Here recently I had a scientist, an atheistic evolutionist biologist debate me online, both on the channel of a theistic evolutionist, as well as on my own channel where I had made a response to a theistic evolutionist, Michael Jones of Inspiring Philosophy. You can find my response video to a video short he had made on YouTube here. As we started discussing things, I tried to promote my response on Michael Jones's channel to him, and Michael Jones deleted my comment. I placed the same comment up there three different times and Michael Jones kept deleting it, so I wasn't imagining it. Then the evolutionist, whose name was "Patrick" had sent me a response, but it was deleted by Michael Jones, but I had reserved a copy of it in my notifications. I don't know its full statement since my notification was only able to give me so much of it, and I couldn't access the full statement since Michael Jones had erased it, probably because of a statement that he made in there that my notifications caught where Peter had said that, if we got in a debate on a certain issue, that he, "would wipe the floor with me." I kind of can understand a bit why he would delete that post, but, at the time, I just took it that Patrick's ego was taking him down a wild trip down Fantasy Land, so I didn't take that as any kind of threat, although I can see why Michael Jones (which we will just refer to as IP--Inspiring Philosophy--from here for short) would delete it because of that.
What this means is that portions of our conversation is a bit broken since there are comments no longer in the comments section on either channel. Eventually we moved to my channel where our conversation was much more uninterrupted, but still, I decided to do this article on the basis of that conversation a bit differently. Instead of posting either conversation verbatim (copy & paste), I will be trying to piece together our conversations between verbatim quotations, public comments, my memory, and my notifications of deleted comments. There will be times of paraphrasing and summarizing. With my responses, although based upon my verbatim responses to him, and my memory, I will also be giving how I had and would respond to him to you, the reader, allowing for extra comments and commentary that I might've not added before. As always, my opponent in this discussion, Patrick's, comments will be in red, and mine will be in blue. I will be offering a conclusion at the end of this article in black.
Brian: I had previously made a video of a short made by IP who is a fellow Christian apologist, but a theistic evolutionist. I responded to the first comment I saw that address this video. Peter had commented on IP's line as "Chickens are dinosaurs" and then said, "That's a line to remember." I had commented to his reply to IP that chickens are not dinosaurs. In the video we were replying to, and that I had made a response video of, IP claimed that evolution didn't change the kind of animal that it is, they are still that animal, only more than that animal. I pointed out, both in my response to IP and my response to Peter, that this had a number of problems. However, the one I focused on this response was the law of identity, which is a law in logic which claims A is A but not B. Simply put, something is what it is, and not what it is not.
A chicken has all of the genetic instructions in it to make it a chicken. If it had in it the genetic instructions to make a dinosaur, it would look like a dinosaur. That's just genetics 101, and common sense 101. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, it's probably...a duck! A chair is a chair and not a couch. It has all of the defining characteristics of a chair, but not all of the defining characteristics of a couch. From its shape to its structure, it is definitionally different. I cannot, rationally, call a chair a couch, anymore than I would be rationally justified in calling a couch a chair. You can't call a chicken a "dinosaur" because that's not what it is. As we shall see Peter failed to understand either the law of identity nor did he understood logic itself.
Patrick: Can't wait to pick it apart.
Brian: Peter's first statement here was with another statement I had made concerning me making a response video to IP, which he never "picked apart" one way or the other, but we do continue to have a debate that followed this statement.
Patrick: You should have made a video about how bats are not mammals.
Brian: Here is the first time when I noticed that Peter was confused both by the law of identity, as well as the argument I was making from it. The law of identity would've been known by everyone who has ever studied logic. A is A and not B. What Peter thought was that the law of identity, as well as my argument, was "neither A nor B" but that was neither the law of identity nor my argument as I was applying the law of logic. Obvious things can have other classifications as part of a broader category, but these broader categories were not arbitrary. Calling a chicken a dinosaur or a chair a couch as a matter of labeling it without rhyme or reason (arbitrarily) would be in violation of the law of identity, because you are calling something what it is obviously not. Peter is misrepresenting my argument.
Patrick: Weird how your problem with birds is based on ignoring nested hierarchies.
