parts that was already there. In that case your information (though its function may have changed) becomes "rearranged".

"Many of these result in novel traits as well, as I explained in my videos on the 8th and 11th foundational falsehoods of creationism. But upon hearing this, the creationist must conjure some excuse as to why that doesn’t count, -no matter what that example is."

The only excuse I know of is the one that I just said. And it's completely viable.

"However none of that changes the fact that evolution is a fact."

Since when is evolution a fact?

"From 7:55 to 9:39 of that video, I list some of the more important facts of evolution, those things we can objectively verify really are true. Since you told me your intention was to "destroy the teachings of Darwinian evolution", then which of the facts that I listed -if any- do you specifically reject, and why?"

The problem is that you consider them to be facts of evolution. I told you that a theory is not science unless it is observable, testable, and repeatable. And because evolution happened in the past, it was not observed, because it was not observed it is not amenable to scientific testing, and cannot be repeated. Because it was not observed, we are forced to place our own interpretations on the "tracks" left behind by whatever event brought us here. Everyone's interpretations are based on their own pressuppositions. These facts you point out may in some cases be facts but what these facts imply is dependent on what you already believe. You believe evolution. Therefore you fit the facts into evolution. I believe in creation. Guess how I fit the facts.

 

[Aron-Ra]

You cannot prove that they knew the statement was wrong unless you can read their minds. As we both know you clearly can't it is impossible to tell if someone is lying unless they admit it. Or unless you put hook them up to a lie detector. You may claim to have done this with other creationists but you are wrong. You may strongly believe that they have lied but that is not the same as knowing. I have not failed the first part of your challenge because you asked me to do something that is impossible.

I have shown that several creationists have lied many times over, and I did it by first showing that their statement was false, and then showing that they knew the statement was false before they said. Polygraphs don't work, and telepathy doesn't exist. So those are impossible. But when we can prove that you knew something was wrong before you said it was right, then we can prove that you're lying. I even offered you the opportunity to prove that by producing one such person whom we could not prove to be lying. You failed.

Jerry Coyne admitted that evolutionists lie to religious when saying that evolution and the bible can mix. It is pretty obvious that they don't as the bible says God created the earth and everything in it in six days and evolution says the earth and all the life on it was formed of the course of billions of years. Evolutionists lie about this so that they can use religious leaders against creationists.

How can you say they're lying if you cannot read their minds? In the quote you provided, Jerry Coyne never said -or implied- that anyone lied. He said that the number of scientists who find no conflict between religion and science is dwindling.

Haeckel's embryos is a no brainer. Not only did his drawings not accurate resemble what the actual embryos but he also claimed that the stages that he drew were all early stages when they were really mid stages of their development. He lied. I claim victory over the second part of your challenge no matter how irrelevant it is.

talkorigins(dot)org/faqs/wells/haeckel(dot)html

You should read your own sources. The article you gave me showed how Jonathan Wells lied about Haeckel. In my video on the 13th foundational falsehood of creationism, I show a few other creationists who lied about Haeckel too. He's probably the best example you'll ever find, because he is the only 'evolutionist' we know of who ever falsified data, whereas we know several creationists who have done that. But when queried about it, Haeckel admitted it. So you have creationists lying about what Haeckel had done even Haeckel himself did not.

Actually I never said the book of Romans qualifies as evidence. My evidence was in abiogenesis. I spoke of the book of Romans to show that the scientific evidence does supports what the bible says. And it does.

No it doesn't. But if that were so, then you would have been able to meet my challenge to provide a single verifiably accurate argument of evidence in your favor. You didn't even try.

Remember in my youtube e-mail I told you one of my goals was to spread the truth of the gospel. Expect to see a lot of quotes from the bible in relation to scientific evidence. Also I noticed that you ranted. I specifically remember telling you I had no use or interrest in your monologue. The next time you feel the need to go on a rant...don't.

I was only explaining why your folklore didn't qualfy as evidence of any sort. It was, -and still will be- irrelevent in this discussion.

There are many evidences of creation that I could put forth but I don't need them.

Yes you do, since the challenge was to produce even one such argument that was verifiably accurate.

No evolutionist so far has proven to me that either evolution was possible or that life can arise from non life.

As has already been explained, evolution and abiogenesis are different processes, and we have proof that you know that now. In this discussion I intend to prove evolution to your satisfaction. Then we'll re-examine abiogenesis.

Once someone shows me otherwise then I'd be forced to use other arguments from creation. I have not failed any part of this challenge.

You've failed every part of this challenge. Your evidence was also supposed to be positively indicative, not just a negative argument.

You asked me to show you one creationist who's never lied when presenting information and I clearly showed it was impossible.

No, you made that excuse to hide the fact that you know there is no creationist out there whom we can't show to rely on fraudulent claims in his arguments.

You asked me to show you an evolutionist who's lied when presenting evolution I showed you two.

You showed me one only, and that one falsified data promoting his own notion against that of the evolutionary status quo. The challenge was to find someone who lied while promoting evolution over creationism. You people like to say there's some great conspiracy of material scientists arguing fraudulent claims against supernatural pseudoscience. So who are these people? And what are these lies?

Also, I linked you to a talkorigins page in this post that not only admitted Haeckel lied but also tried to brush it off as irrelevant, proving that talkorigins doesn't see anything wrong with lying to support evolution.

In your link, Talk.Origins clearly said that "Haeckel was wrong. His theory was invalid, some of his drawings were faked, and he willfully over-interpreted the data to prop up a false thesis". Obviously they definitely do see something wrong with that.

"Yes folks, my opponent really did say that when faced with something we cannot yet adequately explain, we just give up trying to find the real answer, because the only ‘logical’ conclusion we can make is that it must have happened by magic."

That isn't what I said at all. I'm now adding you as the third example of evolutionists who lie. My argument was that because their is no natural way for life to arise the only other way is supernatural. And that is true.

So you are saying that anytime we don't yet have a scientific explanation, we should just give up and assume that it happened by magic.

In science, if the result of you test do not prove your theory, it proves the exact opposite.

Wrong. Having data that does not support the theory is not the same as having data that disproves the theory, and no data is ever permitted to 'prove' a theory.

That's exactly what Pasteur and the others did. They proved there was no natural process that can form life from non life.

No, once again, Pasteur disproved the mystical notion of spontaneous generation, not the scientific hypothesis of abiogenesis. He did not show that there was no natural way for this to happen. He disproved a supernatural explanation.

But their are currently more than 6 billion examples of life only coming from life in the human genome alone. The evidence speaks for itself.

Yes, the evidence speaks for itself, and it says that creationism is wrong. 6 billion apes, many of whom are living in denial.

I don't need an evolutionist to tell me the difference between abiogenesis and evolution. I already know the difference. You merely assumed that I believed they were the same when no where in my post I said that abiogenesis disproves evolution. That's a strawman (lie).

So now that you've seen the definitions of both abiogenesis and spontaneous generation, and must now be wilfully associating two notions you now know to be unrelated, I can now prove that you kow that your argument is a strawman, which by your own definition counts as a lie.

In the third part of your request you asked me to present scientific evidence to support creation and that's what I did. And the difference between spontaneous generation and abiogenesis is like the difference between creation and intelligent design. Two different ways of looking at the exact same idea.

So by your logic, disproving Lamarckian evolution would also disprove Darwinian evolution? Disproving Newtonian gravity would also disprove relativity? Because spontaneous generation is not looking at any of the same things as abiogenesis is.

In regards to your links, this is nothing new. Scientists can always form parts that are essential to life but it is far from forming life itself. And it took a lot of intelligence for them to even get that far.

It took intelligence to figure out how this could happen, but it didn't take any intelligence at all for it to actually occur.

Even TalkOrigins admits that all those parts forming together in the way they did is highly improbable. You call these stories "significant progress"? "Forgotten Epiriment "MAY" Explain Origins of Life", Organism Sets Mutation Speed Record, "May" Explain Life's Origin,

Proof that Meteors "Could Have" Sparked Life on Earth". (emphasis added). Your "significant progress" is just a bunch of just-so stories.

In order to test a potential explanation, you must first propose one. A testable hypothesis in no way resembles the "just so stories" we find riddled throughout religion. Would you prefer that we lie as you do, and assert as fact that which hasn't yet been verified?

I know that creationists argue for IC. Not it's not a fallacy and no, not a single one of these arguments were exposed as false. Unless you'd like to prove otherwise with another link.

I see no need to link you to the findings of Kitzmiller v Dover, when we both know what happened there.

Otherwise I have to wonder who you're talking about, since no one I know of “hopes for” anything in this list. Nor should we, given our understanding of how evolution works.

Dr. Koch

Once again, once you understand how evolution works, and how science works, then you'll understand why your reservations are invalid.

1. Constructional/creative information: (snipped)
2. Operational information: (snipped)
3. Communication information: (snipped)

I gave specific examples which your definition was supposed to address. (1) Creationists have claimed that it takes more 'information' to make a bird than it does a dinosaur, (despite the fact that birds are dinosaurs) and (2) that breeding dogs from wolves constitutes a loss of 'information' regardless what breed we're talking about. Since these creationists weren't honest enough to say that this "may" be so, but instead asserted their blind speculation as a matter of fact, then explain to me how we verify whether they can honestly make either claim.

any information that is different than what was already there is -by definition- "new".

Not if this "new" information was formed from parts that was already there. In that case your information (though its function may have changed) becomes "rearranged".

So you reject -by definitional fiat- that new words may be created if they are made out of letters that are already there? Because otherwise a new combination or construct of codons from the four chemical 'letters' of DNA still counts as "new" information.

Since when is evolution a fact?

Since it is directly observeable, testable, experimentally demonstrable, and otherwise verifiable.

which of the facts that I listed -if any- do you specifically reject, and why?

The problem is that you consider them to be facts of evolution.

Because each of those points are objectively demonstrable and verifiably accurate.

I told you that a theory is not science unless it is observable, testable, and repeatable.

And evolution is all of the above. It would be so much easier if you were to just watch my videos. Then I wouldn't have to explain these to you:

Fact = a point of data that is either not in dispute, or which is verifiably accurate.

Law = a statement which is always true under specific circumstances.

