Is evolution science: Hovind vs Barnes 2020

[questfortruth]

Comments on videos:

1. The scary and creepy thing: yes, it is. Evolution is the direct consequence of methodological naturalism: ground making way of doing science. Thus, it is science. However, Creationism is true. True to the Existent God.

I don't have to prove creationism wrong - we have a well proven theory that already adequately describes life on earth.

Evolutionism is Science, but that does not make it true. True to God. Truthful and faithful to God.
It is a matter of the right definition:

False is all, that goes against God. False is all that is not true. Not true to God. Not truthful to God.
Thus, scientific Evolutionism is a false doctrine.

Your individual interpretation of a particular religion has zero significance to the truth of anything beyond your personal beliefs.

I am true to my God, thus, I am always saying: my God is right. And there is the law of non-contradiction. Thus, all, that is against my God is not true. Not truthful to my God. My God is the center of my reality.

What is knowledge?
Knowledge is what we know.
What means "to know"?
To know is to have knowledge.
The way out of tautology:
Knowledge is the name of God.
The spirit of knowledge is God.
Thus, the God must exist as the knowledge exists.
Thus, because God is knowledge, then the God knows all, He is Omniscient Being.
Omniscient Being knows that Omniscient Being exists, thus if one gets to know all, he gets to know God.
"Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame." 1 Corinthians 15:34

[Evolution is] Found consistent with observation to date. That's about as strong as it gets.

Not by Creationists. There are more than 50% in US - Young Earth Creationists.

https://youtu.be/U0u3-2CGOMQ

God is useless for doing science.

But science is full of delusion and lie: falsifiability criterion is not the true-ability criterion. Falsehood is not being deleted from arXiv or libraries or school books:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqLkTduzRPs

Science is anti-religious. The God of Religion is Love and Truth. Thus, Religion should have nothing in common with Science. There shall be Natural Theology as the Godly way of nature study.

there is a limit to how much it can be a delusion and lie.

If a lie is needed for passing peer-review it is easily done. My supervisor has commanded me to lie in the paper. The paper was accepted in a top journal.

2. No soul, and no free-will in the scientific community. Science is not only the source of physical destruction (it is not wise to develop atom technology on the planet, which has not solved the problem of global terrorism), but also the mental and moral downfall.

The problem with God's opponents: they are not honest ("I am Truth", says Lord; so, having "no God", they have no Truth, just the agenda of destruction) and making mistakes. Moreover, science is proud of having false things, because "Popper's falsifiability criterion" allows false and once refuted theorems and conjectures to be part of science: nobody deletes from libraries and arXiv the falsified papers. Instead of falsi-ability criterion in Heaven would be "true-ability criterion".

Obviously if God is omnipotent, omniscient and perfect then no human can ever deviate even to the tiniest extent from what God perfectly foresaw before [he] created the universe, and there's no theological freewill either. Of course, that won't apply if God is not omnipotent, omniscient, perfect ─ thought the science still will.

The people without freewill are bio-robots:
"we are just robots" (Steven Hawking, Grand Design). The robots are easy to control. "And whoever has control - has the Power!" (Gmork, Neverending Story).

Creationism and evolution need not ever be discussed together, or pitted against one another, unless one is a simpleton.

You are repeating after the Pope. Why? Because word Knowledge is defined as what the God of the human knows. One should understand God correctly. No God - no knowledge, no love, no justice, no respect - absolute nothingness.

Some Pope in the past has written the commandment to believe, that all begun with Big Bang. But he has written there, that the Big Bang can not have a naturalistic explanation: it means, that Science can not explain Big Bang very first moment. Thus, the Catholicism does not follow in full extend such part of Evolutionism, which is called the cosmic evolution.

Science is honest. It explores, describes and seeks to explain reality. If God is real then science will find [him]. not least because science is the only one looking in reality for [him].

No. The methodological naturalism does not allow them to study the supernatural realm. The science looks only for a natural way of explanation. If such is not yet found, then it says "the science has no explanation yet." If somebody says, that he has seen a miracle, then Science says, that it might be a hallucination; and if many people have seen a miracle - mass hallucination; if somebody got healed from cancer: the Placebo effect. If no explanation can be found for missing antimatter while Big Bang -- the solipsism "universe shall not exist" (YouTube, Michio Kaku), or we are looking for an explanation. No place for God while having the methodological naturalism.

the belief of a subset of people worshiping a specific god.