Brian: What is nesting hierarchies have anything to do with calling chickens "dinosaurs", evolution, or common descent? He never does specified why he thought this with this particular statement.
Patrick: Birds are amniotes. There are only two kinds of amniotes; reptilian and mammalian.
Brian: Now Peter is committing the fallacy of division, which Dr. Jason Lisle defines as "the error of assuming that what is true of the whole is true of the parts" (Lisle, "Introduction to Logic", p. 89). Originally, I thought he was making the fallacy of composition, but these two fallacies are exact opposite from each other. It was an easy mistake to make, and easy to get these two confused, but I knew that it was one of these two fallacies. He assumed that because reptiles and birds (two very different kinds) can be classified into a larger, but common, group that made them related. It would be akin to arguing that because the United States is one of the riches countries in the world, therefore everyone who lives here is rich. In retrospect, the fact that you can classify birds, lizards, and mammals into broad categories doesn't prove that they are all related, or should be designated by other parts of this broad category.
Patrick: Are chickens, birds? Vertebrates? Animals...? Sounds like either your law of identity is incorrect or you misunderstand it.
Brian: Here, Peter continues his strawman argument, and thus, misrepresentation of my argument. Within his misrepresentation he used a valid form of division that is not considered an error (Lisle, p. 89) whereby you correctly classified specific animals into these large groups, but these broad categories weren't arbitrary. We classify many different kinds of animals as mammals because they have certain characteristics in common (warm-bloodedness, having fur, having live birth, caring for their young, etc.). This is also true of categories within his list: vertebrates (all animals that have a backbone), birds (which chickens would be apart of since they have wings, feathers, and have hollow bones--only penguins are birds that have bones that are not hollowed because they are a flightless bird).
However, Peter was confused about the law of identity. He thought I was claiming "neither A nor B" but, instead, I was claiming "A is A and not B." This is what the law of identity states. It is not wrong to include chickens as part of a larger category, as long as such categories are not arbitrary. However, when they are arbitrary, then the label looks misidentified, and it becomes irrational for one to classify them to what they are clearly not. It would be irrational to assume that chickens and lizards are the same because they are apart of a larger category. The fact that both horses and cows are mammals doesn't mean all cows are horses, or vise versa.
Patrick: You don't want to go down the paleontology or molecular phylogenetics ("DNA") paths bc I will wipe the floor with you...
Brian: This was the post that Michael Jones had deleted from his channel's comments. I do not know what else Peter had said since my notifications, which is the only record I had of it, and still have, had cut off the rest of it, so my limitation of what he said was limited to this. Of course we do go down that road, and he did not "wipe the floor with me." Instead, I defeated him into a debate over it. What it is that he went in there with his evolutionary assumptions on his sleeve, and thought he would win the day because of how much he and others believed in the theory of evolution. However, he lacked knowledge in both the fossil evidence and the evidence from information.
If you could split up our debate onto segments, he would have definitely lost this portion of the debate. As we shall see I had challenged him several times to provide me with evidence from transitional fossils of all life being related, and he never could or would provide me any. It quickly became apparent that he did not have any evidence for Darwinian evolution, so his egotistical and over-zealous comment went unmerited.
Patrick: Coelurosauria...look it up
Brian: Coelurosauria is a dinosaur claimed by evolutionists as an early ancestor of birds, but since we lack transitional fossils, there is no transitionals linking this, so it is pure speculation that are the result evolutionary assumptions that brought about this particular interpretation. As Patterson acknowledged just because you can draw wings on a dinosaur in a textbook doesn't make it related to birds (Roger Patterson, Evolution Exposed: Earth Science, p. 175).
Of course, we don't find any transitional fossils of dinosaurs becoming birds. Transitional fossils are fossils that are like a series or chain of fossils that show the gradual change from one kind of creature to another. These are exactly what is lacking in the fossil record. Just to be clear, a transitional fossil is not an anamorphic characteristic (which is a physiological similarity that an an animal may have to other animals such as the bill and webfeet of a duckbill platypus), but it is the slow change that is claimed by evolution from one kind to another which is what is lacking. Even the few alleged "transitionals" that is claimed by evolutionists are few and far between. There should be millions of transitional fossils in the fossil record. Instead, the few that are claimed, are heavily disputed in the scientific community, even among evolutionists, and are not considered "transitional" because of one reason or another. There has even been a few hoaxes along those lines.