Hypothesis = a testable and potentially falsifiable explanation of facts/laws.

Theory = a unifying framework accounting for all facts, laws, and hypotheses in a specified body of knowledge

And because evolution happened in the past, it was not observed, because it was not observed it is not amenable to scientific testing, and cannot be repeated.

Sometimes it can. But even when it can't, it can still tested and confirmed.

Because it was not observed, we are forced to place our own interpretations on the "tracks" left behind by whatever event brought us here. Everyone's interpretations are based on their own pressuppositions.

Again, wrong. Evolution was determined by the evidence, even against the "presuppositions" of those seeking some other answer.

These facts you point out may in some cases be facts but what these facts imply is dependent on what you already believe. You believe evolution. Therefore you fit the facts into evolution. I believe in creation. Guess how I fit the facts.

My guess is you don't.

So since after two chances, you still weren't able to satisfy any of the other challenges put forth in this discussion, and you failed the other attempt at two more, I doubt I'll get an answer for these either. But out of fairness, I will give you another chance.

(1). Which of the facts that I listed -if any- do you specifically reject, and why? (If you don't list any, then I must assume that you accept them all).

(2). Name one time in the history of science when assuming a supernatural explanation has ever improved our understanding of anything. I'll bet you can't even name one time when assuming supernatural explanations didn't actually hinder that process. (Just because you snipped and ignored this question doesn't mean it's invalid).

As taxonomy is of particular interest to me, I've chosen to deal with those questions in a post exclusive to that topic.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Then how did all the "fundamentally different kinds" arise?

Obviously through successive tiers of common ancestry

it's not consistant with what we observe in nature.

Of course it is. As I explained in the 10th FFoC) taxonomy and zoology reveal at every level a series of usually superficial changes compiled atop teirs of fundamental similarities.

Evolutionists claim all life shares a common ancestor. By saying that and then by saying what you just said, you try to make believe that the differences between man, spiders, dogs, goats and birds are all just superficial. that is clearly absurd.

Men, dogs, and goats are all mammals. Mammals and birds are all tetrapods. But even widely separated groups like tetrapoidal vertebrates and chelicerate arthropods like spiders are both bilateral coelomate animals, right?

As for "Kind" I will agree that a difinitive definition eludes us. Though most creationists can easily tell one kind from another (as in the dog kind and cat kind).

No you can't. Take the "cattle kind" for example:

What is the difference between the "cattle kind" and the "beast kind"? How can they be different "kinds"?

Another good example is Genesis 7:14.
Is a "kind" the same thing as a "sort"?
How many "kinds" of birds are there?
Why aren't they all referred to as the bird "kind"?
Which "kind" are dinosaurs?

Are all species of ducks related to each other?
Are all ducks also related to geese and other Anseriformes?
Are Anseriformes related to Galliforms and other neognaths?
Are neognaths [modern birds] related to paleognaths [primitive Struthioformes]?
Are any extant birds related to Hesperornis, Ichthyornis and/or other Euornithes?
Are Euornithes related to Confusiousornis or Archeopteryx?
Are Aves related to Dromaeosaurs and/or other non-avian dinosaurs?

Generally if one kind of animal is the same kind of animal as another it should be able to reproduce. And if not it shouldn't be able to reproduce.

So it is just as I said in the 10th FFoC; Creationists do typically define "kind" as a 'species'. But how does that work when you find that you can't cross-bread lions with lynxes, leopards with cougars, or tigers with cheetahs? You can't really breed lions with tigers either, but at least you can get inviable hybrids from them, a fact which can only be explained by evolutionary phylogeny, and which creationism doesn't even try to account for.

Because humans and apes can't reproduce this shows that humans and apes are not of the same kind.

Except that (1) chimpanzees and gorillas are both apes, right? Even though they can't interbreed? (2) There is a real possibility that humans and chimps can interbreed. And (3) it is a verifiable fact that humans are a subset of the superfamily, Hominoidea, which means we're still apes whether we can interbreed with other ape species or not.

Evolutionists similarly have a problem defining the term "species".

Not where sexually-reproductive animals are concerned. Then our criteria are vastly more consistent than yours ever could be.

If evolution from common ancestry is not true, and some flavor of special creation of different (as yet unidentified "kinds") is true, then there would be some surface level(s) in a cladogram where you would accept an actual evolutionary ancestry. But there must also be subsequent levels in that twin-nested hierarchy where life-forms would no longer be the same "kind", and wouldn't be biologically related anymore. At that point, they would be magically created separate "kinds" from those listed around it, and they would only be in those categories "in the mind of man", as your associates put it. Throw away any ideas you have about the importance of any other argument you might be thinking about. None of them compare to this. If creationism is true of anything more than a single ancestor of all living things, or if the concept of common ancestry is fundamentally mistaken, then there MUST be a point in the tree where taxonomy falls apart, where what we see as related to everything is really unrelated to anything else. And unless you're a Scientologist or a Raelian, that criteria must apply to other animals besides ourselves. So my challenge to you is this, open up Google.com and investigate any cladograms you can find, (I suggest the Tree of Life pages as they are peer-reviewed) and find for me where that mystic division is in any or all of the following sets of questions below.

Is the short-tailed goanna related to the Perentie and all other Australian goannas?
Are all Australian goannas related to each other and to the other monitor lizards of Indonesia and Africa?
Are today's varanids related to the giant goannas of Australia's past?
Are terrestrial monitors related to the mosasaurs of the Cretaceous?
Are Varanoids related to any other Anguimorphs including snakes?
Are any Anguimorphs also related to scincomorphs and geckos?
Are all Scleroglossa also related to iguanids and other squamates?
Are all of squamata related to each other and all other lepidosaurs?
Are all lepidosaurs related to placodonts and plesiosaurs?
Are Lepidosauromorphs related to archosaurs and other diapsids?
Are all diapsids related to anapsids, or synapsid "reptiles" like dimetrodon?
Are all reptiles related to each other and all other amniotes?
Are all amniotes related to each other and to all other tetrapods?
Are all tetrapods related to each other and to all other vertebrates?
........and so on.

Which of these are related? Which of these are created? Remember, if there is any validity to Creationism whatsoever, or if there is some critical flaw in the overall Theory of evolution from common ancestry, that flaw MUST be found here or it simply can't be anywhere else!

 

[RichardT]

As for "Kind" I will agree that a difinitive definition eludes us. Though most creationists can easily tell one kind from another (as in the dog kind and cat kind). Generally if one kind of animal is the same kind of animal as another it should be able to reproduce. And if not it shouldn't be able to reproduce. Because humans and apes can't reproduce this shows that humans and apes are not of the same kind.

Don't back down from this statement then. Don't in the next reply state that if one "kind" of animal is no longer able to reproduce with it's own "kind" that it is still the same "kind". You have specifically defined kinds here as scientists would define species. Speciation has in many instances been observed, it follows that one "kind" of animal has changed to another "kind". Therefore, your statement that no kind has changed to another kind is false, based on your own definition.

Observed Instances of Speciation

 

[ExgamerLegends]

"I have shown that several creationists have lied many times over, and I did it by first showing that their statement was false, and then showing that they knew the statement was false before they said. Polygraphs don't work, and telepathy doesn't exist. So those are impossible. But when we can prove that you knew something was wrong before you said it was right, then we can prove that you're lying. I even offered you the opportunity to prove that by producing one such person whom we could not prove to be lying. You failed."

Can't prove someone knew something was false before they aid it. I have not failed. Your request was simply ridiculous.

"How can you say they're lying if you cannot read their minds? In the quote you provided, Jerry Coyne never said -or implied- that anyone lied. He said that the number of scientists who find no conflict between religion and science is dwindling."

Actually yes he did. If you read the quote he clearly says that evolutionists lie to religious leaders so that evolutionists could use them against creationists. They lie by saying there is no conflict between creation and evolution. You can twist it all you like but he's clearly admitting to lying here.

"You should read your own sources. The article you gave me showed how Jonathan Wells lied about Haeckel."

I know exactly what the article talked about. You merely chose to focus on the part where the author accused Jonathan Wells of lying. The author also clearly states that Haeckel lied AND that lying for evolution was okay.

"In my video on the 13th foundational falsehood of creationism, I show a few other creationists who lied about Haeckel too."

I highly doubt your interpretations of these creationist's statements is valid.

"He's probably the best example you'll ever find, because he is the only 'evolutionist' we know of who ever falsified data,"

Wait... so now you're admitting he lied? Well, I guess that means I win the second part of your challenge. And no he's not the only evolutionists who's ever falsified data.

"whereas we know several creationists who have done that."

Show me.

"But when queried about it, Haeckel admitted it. So you have creationists lying about what Haeckel had done even Haeckel himself did not."

He still lied.

"No it doesn't. But if that were so, then you would have been able to meet my challenge to provide a single verifiably accurate argument of evidence in your favor. You didn't even try."

Yes it does. And what do you mean by "You didn't even try"? I clearly spoke of two evidences for creation. Or did you reply to absolutely nothing?

"I was only explaining why your folklore didn't qualfy as evidence of any sort. It was, -and still will be- irrelevent in this discussion."

No, you viciously attacked the bible in an immature rant.

"Yes you do, since the challenge was to produce even one such argument that was verifiably accurate."

I provided two. If you can accurately debunk them then I'll use others.

"As has already been explained, evolution and abiogenesis are different processes, and we have proof that you know that now. In this discussion I intend to prove evolution to your satisfaction. Then we'll re-examine abiogenesis."

And as I have already explained, I never said evolution and abiogenesis were the same. I feel you'll have an extremely hard time proving evolution.

"You've failed every part of this challenge. Your evidence was also supposed to be positively indicative, not just a negative argument."

I have given you what you asked for. You on the other hand have not shown one single evidence of mutations adding new genetic information.

"No, you made that excuse to hide the fact that you know there is no creationist out there whom we can't show to rely on fraudulent claims in his arguments."

I know of no creationist who relies on fraudulent claims. Show me one.

"You showed me one only, and that one falsified data promoting his own notion against that of the evolutionary status quo. The challenge was to find someone who lied while promoting evolution over creationism. You people like to say there's some great conspiracy of material scientists arguing fraudulent claims against supernatural pseudoscience. So who are these people? And what are these lies?"