Believe it or not, but God is the unique name of the unique Being:

The terrorists here are believers.

The false believers. No religion teaches to murder people.

 

[Altfish]

Hovind = the most debunked creationist idiot in history.

 

[exchemist]

Hovind = the most debunked creationist idiot in history.

.....and jailbird, having been done for tax evasion.

 

[sun rise]

And some Christians just can't accept the theological "God is who; evolution is how" stance.

 

[Altfish]

.....and jailbird, having been done for tax evasion.

Even his son has disowned him and stolen his business

 

[Altfish]

Comments on videos:

1. The scary and creepy thing: yes, it is. Evolution is the direct consequence of methodological naturalism: ground making way of doing science. Thus, it is science. However, Creationism is true. True to the Existent God./QUOTE]
Science just follows the evidence and describes what it finds.

2. No soul, and no free-will in the scientific community. Science is not only the source of physical destruction (it is not wise to develop atom technology on the planet, which has not solved the problem of global terrorism), but also the mental and moral downfall./QUOTE]
You are mixing 'science' with 'applied science' - is the inventor of the wheel responsible for all motor vehicle deaths? Thus Rutherford is in no way responsible for atom bombs.

The problem with God's opponents: they are not honest ("I am Truth", says Lord; so, having "no God", they have no Truth, just the agenda of destruction) and making mistakes.

I don't believe in god, so how can I be her opponent? I am honest, I tell it as how I see it. I don't lie about it.
I will change my opinion if provided with more/better evidence - what can be more honest than that.

 

[ecco]

1. The scary and creepy thing: yes, it is. Evolution is the direct consequence of methodological naturalism: ground making way of doing science. Thus, it is science.

Yes, it is. That is neither scary nor creepy.

However, Creationism is true. True to the Existent God.

No, it isn't true. It is nothing more than the belief of a subset of people worshiping a specific god.

 

[questfortruth]

And some Christians just can't accept the theological "God is who; evolution is how" stance.

Moreover, science is proud of having false things, because "Popper's falsifiability criterion" allows false and once refuted theorems and conjectures to be part of science: nobody deletes from libraries and arXiv the falsified papers. Instead of falsi-ability criterion in Heaven would be "true-ability criterion".

 

[Father Heathen]

The theory of evolution and the concept of god are not mutually exclusive.

Belief in a literal interpretation of a creation myth is not a prerequisite for belief in a god.

 

[Cooky]

Creationism and evolution need not ever be discussed together, or pitted against one another, unless one is a simpleton.

 

[Cooky]

Yes, it is. That is neither scary nor creepy.

No it's not... How do you figure that evolution is "science"..?

...Evolution is knowledge.

 

[Cooky]

Hovind = the most debunked creationist idiot in history.

Your caring about proving creationism wrong, is a waste of your own time. A fool's errand.

 

[Father Heathen]

No it's not... How do you figure that evolution is "science"..?

...Evolution is knowledge.

Science is defined as the pursuit and application of knowledge.

 

[Cooky]

Science is defined as the pursuit and application of knowledge.

If that were true, then history, math, philosophy, cooking classes, sports statistics, rules to chess, etc., would all be considered science. So, no.

Science is a "method" for coming to conclusions... Science was *used* to discover evolution, but evolution itself is not science.

 

[blü 2]

Comments on videos:

The kindest way to deal with Kent Hovind is to regard him as a sad nutjob ─ albeit a destructive one, as crusading creationist very usually are.

And to be fair his genes are not of the intellectual kind. A page or two of his "PATRIOT UNIVERSITY DISSERTATION FOR DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN CHRISTIAN EDUCATION" will quickly make the point.

Otherwise he's just a self-important deeply foolish and inept tax dodger who's been nailed several times and done time according to law and due process; and a court some time ago ruled he'd also been a liar under oath (backing the findings with evidence), not a particularly honorable credential at any time but looking even shabbier for a minister of religion.