In reference to Coelurosauria, and other claimed dinosaur that allegedly evolved into birds, Gish argued: "If these dinosaurs had evolved from a thecodont reptile or from an ordinary dinosaur, then surely we would be able to find numerous transitional forms in the fossil record showing, for example, duck-bills gradually evolving from ordinary jaws and teeth. Not a single such transitional form has ever been found. All of the duck-billed dinosaurs appeared fully-formed, offering positive evidence for creation" (Duane T. Gish, "Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record", p. 125). Also, Patterson comments that, "Birds represent living dinosaurs according to many evolutionists. The theropod dinosaurs grew feathers on their arms and evolved into the many birds we see today. There are those who reject this claim but many dinosaurs are now shown with feathers despite the fact that no fossil with feathers have been found. Those fossils that have feathers have been shown to be frauds or identified as true birds" (Paterson, "Evolution Exposed: Earth Science", p. 175). I told him that he needs to stop believing everything he heard from other evolutionists, and start asking for the evidence. Just because an evolutionist, with evolutionary assumptions, classify fossils as such does not make it so.
I had mentioned to him, at this point, my un-comfortability of someone deleting both of our comments, so I had invited him to join me on my channel for uninterrupted conversation which he did. He would end up deleting a comment of his at the end of our discussion which I got recorded on my notifications, but I will be displaying that later on. So, we end up continuing our debate and conversation on my channel of the video whereby I had responded to the other video that IP had produced. It is there that our conversation continues...
Patrick: Are you a YECster?
Brian: He started out with a preliminary question just to get a feel of my position, which I didn't mind because I would do the same with him. The term he used, here, "YECster" appears made up since that's not anything they call us. I told him if he meant YEC (young-earth creationist) then yes, I was. The age of the earth issue is something I am very passionate about. I, then, asked him if he was a theistic evolutionist like Michael Jones of Inspiring Philosophy. Again, I was trying to get a feel for his position. Theistic evolution do not agree with atheistic evolutionists about everything. Where most evolutionists, which would be comprised mostly of atheists, are Neo-Darwinists, but most theistic evolutionists are not. So, without committing any strawman arguments, I wanted to make sure of his positions and beliefs.
Patrick: No I am an atheist, but I respect my Christian brethren who are too honest to lie about or not want to understand science in order to get their message across. You have a strange conception of faith.
Brian: This statement struct me as odd. First thing that struct me weird was his reference to "Christian brethren" when he was an unsaved atheist. However, what really struct me odd was his reference to "faith" here. Was he assuming that if I am examining the evidence that I must not have "faith?" Did he view "faith" as other atheist did, believing something without reasons? This, of course, would be a strawman argument since the Christian position is that faith is the confidence that Christianity is true on the basis of good reasons. We don't view evidence and faith as contrary to each other the way that many atheists do.
Only blind faith is ever defined this way, as believing something without reasons. I think this would definitely fit Darwinian evolution, but not Biblical Creationism. I then asked him if he was a Neo-Darwinist to get an even better feel for his position. Most evolutionists, especially atheistic evolutionists, are Neo-Darwinists. Neo-Darwinists are the ones who adds concepts like abiogenesis, mutations (as the alleged driving force of "evolution"), look for similarity between ape and human genetics, and other kinds of genetic arguments. This aided me as Peter and I progressed in our conversation.
His jab at "honest Christian brethren" that won't "lie about science" is intended a subtle attack against anyone who opposed evolution. However, this was committing the equivocation and strawman fallacy. He was equivocating on the word "science" going from a particular model believed by certain scientists to be true, to the discipline of science. Just because we opposed evolution doesn't mean we oppose science itself. We oppose a specific model which doesn't make us "anti-science." It was also a very subtle strawman argument because of this. His accusation of lying was unfounded as we shall see. The fact that we disagree with him about evolution doesn't mean we're "lying" about the facts.