By arguing for evolution Haekel IS promoting it over creation. He lied, you admitted it. I win. Every evolutionist argues fraudulent claims. You being number one as I've clearly shown.

"In your link, Talk.Origins clearly said that "Haeckel was wrong. His theory was invalid, some of his drawings were faked, and he willfully over-interpreted the data to prop up a false thesis". Obviously they definitely do see something wrong with that."

After they admitted it they dismissed it as being irrelevant. Clearly showing that lying for Darwin is ok with them.

"So you are saying that anytime we don't yet have a scientific explanation, we should just give up and assume that it happened by magic."

What's all this "don't yet have"? That implied you believe your theory before the evidence. That's not science. What we do have is more than 6 billion examples of life only rising from life in the human genome alone. That shows that life can only rise from life. If life could rise from non life we most certainly should have observed it in nature. If it is not observed then it is not science.

"Wrong. Having data that does not support the theory is not the same as having data that disproves the theory, and no data is ever permitted to 'prove' a theory."

In operational science it does.

"No, once again, Pasteur disproved the mystical notion of spontaneous generation, not the scientific hypothesis of abiogenesis. He did not show that there was no natural way for this to happen. He disproved a supernatural explanation."

That is clearly not true. Spontaneous generation and supernatural explanation are two completely opposite ideas. You can't say he dismissed one and the other. Pasteur was also a christian.

"Yes, the evidence speaks for itself, and it says that creationism is wrong. 6 billion apes, many of whom are living in denial."

Merely making a statement means nothing. You haven't shown creation to be wrong.

"So now that you've seen the definitions of both abiogenesis and spontaneous generation, and must now be wilfully associating two notions you now know to be unrelated, I can now prove that you kow that your argument is a strawman, which by your own definition counts as a lie."

The two notions are not unrelated. Both are ideas about how life can form from non life. Thank you for once again proving evolutionists often lie.

"So by your logic, disproving Lamarckian evolution would also disprove Darwinian evolution? Disproving Newtonian gravity would also disprove relativity? Because spontaneous generation is not looking at any of the same things as abiogenesis is."

Yes it is. Both spontaneous evolution and abiogenesis are ideas about how life can rise from non life.

"It took intelligence to figure out how this could happen, but it didn't take any intelligence at all for it to actually occur."

The right atmosphere had to be made the right elements had to be present and they had to form in a precise way. That takes lots of intelligence.

"In order to test a potential explanation, you must first propose one. A testable hypothesis in no way resembles the "just so stories" we find riddled throughout religion. Would you prefer that we lie as you do, and assert as fact that which hasn't yet been verified?

I have not lied but you have lied many times in your posts as I have pointed out. Also I find it funny how you say "Would you prefer that we...assert as fact that which hasn't been verified" Yet in your last post you called evolution a fact. Evolution is perhaps the most unverified hypothesis in science history.

"I see no need to link you to the findings of Kitzmiller v Dover, when we both know what happened there."

I don't know what happened there. I did not read the scripts of the trial. Nor do I know who was involved or who started what. And as I stated in my youtube message, I do not care.

"Once again, once you understand how evolution works, and how science works, then you'll understand why your reservations are invalid."

I know how science and evolution works. But it's good to see you use both those terms seperately.

"I gave specific examples which your definition was supposed to address. (1) Creationists have claimed that it takes more 'information' to make a bird than it does a dinosaur, (despite the fact that birds are dinosaurs)"

I don't know any creationist that makes that claim. And birds are not dinosaurs.

"and (2) that breeding dogs from wolves constitutes a loss of 'information' regardless what breed we're talking about."

What are you talking about? I haven't heard of that claim either.

"Since these creationists weren't honest enough to say that this "may" be so, but instead asserted their blind speculation as a matter of fact, then explain to me how we verify whether they can honestly make either claim."

You blindly state things are fact all the time so don't go pointing fingers. I've never heard of those claims but I will look them up.

"So you reject -by definitional fiat- that new words may be created if they are made out of letters that are already there? Because otherwise a new combination or construct of codons from the four chemical 'letters' of DNA still counts as "new" information."

Yes I do. New words aren't formed by rearranging letters in old words. Different words are. By changing the combination in chemical 'letters' you created a different 'word' but lose the old one. That cannot progress evolution.

"Since it is directly observeable, testable, experimentally demonstrable, and otherwise verifiable."

Again you make claims without backing them up. I already explained to you that evolution was not observed, is not testable, or repeatable. Because this process supposedly happened in the past it cannot be experimentally demonstrable either. Therefore it is not verifiable.

"And evolution is all of the above. It would be so much easier if you were to just watch my videos. Then I wouldn't have to explain these to you:"

In your videos I'm sure you had citations. Give me the citations. I already told you I'm not watching your videos and I explained why.

"Sometimes it can. But even when it can't, it can still tested and confirmed."

No it can't. See how easy it is to just make a statement?

"Again, wrong. Evolution was determined by the evidence, even against the "presuppositions" of those seeking some other answer."

Lies.

"So since after two chances, you still weren't able to satisfy any of the other challenges put forth in this discussion, and you failed the other attempt at two more, I doubt I'll get an answer for these either. But out of fairness, I will give you another chance."

I'm not having this discussion with you again. I already told you I have answered all three of your challenges. If you aren't satisfied it's because you don't want to be satisfied. You however have not shown me one example of a mutation adding new genetic information.

"Of course it is. As I explained in the 10th FFoC) taxonomy and zoology reveal at every level a series of usually superficial changes compiled atop teirs of fundamental similarities."

And you still cite your own videos for this.

"Men, dogs, and goats are all mammals. Mammals and birds are all tetrapods. But even widely separated groups like tetrapoidal vertebrates and chelicerate arthropods like spiders are both bilateral coelomate animals, right?"

You call that a superficial difference? If all that's just a superficial difference then there is no reason why a monkey can't give birth to a human or vis versa. Yet you'll claim that would disprove evolution. Why? It's only a superficial difference. Oh brother.

"No you can't. Take the "cattle kind" for example:..What is the difference between the "cattle kind" and the "beast kind"? How can they be different "kinds"?"

What the heck is a beast kind?

"Another good example is Genesis 7:14."

Oh now I see what you meant by beast kind. You misinterpreted that verse. It's not defining a "beast" so to speak as a kind. It's saying that all beasts will reproduce after their kinds. Beasts being animals of labor. Same for cattle. Cattle are animals that provide food.

"Is a "kind" the same thing as a "sort"?"

No. A sort is a variation within the kinds.

"How many "kinds" of birds are there? "

1

"Why aren't they all referred to as the bird "kind""

Don't know that either. But we're getting off track. I asked you to show me an example of mutations adding new genetic information.

"Which "kind" are dinosaurs?"

I'm sure they were a part of many kinds. Show me an example of mutations adding new genetic information.

"Are all species of ducks related to each other?
Are all ducks also related to geese and other Anseriformes?
Are Anseriformes related to Galliforms and other neognaths?
Are neognaths [modern birds] related to paleognaths [primitive Struthioformes]?
Are any extant birds related to Hesperornis, Ichthyornis and/or other Euornithes?
Are Euornithes related to Confusiousornis or Archeopteryx?
Are Aves related to Dromaeosaurs and/or other non-avian dinosaurs?
Is the short-tailed goanna related to the Perentie and all other Australian goannas?
Are all Australian goannas related to each other and to the other monitor lizards of Indonesia and Africa?
Are today's varanids related to the giant goannas of Australia's past?
Are terrestrial monitors related to the mosasaurs of the Cretaceous?
Are Varanoids related to any other Anguimorphs including snakes?
Are any Anguimorphs also related to scincomorphs and geckos?
Are all Scleroglossa also related to iguanids and other squamates?
Are all of squamata related to each other and all other lepidosaurs?
Are all lepidosaurs related to placodonts and plesiosaurs?
Are Lepidosauromorphs related to archosaurs and other diapsids?
Are all diapsids related to anapsids, or synapsid "reptiles" like dimetrodon?
Are all reptiles related to each other and all other amniotes?
Are all amniotes related to each other and to all other tetrapods?
Are all tetrapods related to each other and to all other vertebrates?
........and so on."

You've gone completely off track. Answer my question.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Can't prove someone knew something was false before they aid it.

Yes you can. In a moment, I'll show you how.

I have not failed. Your request was simply ridiculous.

You still haven't produced one "evolutionist" who lied in the promotion of evolution over creationism, nor one creationist who didn't lie in the promotion of supernatural creationism over material science. Your inability to do either one implies that science has rigorous standards of credibility where creationism has no accountability.

In the quote you provided, Jerry Coyne never said -or implied- that anyone lied.

Actually yes he did. If you read the quote he clearly says that evolutionists lie to religious leaders so that evolutionists could use them against creationists. They lie by saying there is no conflict between creation and evolution. You can twist it all you like but he's clearly admitting to lying here.

No, he's very clearly stating an evident truth. You could verify this for yourself if you'd just check the peanut gallery of non-participant comments on this very discussion. There one of your fellow Christians argues against your many errors, holding to the same fact as all theistic evolutionists who are still the majority among Christians world-wide. All the world's leading religious scientists have found a peace between science and their interpretation of scripture. World-famous paleontologist and Pentacostal preacher, Rev. Robert Bakker said that "to treat the Bible as though it were common history is to degrade its eternal meaning". Geneticist and traditional Catholic, Dr. Ken Miller said that in the broadest sense, he believes in an eternal creator, but not in a deceptive one, meaning one who would lay out all this evidence in the genome to fool us into thinking evolution happened. While it is true evolution and the Bible really can mix, creationists, including those behind the Discovery Institute want to create the illusion that one cannot be a Christian and still accept science. Fortunately this is only a prevalent issue in the United States, as I have several European fans who are Christian and lament American creationists. You see, the problem with creationism is that it is a means to it's own end, and it may end Christianity right along with it, because it polarizes people into either rejecting science or, (far more often these days) rejecting religion. This is Coyne lamented that so many once-religious scientists are losing their faith. I know of several like this, including RichardT who commented on this very thread. Two or three years ago, he and I had the same conversation you and I are having now.