Creationism is true. True to the Existent God.

I don't think that statement is tenable at any level. What definition of "true" are you using?

2. No soul, and no free-will in the scientific community.

Obviously if God is omnipotent, omniscient and perfect then no human can ever deviate even to the tiniest extent from what God perfectly foresaw before [he] created the universe, and there's no theological freewill either. Of course, that won't apply if God is not omnipotent, omniscient, perfect ─ thought the science still will.

Science is not only the source of physical destruction (it is not wise to develop atom technology on the planet, which has not solved the problem of global terrorism), but also the mental and moral downfall.

The terrorists here are believers. By your argument we should get rid of them, not the scientists, to solve the problem.

The problem with God's opponents: they are not honest.

Science is honest. It explores, describes and seeks to explain reality. If God is real then science will find [him]. not least because science is the only one looking in reality for [him].

 

[Twilight Hue]

Comments on videos:

1. The scary and creepy thing: yes, it is. Evolution is the direct consequence of methodological naturalism: ground making way of doing science. Thus, it is science. However, Creationism is true. True to the Existent God.

2. No soul, and no free-will in the scientific community. Science is not only the source of physical destruction (it is not wise to develop atom technology on the planet, which has not solved the problem of global terrorism), but also the mental and moral downfall.

The problem with God's opponents: they are not honest ("I am Truth", says Lord; so, having "no God", they have no Truth, just the agenda of destruction) and making mistakes. Moreover, science is proud of having false things, because "Popper's falsifiability criterion" allows false and once refuted theorems and conjectures to be part of science: nobody deletes from libraries and arXiv the falsified papers. Instead of falsi-ability criterion in Heaven would be "true-ability criterion".

Listening to Hovind is pure gold comedy.

Oh I forgot....

'Dr'. Hovind.

 

[questfortruth]

Creationism and evolution need not ever be discussed together, or pitted against one another, unless one is a simpleton.

You are repeating after the Pope. Why? Because word Knowledge is defined as what the God of the human knows. One should understand God correctly. No God - no knowledge, no love, no justice, no respect - absolute nothingness.

Some Pope in the past has written the commandment to believe, that all begun with Big Bang. But he has written there, that the Big Bang can not have a naturalistic explanation: it means, that Science can not explain Big Bang very first moment. Thus, the Catholicism does not follow in full extend such part of Evolutionism, which is called the cosmic evolution.

Science is honest. It explores, describes and seeks to explain reality. If God is real then science will find [him]. not least because science is the only one looking in reality for [him].

No. The methodological naturalism does not allow them to study the supernatural realm. The science looks only for a natural way of explanation. If such is not yet found, then it says "the science has no explanation yet." If somebody says, that he has seen a miracle, then Science says, that it might be a hallucination; and if many people have seen a miracle - mass hallucination; if somebody got healed from cancer: the Placebo effect. If no explanation can be found for missing antimatter while Big Bang -- the solipsism "universe shall not exist" (YouTube, Michio Kaku), or we are looking for an explanation. No place for God while having the methodological naturalism.

the belief of a subset of people worshiping a specific god.

Believe it or not, but God is the unique name of the unique Being:

The terrorists here are believers.

The false believers. No religion teaches to murder people.

 

[questfortruth]

Obviously if God is omnipotent, omniscient and perfect then no human can ever deviate even to the tiniest extent from what God perfectly foresaw before [he] created the universe, and there's no theological freewill either. Of course, that won't apply if God is not omnipotent, omniscient, perfect ─ thought the science still will.

The people without freewill are bio-robots:
"we are just robots" (Steven Hawking, Grand Design). The robots are easy to control. "And whoever has control - has the Power!" (Gmork, Neverending Story).

 

[Altfish]

Your caring about proving creationism wrong, is a waste of your own time. A fool's errand.

I don't have to prove creationism wrong - we have a well proven theory that already adequately describes life on earth.

 

[exchemist]

I don't have to prove creationism wrong - we have a well proven theory that already adequately describes life on earth.

Er, well it is not "proven", actually. No scientific theory ever is. But there is very strong evidence in favour of most of it - apart from the bit at the very start, which remains largely a matter of conjecture at present.