Patrick: Your faith hinges on denying and lying about supposed aspects of your creator's reality. Doesn't sound very faithful to me.
Brian: Here Patrick is arguing is a circle and committing the bifurcation fallacy. He is assuming is position is true, and then assume we must be "lying" about it in order to administer facts that quickly disable the position he believes is true. In addition to that, he is committing the bifurcation (or either/or) fallacy whereby he is assuming that either I'm right or I am lying when there are other alternatives, such is that one of us could be wrong, and, in fact, he was. Also, he seems to be assuming that the word "faithful" means one must strive for perfection, but this is not the correct definition of "faith." So, it was him, not me, that had the strange concept of faith.
Furthermore, I didn't lie about anything. He had actually lacked any evidence that I was lying about anything. I had cited sources to him. Does he think I made the sources up too? I accused him of being indoctrinated by evolutionists, and taking their word for things and checking out the information for himself.
Patrick: Faith also means something else. As in being faithful to your wife. Your diatribe about blind acceptance tells me you really do have the wrong idea.
Brian: Now he is equivocating on "faithful" as being synonymous with loyalty. This is a definition of "faithful" but this is not the context in which we mean the word since using a religiously-charged context it means confidence in one's belief, but used in referenced to lack of infidelity, it means loyal and committed. He changed meanings in the middle of his arguments, thus equivocating on the word "faithful."
His claim I had the "wrong idea" about his blind acceptance of evolution was false. Darwinian evolution lacks any evidence and justification for it. This is a challenge I will constantly level at him throughout the course of our conversation. Charles Darwin gave the lack of transitional fossils as one of the falsifications for his theory (Charles Darwin, "The Origin of the Species", pp. 68, and 135-136). This is a point I never let up on. If this was a physical fight, I had found his pressure point, and I was pressing it. My accusation of "blind faith" for an evolutionist was, indeed, justified.
Patrick: What's a nei [sic] Darwinist? I'm a 2 biology degree holder and evolution though not particularly Darwin is the foundation of biology just like atomic theory is tge foundation of chem-nothing works without it to paraphrase Dobzhansky. So whatever biologists are, that's what I am.
Brian: A Neo-Darwinist is someone who adds genetic arguments to their theory of evolution such as abiogenesis, mutations (as the alleged driving force of evolution), search for genetic similarity between apes and humans, and they may add other genetic arguments. Most evolutionists are Neo-Darwinists today. Although he never affirmed it, my discussions with him affirmed he was a Neo-Darwinist, although he didn't seem to call himself that. Neo-Darwinism was not a discipline like biology.
Darwinism is not the foundation of biology. There is no way you can demonstrate the idea that humans evolved from apes as the foundation of biology. Biology was around long before Charles Darwin ever come around. Atomic theory is apart of empirical science, while evolution would involve historical science, so now he is committing the fallacy of false analogy. These two are not even in the same ballpark. Evolution is a speculation without warrant. Atomic theory offers us something observable and repeatable (just ask Japan), but this is not the case with Darwinian evolution which is nothing more than a speculations claiming that these changes between the major classifications of creatures are happening at the horizontal level. So not the same thing.
Biology doesn't require that the major classification of animals evolve from each other. He might be assuming variations within a kind, which can develop new traits as a result of losing genetic information, but this is a loss, not a gain of new information, and thus, not evolution. Just as the name suggests, evolution requires the progression of new genetic information in order to generate new body plans (new organisms with different physiology and genetic information). There is also the problem of trying to get natural processes to generate information at all. That has always been a major problem for evolutionists. In addition to that, is the problem of getting non-living materials to generating life (abiogenesis) which violates the law of biogenesis (only life can produce life). Biology does not require evolution, and this theory is foundational to nothing except his beliefs concerning it.
Patrick: There is only assumption in so far as "assumption" is nominally synonymous with hypothesis. When a body of evidence informs the prediction of a and not b given c and does not vaguely accommodate both a and b simultaneously then it is not merely an assumption nor circular reasoning. This is relevant to age of the Earth and evolution, which are not dependent on one another. So it's obvious you either don't understand that the scientific method does not proceed as apologetics does or even a hypothetical scenario-it is after all based on observable evidence-or are committing a fallacy via equivocation.