You merely chose to focus on the part where the author accused Jonathan Wells of lying. The author also clearly states that Haeckel lied AND that lying for evolution was okay.

Show me the quote where the article said (1) that lying was OK, (2) if one is lying for Darwin, and (3) that Haeckel was lying for Darwin, rather than promoting his brand of embryology.

In my video on the 13th foundational falsehood of creationism, I show a few other creationists who lied about Haeckel too.

I highly doubt your interpretations of these creationist's statements is valid.

Not even about JudgingPBS.com said? They said that "Darwin staked much of his evidential support on the 19th century embryologist, Ernst Haeckel". That's quite a trick since Haeckel hadn't even picked up his pencil until years after Darwin had already published his theory.

Wait... so now you're admitting he lied?

A half dozen out of a hundred drawings were deliberately enhanced according to his own bias, and that's close enough. But at least he admitted it, which makes him more honest than creationists.

Well, I guess that means I win the second part of your challenge.

Except that the challenge was to show an evolutionist lying in the promotion of evolution over creationism. Haeckel's drawings weren't done for that. As I said in the 14th foundational falsehood of creationism, "[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]while we can cite dozens of examples where politically-influential creationists clearly know they’re lying about science, there is no such instance wherein evolutionary scientists can be shown to be dishonest in their criticisms of creationism". [/FONT]

And no he's not the only evolutionists who's ever falsified data.

OK, who else then? Did anyone ever do so in an attempt to promote evolution over creationism?

we know several creationists who have done that.

Show me.

OK, some of Carl Baugh's Paluxy "man-tracks" were found to be fraudulent carvings. Ron Wyatt presented fraudulent artifacts from his alleged find of Noah's ark. Dr. Juan Cabrera actually paid native artists to etch several stone renderings of dinosaurs and hypertech gadgets which he then artificially aged and presented as evidence of creation. And that's to say nothing of the myriad blatant misrepresentations of contrived mathematic improbabilities.

I know of no creationist who relies on fraudulent claims. Show me one.

First answer the challenge to show me one who does not.

By arguing for evolution Haekel IS promoting it over creation.

Again, Haeckel wasn't arguing for evolution over any other option. He was arguing for his own pet notion of embryology over that which had already been proposed by Von Baer, the actual source of Darwin's inspirations on embryology.

Every evolutionist argues fraudulent claims. You being number one as I've clearly shown.

I doubt you've ever shown anything clearly, and certainly not this. Now name one fraudulent claim I have ever presented.

I have not lied but you have lied many times in your posts as I have pointed out.

I haven't lied once, and you still can't point out one.

Also I find it funny how you say "Would you prefer that we...assert as fact that which hasn't been verified" Yet in your last post you called evolution a fact. Evolution is perhaps the most unverified hypothesis in science history.

Except that is observable, demonstrable, and in many ways testable, and you obviously have no idea what you're even talking about.

(1) Creationists have claimed that it takes more 'information' to make a bird than it does a dinosaur, (despite the fact that birds are dinosaurs)

I don't know any creationist that makes that claim.

Dr. Jonathan Sarfati did.

And birds are not dinosaurs.

Yes they are, and this is easy enough to prove. How would you identify whether any animal was a dinosaur or not? Because there is not one trait common to all birds that is not also present in certain lines of theropod dinosaurs.

"and (2) that breeding dogs from wolves constitutes a loss of 'information' regardless what breed we're talking about.

What are you talking about? I haven't heard of that claim either.

Thank Kent Hovind for that one, but he's not the only one to use it.

Evolution was determined by the evidence, even against the "presuppositions" of those seeking some other answer.

Lies.

No sir, we're talking about clear history now. The geologic column, for example, was discovered by those who meant to find evidence of Noah's flood instead. The discoveries of deep time, the age of the earth, and thermodynamics are of similar origin. Look them up.

So despite having to repeat my questions to you several times each, you still haven't named one "evolutionist" who lied in the act of promoting evolution over creationism, the way creationists always do when trying to promote supernatural creationism over any natural science they deem threatening. Nor have you named one creationist who did not lie for his own side in the same context. But you have thrown out a slough of false accusations you can't possibly back up, and you've set a series of double-standards wherein you can pretend to know when evolutionists are lying but say it is impossible to prove when creationists are lying, because THAT would only be possible with a confession or telepathy or something like that. I wonder why none of the rules ever apply to your side?

 

[Aron-Ra]

I spoke of the book of Romans to show that the scientific evidence does supports what the bible says. And it does.

No it doesn't.

Yes it does.

No it doesn't. If it did, you'd be able to say what that evidence is. But it seems you've refused to answer my challenge to produce even one argument of evidence which is both verifiably accurate and positively indicative of supernatural creation over any material science.

what do you mean by "You didn't even try"? I clearly spoke of two evidences for creation. Or did you reply to absolutely nothing?

By your own admission, you provided none. You mentioned what you considered to be a lack of evidence for abiogenesis -as if lacking a natural explanation permits superstitious substitutes. Even if it did, yours still wouldn't be the default position, sorry.

But you also rendered any issue you might have with abiogenesis as irrelevant when you admitted that you know that it and evolution are definitely different things.

You also mentioned a particular segment of your favorite story book, but later said that you were not presenting that as evidence. So by your own admission, you haven't presented any evidence at all.

you viciously attacked the bible in an immature rant.

I wouldn't call that a 'viscious' attack. I thought it was inappropriately polite.

I have given you what you asked for. You on the other hand have not shown one single evidence of mutations adding new genetic information.

Yes I did, but you said already that you either refuse to look at it, or have already dismissed it by definitional fiat.

So you are saying that anytime we don't yet have a scientific explanation, we should just give up and assume that it happened by magic.

What's all this "don't yet have"? That implied you believe your theory before the evidence. That's not science.

When we didn't yet have a scientific explanation for lightning, disease, epilepsy, volcanos, or comets, did we "already believe" theories we didn't yet even have? We already know life-forms evolve. Darwin was simply the first to adequately explain that.

If it is not observed then it is not science.

And what we observe is a long list of strong indications that all life on earth was once microbial, and that there was a point long ago when there was no life on earth at all.

Wrong. Having data that does not support the theory is not the same as having data that disproves the theory, and no data is ever permitted to 'prove' a theory.

In operational science it does.

Alright, prove atomic theory then. Or the theory of gravity. Prove ANY theory. Let's see how far the 'operational' scientific community let's you get with that.

Spontaneous generation and supernatural explanation are two completely opposite ideas. You can't say he dismissed one and the other.

Yes I can, because, (as I already explained) Spontaneous generation was dependant on the theory of vitalism, a supernatural notion which has also been disproved.

Pasteur was also a christian.

Historically most evolutionary scientists were Christian too, and a great many of the leading ones still are. We don't really know if Pasteur was an evolutionist or not. He apparently wasn't too fond of Darwin. But that may be because Lamarckism was the dominant notion at the time.

You haven't shown creation to be wrong.

Haven't I? The challenge was for you to produce one thing about creationism which we can show is actually right. So far you haven't even tried yet.

So now that you've seen the definitions of both abiogenesis and spontaneous generation, and must now be wilfully associating two notions you now know to be unrelated, I can now prove that you kow that your argument is a strawman, which by your own definition counts as a lie.

The two notions are not unrelated. Both are ideas about how life can form from non life. Thank you for once again proving evolutionists often lie.

What did I lie about? By their very definition, they're entirely different; one is an intricate sequence of chemical stages from a prior matrix, and the other is ...spontaneous.

Spontaneous generation: (proposed by Anaximander in the 6th century BCE, and disproved in a series of of experiments from 1668 to 1861) is the idea that fermentation and putrefaction activates a latent 'vitalism' in all matter, thus recycling organic refuse (garbage) into new forms of already complex [albeit vile] organisms from virus and bacteria all the way to fully-formed animals such as flies and even rats.

Abiogenesis: Propoosed by Rudolph Virchow in 1855, and coined by Thomas Huxley in 1870; the current hypothesis replacing spontaneous generation as an explanation of the origin of life, proposing that developtment of life requires a prior matrix, thus an intricate sequence of chemical stages must have enhanced naturally occuring replicative proteins enabling the development of genetic precursers in protobiont cells which would then begin to evolve.

Disproving vitalism does not disprove the prior matrix.

spontaneous generation is not looking at any of the same things as abiogenesis is.

Yes it is. Both spontaneous evolution and abiogenesis are ideas about how life can rise from non life.

Tectonic theory and expanding planet theory are both attempting to explain the movement and fit of continental plates. Both of these explanations cannot be right at the same time. The same thing applies here.

The right atmosphere had to be made the right elements had to be present and they had to form in a precise way. That takes lots of intelligence.

But given an appropriate environment expected of the pre-biotic earth, RNA assembled itself without any intelligence at all.

“They’re doing it unwittingly.
The instructions for them to do it are inherent
in the structure of the precursor materials.
And if they can self-assemble so easily,
perhaps they shouldn’t be viewed as complicated.”
-Prof. John Sutherland, organic chemistry, University of Manchester
​

Yes, the evidence speaks for itself, and it says that creationism is wrong. 6 billion apes, many of whom are living in denial.

Merely making a statement means nothing.

It does when I can prove that the statement is correct, and I can prove that humans are apes as easily as I can prove that lions are cats.

You haven't shown creation to be wrong.

The challenge was for you to show even one aspect of it that was actually right.

You blindly state things are fact all the time so don't go pointing fingers.

I never state anything 'blindly'; only those things I can actually prove are factual.

So you reject -by definitional fiat- that new words may be created if they are made out of letters that are already there? Because otherwise a new combination or construct of codons from the four chemical 'letters' of DNA still counts as "new" information.

Yes I do. New words aren't formed by rearranging letters in old words. Different words are. By changing the combination in chemical 'letters' you created a different 'word' but lose the old one. That cannot progress evolution.

Then you have deliberately created an impossible standard, and you built that out of a straw-man. Yes, if you add an E to "spin", then "spine" becomes a new word. Likewise, if you take away the S, "pine" would be the new word.

Again you make claims without backing them up. I already explained to you that evolution was not observed, is not testable, or repeatable. Because this process supposedly happened in the past it cannot be experimentally demonstrable either. Therefore it is not verifiable.

And to prove you wrong about that, I have already challenged you to point out which of the evolutionary facts I previously listed which you think aren't verifiable, and why you reject them.

I know how science and evolution works. But it's good to see you use both those terms seperately.

I use the words, "Christian" and "religion" separately too, for the same reason. Christianity isn't the only religion, and evolution isn't the only science.

I already told you I have answered all three of your challenges. If you aren't satisfied it's because you don't want to be satisfied. You however have not shown me one example of a mutation adding new genetic information.

You've already admitted that you've set an impossible standard -and that it is based on a straw-man. You've also already claimed to have debunked a few popular examples which no one has ever debunked. You're already aware of some examples that fit the definitions you've already provided. So if you're not satisfied it's because you don't want to be satisfied. Don't project your faults onto me, because I don't have that problem.

But rather than argue that all over again, or give you my own list, the real trick here is to get you to be accountable, to set a standard which evolution actually requires, and which you will still accept. Because it is all too easy to make up some excuse to say "So? That doesn't prove anything" -no matter what might ever be presented.

So not only have you STILL not provided one honest apologist for creationism, nor anyone on the side of evolution who uses the dishonest tactics all creation "scientists" do, but you also failed the challenge to produce any actual evidence of creationism, and you failed to note even one time in the history of science when assuming supernatural explanations improved our understanding of anything instead of actually impeding all progress, which is all it ever really does. You haven't even accepted the relatively simple challenge just to identify precisely which facts of evolution you specifically deny and why. All you have done was reveal your own impressive bias and embarrass those few observers of this thread who are still Christian.

 

[Aron-Ra]

As I explained in the 10th FFoC) taxonomy and zoology reveal at every level a series of usually superficial changes compiled atop teirs of fundamental similarities.

And you still cite your own videos for this.

Although taxonomy is the very best proof of evolution, it is a topic which -sadly- not very many people understand.

"Men, dogs, and goats are all mammals. Mammals and birds are all tetrapods. But even widely separated groups like tetrapoidal vertebrates and chelicerate arthropods like spiders are both bilateral coelomate animals, right?

You call that a superficial difference?

No, I don't. But I can show it as proof that your notion of distinct "kinds" doesn't exist.

If all that's just a superficial difference then there is no reason why a monkey can't give birth to a human or vis versa.

Actually humans are a subset of Old World monkeys too.

Beasts being animals of labor. Same for cattle. Cattle are animals that provide food.

You said you could clearly distinquish between "kinds" and I gave you this link to prove you could not.


Go ahead, click it and tell me which is or is not "cattle" and how you determine that.

How many "kinds" of birds are there?

1

Apparently not, since you can't address any of the phylogenetic clades listed below:

Are all species of ducks related to each other?
Are all ducks also related to geese and other Anseriformes?
Are Anseriformes related to Galliforms and other neognaths?
Are neognaths [modern birds] related to paleognaths [primitive Struthioformes]?
Are any extant birds related to Hesperornis, Ichthyornis and/or other Euornithes?
Are Euornithes related to Confusiousornis or Archeopteryx?
Are Aves related to Dromaeosaurs and/or other non-avian dinosaurs?


Is the short-tailed goanna related to the Perentie and all other Australian goannas?
Are all Australian goannas related to each other and to the other monitor lizards of Indonesia and Africa?
Are today's varanids related to the giant goannas of Australia's past?
Are terrestrial monitors related to the mosasaurs of the Cretaceous?
Are Varanoids related to any other Anguimorphs including snakes?
Are any Anguimorphs also related to scincomorphs and geckos?
Are all Scleroglossa also related to iguanids and other squamates?
Are all of squamata related to each other and all other lepidosaurs?
Are all lepidosaurs related to placodonts and plesiosaurs?
Are Lepidosauromorphs related to archosaurs and other diapsids?
Are all diapsids related to anapsids, or synapsid "reptiles" like dimetrodon?
Are all reptiles related to each other and all other amniotes?
Are all amniotes related to each other and to all other tetrapods?
Are all tetrapods related to each other and to all other vertebrates?
........and so on."

You've gone completely off track.

No sir. While it seems that evolution neither needs nor suffers the frauds which creationists depend upon, and while there is no value in assuming supernatural explanations to cover for their lack of any evidence against all the facts of evolution, this remains a critically important question. Remember, if there is any validity to Creationism whatsoever, or if there is some critical flaw in the overall Theory of evolution from common ancestry, that flaw MUST be found here or it simply can't be anywhere else!

 

[ExgamerLegends]

Okay, so I pretty much figured your response would be something along these lines. I'm not gonna go and rebuttal point by point this time. You've asked me to present one creationist who's never lied when presenting creation which is a ridiculous request. Not that creationists have to lie about anything but even if they did knowing that their intent was to lie rather than just saying something that turned out not to be true is impossible. You will continue to disagree with this but I really don't care. It's an irrelevant topic anyway. You've asked me to show you one evolutionist who has lied when presenting evolution and I showed you two. You dismissed them as not counting simply because "they admitted it", which is also irrelevant because they LIED. You've asked for evidence of creation and I gave you two out of the vast arguments for creation and you also said those don't count simply because you say so. The irony here is that you accused Michael Behe of doing the exact same thing. I have given you solid answers for all of your requests but the one thing I ask you for you refuse to even acknowledge. I have asked you numerous times to provide ANY example of mutations adding new genetic information. But instead of answering my request you say things like creationists rely on undefined terms like "information". I gave you a definition of information and you still refuse my request. Instead you go on off topic subjects like the differences in "kinds" in an attempt to avoid my challenge. Your incompetence is truly deserving of an award. So I'm going to ask you one last time to provide me with any example mutations adding new genetic information. If not then you have shown that evolution is not possible.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Okay, so I pretty much figured your response would be something along these lines.

What choice did you give me?

You've asked me to present one creationist who's never lied when presenting creation which is a ridiculous request.

That's true only because we both already know you could never answer that question.

Not that creationists have to lie about anything

Then why do they? Why do they all always? Why do they never do otherwise?

but even if they did knowing that their intent was to lie rather than just saying something that turned out not to be true is impossible.

Yet you confidently accused Jerry Coyne, Eugenie Scott, and myself of lying even when each of our comments were verifiably correct and statistically accurate. That's quite a double standard you have! You said it is impossible to know if a creationist is lying unless he either admits it or we subject him to a polygraph (which doesn't work, by the way). Yet you say you can determine whether 'evolutionists' lie simply by whether your opinion is different from theirs. But the fact remains that if their statement is true then there's no way you can call it a lie.

As I said in my video series on the foundational falsehoods of creationism, "there has never been a credible proponent of creation science anywhere ever, because, (with one crackpot exception) everyone who has ever published anti-evolutionary rhetoric to any medium did so only according to a prior religious agenda rather than any amount of scientific comprehension. They’ve all revealed inexcusable ignorance in the very fields where they claim expertise, and their arguments are all dependant on erroneous assumptions, prejudicial bias, logical fallacies, ridiculous parody, misdefined terms, misquoted authorities, distorted data, fraudulent figures, or out-and-out lies."

To prove the point, I challenged you to Name a single creationist who did NOT lie when arguing for creationism over evolution or the rest of natural science. Your answer was still predictably evasive and dishonest even though you refused to list a single name.

You will continue to disagree with this but I really don't care. It's an irrelevant topic anyway.

After a thousand or so debates like this, it is obvious that you would consider truth irrelevant whenever or wherever it contradicts your preconceived notions. That is the purpose of faith, to make believe regardless of the truth or even in spite of it.

You've asked me to show you one evolutionist who has lied when presenting evolution and I showed you two. You dismissed them as not counting simply because "they admitted it", which is also irrelevant because they LIED.

Jerry Coyne didn't admit to lying because he didn't lie. Your absurdly narrow interpretation of scripture is an almost exclusively American phenomenon. If evolution were evidence against Christianity, I would use it as such. But I can't because it's not, because most Christians world-wide are 'evolutionists' and most evolutionists are also Christians.

Haeckel was an "evolutionist", and he did effectively lie, but not in the promotion of evolution over creationism, and that was one of the particulars of the challenge.

In my video series, I said that "while we can cite dozens of examples where politically-influential creationists clearly know they’re
lying about science, there is no such instance wherein evolutionary scientists can be shown to be dishonest in their criticisms of creationism".

To prove that, I challenged you to name an evolutionary scientist who lied in the act of promoting evolution against creationism. You didn't. Instead you presented a few who didn't lie about anything, and another who did lie, but not against creationism. He was arguing against other 'evolutionists' on the topic of embryology.

You've asked for evidence of creation and I gave you two out of the vast arguments for creation and you also said those don't count simply because you say so.

Wrong again, as always. In the FFoC series, I said, "antievolutionist arguments are withheld from peer-review because they are driven entirely by frauds including misstatements, out-of-context quote-mining, and contrived or distorted falsehoods, and terms erroneously redefined into instigative reactionary nonsense unintelligible as anything other than propaganda.
....Thus, there are only two types of arguments for creationism; those which are untestable, indistinguishable from the delusions of imagination, and can neither be indicated nor vindicated, verified or disproved, and those which have already been disproved many times over, both scientifically and in a court of law."

To prove that, I challenged you to produce a single verifiably accurate argument of evidence indicative of miraculous creation over biological evolution or any other avenue of actual science. You failed to answer this one either.

Instead of a 'positively indicative' argument, you gave me a negative argument, your criticism of abiogenesis. Worse, that was based on a strawman association between it and the completely distinct and unrelated notion of spontaneous generation. Even then, you negated your own argument with the admission that you knew that evolution is separate from, and independent of, abiogenesis. But even if that were not so, creationism still wouldn't be the default position even if it had not already been disproved. Yes it has. We know there was no flood. We know there was no tower of Babel, and we know that people predated any of the myths you subscribe to.

Which brings me to your second exhibit, the fallacy of the assumed conclusion presented in your citation of your favorite folklore: I asked you for evidence that your scriptures were correct, and you gave me ...your scriptures. A circular argument that "the book is right because the book says so" -is another logical fallacy which obviously cannot be considered evidence.

Neither can we say that if we don't yet have a scientific explanation, we should just give up and assume that it happened by magic. To prove that, I asked you to name one time in the history of science when assuming supernatural explanations ever improved our understanding of anything -instead of actually impeding all progress, as has apparently always been the case. You never answered this one either; You just snipped and ignored it each time it was asked.

Understand that evidence can be defined as a set of factual circumstances which support, indicate, or align with only one available scenario over any other. Your attempt failed every criteria of that definition.

The irony here is that you accused Michael Behe of doing the exact same thing.

No I didn't. I accused of the same thing you are doing. I do not have any doctrinal obligation like you do. The scientific perspective forbids it.

I have given you solid answers for all of your requests

No you haven't, and even other Christians on this forum are posting that you haven't.

but the one thing I ask you for you refuse to even acknowledge. I have asked you numerous times to provide ANY example of mutations adding new genetic information. But instead of answering my request you say things like creationists rely on undefined terms like "information". I gave you a definition of information and you still refuse my request.

Because you don't adhere to those definitions. You then added your own criteria refusing to accept any variance in genetic information as "new" if it came in the form of any possible sort of mutation. You actually said that you wouldn't accept it if it was a codon constructed of adenine, guanine, cytosine, or thymine. You said it had to be something else, something that can't even be part of any DNA structure. And you clarified this point by saying that it one cannot create new words in the English language if they only use letters from the Roman alphabet. I would say that your incompetence is truly deserving of an award, but among creationists, the competition is stiff!

Instead you go on off topic subjects like the differences in "kinds" in an attempt to avoid my challenge.

I'm not avoiding anything; you are. Although few people are familiar with it, phylogenetic taxonomy is the most damning evidence against creationist nonsense. It's inarguable. That's why you have to change the subject every time I bring it up.

So I'm going to ask you one last time to provide me with any example mutations adding new genetic information.

Before I list any of the things you're asking for, you and I both know that you're already determined to reject whatever I show you -even if I produce exactly what you think you should expect. I don't want you moving the goal posts when you see that I've met your demands. So before I do, do you understand that "new" genetic information can only be in the form of recombinations of the four chemical 'letters' in the genome that are "already there". Do you accept this?

Also, before I answer your demand, I'll need you to clarify your position by answering each of Metherion's questions related to "new genetic information" posted in the peanut gallery.

I've copied them for you here:

Okay, so, which definition are we going for? And I want you to explain why each of the following cannot be considered “new information”.

Take the string ABCDEFG.

Addition: ABCDZEFG. Deletion: ABDEFG. Transposition: ACBDEFG. Duplication: ABCDEFGBCDEFG. I’m sure the biologists can add more. At least the addition should be new information.

So for it to be new it has to be miracled into existence from nothing? How are straight up addition mutations that add nucleotides that weren’t there in the first place not ‘new information?’

Now, depending on how we interpret your words, the two possible meanings that spring out are:
There must be completely new parts (i.e. Not GTCA), which would mean an entire new base pairing that has never been seen and has no reason to ever evolve or even be there, which isn’t predicted one bit.

OR

There must be a change so what results is not what was there before. I.e. GTCA->GTTCA. Or GTCA->GCTA. Or GTCA->GCA (yes, a deletion is a change).

Now, Aron-Ra stated

"Because otherwise a new combination or construct of codons from the four chemical 'letters' of DNA still counts as "new" information."
​

GTTCA from GTCA is a new construct. GCTA is a change. Aron-Ra may not have said ‘addition, transposition, deletion’ but a new combination or construct of codons involves the above, or some other mutation, and since mutations deal with the DNA code, yes. He did.

However, you also stated

"New words aren't formed by rearranging letters in old words. Different words are. By changing the combination in chemical 'letters' you created a different 'word' but lose the old one. That cannot progress evolution."
​

Which would indicate you meant the first option, that a new base pair would have to form. Otherwise, EVERYTHING is a rearrangement of what is already there, because everything is SOME arrangement of ACTG.

And by the way... if it is different than the one before... isn’t it new? After all, it wasn’t there before, and it just formed. How is that not ‘new’?

Which has more information?
GTCA
GTTCA
GCA
GCTA

And, if GTCA is the ‘original’, are any of the 3 following ‘new’?

Answer our question, and then I will respond to this statement. Because if you say ‘none of the above are new information’ it is obvious that nothing that can happen will satisfy your definition because your definition is flawed as is your understanding of the whole kit and kaboodle.



If not then you have shown that evolution is not possible.

Even if I were to fail to meet your challenge, you're forgetting that it is a fact that evolution happens; that biodiversity and complexity do increase, that both occur naturally only by evolutionary mechanisms and according to the laws of population genetics. It is a fact that alleles vary with increasing distinction in reproductive populations and that these are accelerated in genetically isolated groups. It is a fact that natural selection, sexual selection, and genetic drift have all been proven to have predictable effect in guiding this variance, both in scientific literature and in practical application. It is a fact that significant beneficial mutations do occur and are inherited by descendant groups, and that multiple independent sets of biological markers do exist which trace these lineages backwards over many generations. It is a fact that birds are a subset of dinosaurs in the same way that humans are a subset of apes, primates, eutherian mammals, and vertebrate deuterostome animals. It is a fact that the collective genome of all animals has been traced to its most basal form through reverse-sequencing, and that those forms are also indicated by comparative morphology, physiology, and embryological development, as well as through chronologically correct placement of successive stages revealed in the geologic column. It is a fact that everything on earth has definite relatives either living nearby or evident in the fossil record, and that the fossil record holds hundreds of definitely transitional species even according to the strictest definition of that term. It is a fact that both microevolution and macroevolution have been directly-observed and documented dozens of times, both in the lab and in naturally-controlled conditions in the field, and that these instances have all withstood critical analysis in peer-review. It is also a fact that evolution is the only explanation of biodiversity with either evidentiary support or scientific validity, and that no would-be alternate notion has ever met even one of the criteria required of a theory.

Which (if any) of the objectively verifiable facts of evolution [already listed] do you reject? And why?

 

[ExgamerLegends]

"That's true only because we both already know you could never answer that question."

I could give you many creationists who're honest when presenting creation, including Andrew Snelling, Werner Gitt, and the AiG staff but inevitably you would've misinterpreted one of their statements to make it a lie.

"Then why do they? Why do they all always? Why do they never do otherwise?"

That statement is false.

"Yet you confidently accused Jerry Coyne, Eugenie Scott, and myself of lying even when each of our comments were verifiably correct and statistically accurate. That's quite a double standard you have!"

Jerry Coyne and Scott both admitted to lying which as i've stated is the only way to know. You said they didn't count because they admitted it and their work supports evolution. "That's quite a double standard you have!"

"You said it is impossible to know if a creationist is lying unless he either admits it or we subject him to a polygraph (which doesn't work, by the way). Yet you say you can determine whether 'evolutionists' lie simply by whether your opinion is different from theirs. But the fact remains that if their statement is true then there's no way you can call it a lie."

I clearly determined they lied because they admitted it. Stop lying.

"Jerry Coyne didn't admit to lying because he didn't lie."

He admitted to evolutionist organizations lying.

"Your absurdly narrow interpretation of scripture is an almost exclusively American phenomenon."

I interpret scripture within it's context. Anything else is absurd.

"If evolution were evidence against Christianity, I would use it as such. But I can't because it's not, because most Christians world-wide are 'evolutionists' and most evolutionists are also Christians."

Majoritarian arguments are fallacies.

"Haeckel was an "evolutionist", and he did effectively lie, but not in the promotion of evolution over creationism, and that was one of the particulars of the challenge."

promoting evolution is denying creation.

"In my video series, I said..."

stop right there cuz i dont care whats in your vids.

"Wrong again, as always. In the FFoC series, I said, "antievolutionist arguments are withheld from peer-review because they are driven entirely by frauds including misstatements, out-of-context quote-mining, and contrived or distorted falsehoods, and terms erroneously redefined into instigative reactionary nonsense unintelligible as anything other than propaganda."

how is anti-abiogenesis the same as antievolution? we both know theyre not the same. by saying anything antievolution is "driven entirely by frauds including misstatements, out-of-context quote-mining, and contrived or distorted falsehoods, and terms erroneously redefined into instigative reactionary nonsense unintelligible as anything other than propaganda." you uphold evolution as infallibe, thus making it non science. and youself narrow minded.

"....Thus, there are only two types of arguments for creationism; those which are untestable, indistinguishable from the delusions of imagination, and can neither be indicated nor vindicated, verified or disproved, and those which have already been disproved many times over, both scientifically and in a court of law."

not true

"To prove that, I challenged you to produce a single verifiably accurate argument of evidence indicative of miraculous creation over biological evolution or any other avenue of actual science. You failed to answer this one either. "

I gave two examples.

"Instead of a 'positively indicative' argument, you gave me a negative argument, your criticism of abiogenesis."

I didnt critcize abiogenesis. I argued that because it was impossible,life had to arise by supernatural processes. Unless you show one example of abiogenesis my argument still stands.

"Even then, you negated your own argument with the admission that you knew that evolution is separate from, and independent of, abiogenesis."

how does that negate my argument? the challenge was to give evidence for creation not against evolution and that is precisely what the research of abiogenesis is. i never once said abiogenesis disproves evolution. you either misread my statement or you are lying again.

"Yes it has. We know there was no flood. We know there was no tower of Babel, and we know that people predated any of the myths you subscribe to.

that was a pretty random statement. and completely not true. stick to the topic at hand.

"Which brings me to your second exhibit, the fallacy of the assumed conclusion presented in your citation of your favorite folklore: I asked you for evidence that your scriptures were correct, and you gave me ...your scriptures. A circular argument that "the book is right because the book says so" -is another logical fallacy which obviously cannot be considered evidence. "

you never once asked me for that nor did i ever tell you the bible was true simply because it says so. that is a complete lie and everyone watching knows.

"Neither can we say that if we don't yet have a scientific explanation, we should just give up and assume that it happened by magic. To prove that, I asked you to name one time in the history of science when assuming supernatural explanations ever improved our understanding of anything -instead of actually impeding all progress, as has apparently always been the case. You never answered this one either; You just snipped and ignored it each time it was asked."

yes i did ignore it. you had not yet answered my only request before you start demanding more challenges. but if i makes you stop whining the RATE team has made considerable breakthroughs in radiometric dating.

"Because you don't adhere to those definitions. You then added your own criteria refusing to accept any variance in genetic information as "new" if it came in the form of any possible sort of mutation."

that is another lie. i added no new criteria that was not implied in the definition.

"I'm not avoiding anything; you are. Although few people are familiar with it, phylogenetic taxonomy is the most damning evidence against creationist nonsense. It's inarguable. That's why you have to change the subject every time I bring it up."

you mean change the subject of new genetic information? your requests about different kinds and taxonomy all spawned from my single request. you have avoided the question numerous times by changing the topic.

"Before I list any of the things you're asking for, you and I both know that you're already determined to reject whatever I show you -even if I produce exactly what you think you should expect. I don't want you moving the goal posts when you see that I've met your demands. So before I do, do you understand that "new" genetic information can only be in the form of recombinations of the four chemical 'letters' in the genome that are "already there". Do you accept this?"

i accept that genetic information can only be expressed in 4 chemical "letters"

"Also, before I answer your demand, I'll need you to clarify your position by answering each of Metherion's questions related to "new genetic information"..."

who is he and why do i care?

"Okay, so, which definition are we going for? And I want you to explain why each of the following cannot be considered “new information”...."

there are 5 levels of information and each level is a prerequisite for the next.

statistic, syntax, semantics, progmatics & apobetics. all of these are required for something to be considered information. because apobetics is required you need to also define the source that the information comes from. if there is no source then there is no purpose and thus it is not information. Also this new information must not violate the 30 theorems of information.

 

[ExgamerLegends]

"Even if I were to fail to meet your challenge, you're forgetting that it is a fact that evolution happens;"

depends on how you define evolution. Microevolution (though i hate the term used because it is a misnomer) happens. But your theory states that large scale changes (macroevolution) happens. There has not been 1 real time documentation of an animal eventually producing offspring that was something different of its original kind.

"that biodiversity and complexity do increase,"

Not in the scale of macroevolution.

"that both occur naturally only by evolutionary mechanisms and according to the laws of population genetics."

claiming them to be "evolutionary mechanisms" is a false paradigm. Mutations and Natural selection are natural mechanisms, not evolutionary mechanisms.

"It is a fact that alleles vary with increasing distinction in reproductive populations and that these are accelerated in genetically isolated groups."

Thats not evolution.

"It is a fact that natural selection, sexual selection, and genetic drift have all been proven to have predictable effect in guiding this variance, both in scientific literature and in practical application."

It has not been shown that any of these processes will eventually change one animal into a different kind of animal.

"It is a fact that both microevolution and macroevolution have been directly-observed and documented dozens of times, both in the lab and in naturally-controlled conditions in the field, and that these instances have all withstood critical analysis in peer-review."

This one I'm highly interresting in seeing. Start with this one. I want a direct link to the article that states this. Not to one of your vids.

 

[Aron-Ra]

"Even if I were to fail to meet your challenge, you're forgetting that it is a fact that evolution happens;"

depends on how you define evolution. Microevolution (though i hate the term used because it is a misnomer) happens. But your theory states that large scale changes (macroevolution) happens. There has not been 1 real time documentation of an animal eventually producing offspring that was something different of its original kind.

Yes, we have actually observed and documented the emergence of dozens of new species.

While you are obviously using a contrived strawman definition, I am using the accepted scientific definition as verified in the reference to Berkeley University's "Evolution 101". You'll find their site also explains that microevolution is variation within species, while macroevolution includes the observed variation known to occur between species. Each of the mechanisms positively identified in either case (they're the same process) had previously been proposed specifically and exclusively for evolution. So it is no false paradigm like your strawmen demand. This is especially true in the cases of Natural Selection and mutations.

It is a fact that alleles vary with increasing distinction in reproductive populations and that these are accelerated in genetically isolated groups.

Thats not evolution.

Funny, that's exactly how many science sources DEFINE evolution!

It has not been shown that any of these processes will eventually change one animal into a different kind of animal.

There is no such thing as a "kind". But evolution must adhere to the laws of population mechanics and phylogenetics. That means that even if one becomes a different species, it is still impossible for any descended species to evolve out of its own ancestry. It will still always belong to all the same parent clades as its ancestors did.

It is a fact that both microevolution and macroevolution have been directly-observed and documented dozens of times, both in the lab and in naturally-controlled conditions in the field, and that these instances have all withstood critical analysis in peer-review.

This one I'm highly interresting in seeing. Start with this one. I want a direct link to the article that states this. Not to one of your vids.

All of that is listed in my videos, but since you don't like learning the easy way, fine. Learn the hard way. Look up and compare the four different types of macroevolutionary events we've so far observed.

Yeah, I'll bet you're thinking "but that doesn't mean spiders turning into camels or plants turning into people". Yeah, that's because you've been lied to your whole life and consequently have no idea what any of these evolutionary concepts even are.

 

[Aron-Ra]

I could give you many creationists who're honest when presenting creation, including Andrew Snelling, Werner Gitt, and the AiG staff but inevitably you would've misinterpreted one of their statements to make it a lie.

Coincidentally, the last debate I had on this board focused on the dishonesty of Andrew Snelling vs that of the AiG staff -where both contradicted each other in different articles each lying about acanthostega. I mean we are talking about the same guy who submitted geology reports to two different publications simultaneously dating a rock formation in the billions of years old -while in the other rag, claiming that the earth was only 6,000 years old where all geology was stained by the flood. And AiG's publications of willfully deceitful bigoted tract publications was the catalyst that first pulled me into these debates. They actually said that all Hindus secretly worship the Christian devil!

As for Gitt, apart from the inter-contradictory special pleading definitions, I've never heard of him, but I'll test my prediction. Show me any argument he uses to promote creationism over natural science. It will either be an untestable assumption, blind speculation asserted as fact without any supportive evidence whatsoever, or if it is testable, then it will be a misrepresentation, and I can show you where he is definitely wrong. Because as I said there has never been a single verifiably accurate argument of supernatural creationism over biological evolution or any other avenue of actual science.

The statements you quoted from Jerry Coyne and Eugenie Scott were both verifiably true, and neither count as an "admission" of anything.

He admitted to evolutionist organizations lying.

How? And about what? What is the lie? How did he "admit" to it?

promoting evolution is denying creation.

Promoting ANY science denies creationism. But Haeckel still wasn't arguing against creationism.

how is anti-abiogenesis the same as antievolution?

Exactly my point. You said abiogenesis was the same thing as spontaneous generation, and you cited a refutation of spontaneous generation as though it were evidence against evolution, which you then assumed must default to support creationism, which of course it cannot and does not. Science isn't infallible. Nor is it so narrow-minded that it would stoop to tactics such as you keep trying to use.

....Thus, there are only two types of arguments for creationism; those which are untestable, indistinguishable from the delusions of imagination, and can neither be indicated nor vindicated, verified or disproved, and those which have already been disproved many times over, both scientifically and in a court of law.

not true

Fine. Show me an exception to that rule. Produce a single verifiably accurate argument of evidence indicative of miraculous creation over biological evolution or any other avenue of actual science. Because you still haven't shown one which you can show to be either (a) positively indicative or (b) verifiably accurate.

I didnt critcize abiogenesis. I argued that because it was impossible,life had to arise by supernatural processes.

Abiogenesis is an evident certainty. We KNOW it happened. Even you believe it happened. It's certainly not impossible for it to have happened naturally, and we're getting closer to figuring that out than you even want to know. But miracles are impossible by definition. Supernatural assertions literally defy everything we know about anything at all.

Unless you show one example of abiogenesis my argument still stands.

You don't have an argument. You still can't even tell the difference between abiogenesis and spontaneous generation!

the challenge was to give evidence for creation not against evolution and that is precisely what the research of abiogenesis is.

Wait, what? How could either the success or failure of abiogenesis research positively indicate a magical creation?

Yes it has. We know there was no flood. We know there was no tower of Babel, and we know that people predated any of the myths you subscribe to.

that was a pretty random statement. and completely not true. stick to the topic at hand.

It wasn't random, and it was all true. The first week in a geology or anthropology class should teach you that.

you never once asked me for that nor did i ever tell you the bible was true simply because it says so. that is a complete lie and everyone watching knows.

Apparently you don't bother reading anyone's comments in other threads referring to this one.

I asked you to name one time in the history of science when assuming supernatural explanations ever improved our understanding of anything -instead of actually impeding all progress, as has apparently always been the case. You never answered this one either; You just snipped and ignored it each time it was asked.

yes i did ignore it. you had not yet answered my only request before you start demanding more challenges. but if i makes you stop whining the RATE team has made considerable breakthroughs in radiometric dating.

Who are the RATE team? What supernatural belief did they assume? And how did this improve our understanding of anything?

Because you don't adhere to those definitions. You then added your own criteria refusing to accept any variance in genetic information as "new" if it came in the form of any possible sort of mutation.

that is another lie. i added no new criteria that was not implied in the definition.

You're lying almost constantly now. Don't you remember when you admitted that you reject -by definitional fiat- that new words may be created if they are made out of letters that are already there? You even said that new words aren't formed by rearranging letters in old words. Different words are.

you mean change the subject of new genetic information? your requests about different kinds and taxonomy all spawned from my single request. you have avoided the question numerous times by changing the topic.

Since you have demonstrated that you will not ever admit your own errors, no matter how obvious, it becomes necessary to abandon the strategy of trying to explain anything to you. That only works with honest people. Instead, I have to force into inquiry, to get you to name the parameters yourself. However, you've already shown that you will still lie even when you're contradict your own comments.

i accept that genetic information can only be expressed in 4 chemical "letters"

Excellent. Now (and this is critically important to my point) I need to see how you answer Metherion's questions related to "new genetic information.

who is he and why do i care?

Once again, he is a Christian who has been posting comments about our discussion in another thread called the "peanut gallery".
http://www.christianforums.com/t7424653/

He is one of the many proofs that Jerry Coyne wasn't lying, but that you were -when you assumed that "every observer" agrees with you. Indeed, I don't know of any who do. But I can show you a few who don't!

Answer his questions on his thread, and based on your answers there, I might have just one more set of clarifying questions before I present proof of new genetic information arising by mutation. But in the meantime, I'm taking the family out of town for the week-end.

 

[ExgamerLegends]

"Yes, we have actually observed and documented the emergence of dozens of new species."

Species being the undefined term evolutionists use. Claiming something to be a new species when you can't even properly define the term is a fallacy.

"While you are obviously using a contrived strawman definition, I am using the accepted scientific definition as verified in the reference to Berkeley University's "Evolution 101"."

I haven't read it though I'm sure you're talking about the "change in gene allele frequency" definition, which is highly oversimplified and thus is another fallacy.

"Funny, that's exactly how many science sources DEFINE evolution!"

They should get a proper definition then.

"There is no such thing as a "kind". But evolution must adhere to the laws of population mechanics and phylogenetics. That means that even if one becomes a different species, it is still impossible for any descended species to evolve out of its own ancestry. It will still always belong to all the same parent clades as its ancestors did."

Then Macroevolution is impossible.

"All of that is listed in my videos, but since you don't like learning the easy way, fine. Learn the hard way. Look up and compare the four different types of macroevolutionary events we've so far observed."

I can read an article faster than I can sit through your videos. In my view, citations are "the easy way". Besides, you already know how I feel about people citing their own youtube videos as a source. If you don't have a degree in any relevant field of the discussion you shouldn't do it.

"Yeah, I'll bet you're thinking "but that doesn't mean spiders turning into camels or plants turning into people". Yeah, that's because you've been lied to your whole life and consequently have no idea what any of these evolutionary concepts even are."

You bet wrong. And in our youtube e-mails I asked you not to comment on my life. Seeing as how you never knew me before this debate got started you know nothing about my "whole life". This also counts as monologue, which I also asked you not to do. It's rude and presumptuously arrogant and I would hate for this debate to turn into personal attacks. Besides all of that I asked you for a link to any article claiming macroevolution being documented which you did not provide.

 

[ExgamerLegends]

"Coincidentally, the last debate I had on this board focused on the dishonesty of Andrew Snelling vs that of the AiG staff -where both contradicted each other in different articles each lying about acanthostega."

Andrew Snelling's work is actually posted on AiG. In fact when I searched for acanthostega on AiG the only article focusing on it was written by Andrew Snelling. A link would've been nice.

"I mean we are talking about the same guy who submitted geology reports to two different publications simultaneously dating a rock formation in the billions of years old -while in the other rag, claiming that the earth was only 6,000 years old where all geology was stained by the flood."

Did he actually claim that he believed the rocks were billions of years old? I'd bet not. Snelling is a well known creationists who publishes in many journals. He is very open on his opinion of radiometric dating (being that it is unreliable) and the publication printing his article more than likely knew that. And that is why I didn't want to get into this debate with you. It all boils down to your interpretation of his actions. If I were to interpret things the way you did then I could've given you many examples for part 2 of your challenge. Ken Miller would be number 1 with his "tale of two chromosomes". He confidently claimed that human chromosome 1 was a fusion of what used to be two ape chromosomes. In actuality it was more likely to be a fusion of what used to be two HUMAN chromosomes. The only reason a person would believe that is because he believed in evolution. It has been shown that chromosome fusions do not cause speciation. They happen all the time. Not that that's even the biggest thing wrong with the theory. He seemed to trying to distract the audience from the real issue. It's not about how many chromosomes you have that determine your "species" or "kind" or whatever term you want. It's about the information within them. Humans and apes both have exclusive information in our chromosomes. After claiming victory for evolution he then stated that the only argument creationists could use against his argument was "God made us that way". Now I does that mean he was lying? By the strict defintion I can't know. Maybe he was just ignorant of other relevant facts. But I could certainly interpret it that way.

"And AiG's publications of willfully deceitful bigoted tract publications was the catalyst that first pulled me into these debates. They actually said that all Hindus secretly worship the Christian devil!"

didn't find that article either. A link would be nice.

"As for Gitt, apart from the inter-contradictory special pleading definitions, I've never heard of him, but I'll test my prediction. Show me any argument he uses to promote creationism over natural science. It will either be an untestable assumption, blind speculation asserted as fact without any supportive evidence whatsoever, or if it is testable, then it will be a misrepresentation, and I can show you where he is definitely wrong. Because as I said there has never been a single verifiably accurate argument of supernatural creationism over biological evolution or any other avenue of actual science."

I mentioned Gitt in my second post here. He recently wrote a book about information. All 8 chapters are on the AiG website. I read them all in one night. His conclusion was that information can only come from a creative thought process.

"The statements you quoted from Jerry Coyne and Eugenie Scott were both verifiably true, and neither count as an "admission" of anything."

Jerry Coyne (professor of ecology)- "After all, we want our grants funded by the government, and our schoolchildren exposed to real science instead of creationism. Liberal religious people have been important allies in our struggle against creationism, and it is not pleasant to alienate them by declaring how we feel. This is why, as a tactical matter, groups such as the National Academy of Sciences claim that religion and science do not conflict. But their main evidence — the existence of religious scientists — is wearing thin as scientists grow ever more vociferous about their lack of faith."

In red Coyne admits that he does not really feel that evolution and the bible mix. In purple he admits that he lies to religious people to get them on their side. Of course he used the euphemism "tactical matter".

"Exactly my point. You said abiogenesis was the same thing as spontaneous generation,"

I said they weren't completely different notions. Both are ideas of how life can rise from non life.

"and you cited a refutation of spontaneous generation as though it were evidence against evolution,"

I cited a refutation of spontaneous generation as though it were EVIDENCE AGAINST SPONTANEOUS GENERATION. I did not once say it refutes evolution.

"which you then assumed must default to support creationism, which of course it cannot and does not."

If life cannot rise by natural means then it has to rise by supernatural means. I don't see how that is illogical.

"Science isn't infallible."

I already know this. The history of science is littered with failed expirements and overturned ideas that were once held as absolute fact. Science has been wrong countless times and is destined to be wrong again. Why anyone would put faith in it is beyond me.

"Nor is it so narrow-minded that it would stoop to tactics such as you keep trying to use."

What tactics?

"Fine. Show me an exception to that rule. Produce a single verifiably accurate argument of evidence indicative of miraculous creation over biological evolution or any other avenue of actual science. Because you still haven't shown one which you can show to be either (a) positively indicative or (b) verifiably accurate."

I showed you two (and I'm pretty sure a.) was not apart of your original request. But as I know you'll undoubtedly deny my two arguments until the end, let's take this time to introduce you to Dr. Werner Gitt. His theory states that all information must come from a creative thought process. All 8 chapters of his theory can be found on the AiG site.

"Abiogenesis is an evident certainty. We KNOW it happened."

But there is not one example of it.

"Even you believe it happened."

Maybe you're not clear on what abiogenesis is. Let's break it down. Bio means life. When you put an 'a' in front of the word it means the exact opposite of. So 'abio' means non life. Genesis means beginning. Abiogenesis literally translates into "non life beginning". Or as we would understand it in english "life beginning from non life". abiogenesis is the supposed theory of life rising from non living material. I clearly believe God gave life to every living thing (life from life).

"You don't have an argument."

I argued that life can only rise from life.

"You still can't even tell the difference between abiogenesis and spontaneous generation!"

lol says you.

"It's certainly not impossible for it to have happened naturally, and we're getting closer to figuring that out than you even want to know."

No you're not.

"But miracles are impossible by definition. Supernatural assertions literally defy everything we know about anything at all."

They are impossible according to natural law. It is also impossible by natural law for you to have an infinite amount of ancestors. But because we know that life can only rise from life natural law has contradicted itself, hence the need for a supernatural explanation.

"Apparently you don't bother reading anyone's comments in other threads referring to this one."

Had no idea they even existed. Nor do I care.

"Who are the RATE team? What supernatural belief did they assume? And how did this improve our understanding of anything?"

The RATE team (radioisotopes and the age of the earth) is a joint strike collaboration between CRS and ICR to determine why radiometric dating shows inflated ages for the earth. They obviously assume the bible's truth. Thusly they assume that all radiometric dating is unreliable. They're research has shown that the decay rate of radioactive isotopes have not always been constant. That is a problem considering that radiometric dating relies on the decay rates being constant. You can also read their research on AiG.

"You're lying almost constantly now. Don't you remember when you admitted that you reject -by definitional fiat- that new words may be created if they are made out of letters that are already there? You even said that new words aren't formed by rearranging letters in old words. Different words are."

How is that a lie?

"Since you have demonstrated that you will not ever admit your own errors, no matter how obvious, it becomes necessary to abandon the strategy of trying to explain anything to you."

Example?

"That only works with honest people. Instead, I have to force into inquiry, to get you to name the parameters yourself. However, you've already shown that you will still lie even when you're contradict your own comments."

You should really start quoting me when you think I'm lying so I can correct your misunderstanding.

"Excellent. Now (and this is critically important to my point) I need to see how you answer Metherion's questions related to "new genetic information."

Who is he and why do I care?

"Once again, he is a Christian who has been posting comments about our discussion in another thread called the "peanut gallery"."

I see...so then I don't really care.

"He is one of the many proofs that Jerry Coyne wasn't lying, but that you were -when you assumed that "every observer" agrees with you."

I never said that.

"Indeed, I don't know of any who do. But I can show you a few who don't!"

I don't care.

"Answer his questions on his thread,"

No. The title of the thread is "Response to youtube's Aronra". Not response to Metherion or anyone else. If you haven't noticed i also ignored two other people who posted on this thread. If you think Metherion has a valid argument then YOU can post them HERE. But I will not complicate this debate by spreading it to multiple threads and multiple challengers.

"and based on your answers there, I might have just one more set of clarifying questions before I present proof of new genetic information arising by mutation. But in the meantime, I'm taking the family out of town for the week-end."

Ask them here when you get back then.

 

[SLP]

delete - sorry