Brian: Hypotheses can contain assumptions, like anything else, but all evidence must be interpreted through a framework. Whenever you are dealing with historical sciences you are always dealing with evidence that must be interpreted, and, since you are trying to use the tools of science, and since you are trying to do this through evidence from the past from events that have long since gone, you must apply your assumption to it, or even a series of assumptions. For example, paleontologists think that dinosaurs that had sharp teeth ate meat. However, this is an assumption. To be clear, I am not saying that they didn't eat meat eventually, and it is always possible that, although something is an assumption it can be a reasonable assumption, but, even then, it's still an assumption. Archaeologists (archaeology, like paleontology, is also a historical science) find Indian graveyards with personal items, tools, weapons, etc. in them, then they conclude that these people must've believed in some form of afterlife whereby they believe they can take those items into the afterlife. However, this, too, is an assumption. Within the Christian-Biblical worldview is the only way we can justify science in the first place, which is why all of the founding fathers of most of the modern branches of science were Christians. Science is predicated on the Christian-Biblical worldview. The Scientific Method itself was founded by Sir Francis Bacon, who was a committed Christian. Science depends on Induction, the regularity of nature, the fact that there are patterns in nature that are discoverable by us, the laws of logic, etc. all of which finds justification in the Christian-Biblical God. I am not saying, as an atheist, you can't do science. No, I think an atheist can do science just fine, but you must borrow from my worldview in the process.
I am assuming, based upon his context, that "a" is the prediction that a theory makes, "not b" is a failed prediction, and "c" represents the theory in question, in this case, evolution. Although it is common place to cite a successful prediction as reasons to support a theory, this actually commits a fallacy in logic called affirming the consequent. Anytime you have a conditional argument, an "if/then" type argument (if this is true, then that is true), what follows after the "if" is called the "antecedent" (in logic), and what follows after the "then" statement is called the "consequent" (in logic). Both affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent are logically fallacious bc they lead to invalid conclusions (in philosophy an "invalid argument" is where the conclusion doesn't follow logically from the premise). For example, in the argument "If I eat Spanish, I will be sick, I am sick, therefore [then], I ate Spanish" is an invalid argument since it is committing affirming the consequent since other things can make me sick besides Spinach. If I just happen to be sick, that wouldn't automatically mean I ate Spinach since it's possible that other things could've made me sick. A more valid argument would be like affirming the antecedent, which falsifies an hypothesis on the basis of a theory's prediction not happening. Although, an affirming prediction won't affirm the truthfulness of a theory since it is an invalid argument, if a theory makes a prediction, on the basis of the theory itself, and it does not happen then the theory is proven false. Charles Darwin gave us such a criteria by which to falsify his theory. Actually, he gave us more than one, but right now I am just focused on one, the lack of transitional fossils in the fossil record. If his theory was true we should find millions of transitional fossils in the fossil record, and we can't even find one of them. This is the reason I keep coming back to this, it falsifies his theory.
I accused him of circular reasoning because he believed that the minor variations within a kind ultimately become the major classifications of creatures. Evolutionists call the earlier one "microevolution" while they call the later one "macroevolution." Only the later one is actually Darwinian evolution since earlier one are changes that are within limits and are always working off the information in the genome that is already there (no new information being added). Evolutionists believe that these minor variations eventually lead to the bigger changes in the major classification of creatures and plants. We only observe these minor variations, but never do we observe this limitless variability that Darwin believed in, and neither do we see any evidence for it in the fossil record.
Age is a concept of time or history, not a concept of science, so the verifiability would have nothing to do with the age of the Earth unless you can build a time machine. I am going to assume that's a "no" on that. You have to always apply assumptions to the evidence. For example, in the age of the Earth, from the evolutionist's perspective, you have to assume a philosophical concept call uniformitarianism whereby you arbitrarily assume that the rates and conditions are the same in the past as they are today, so they use that to extrapolate backwards, but if the rates and conditions were different, and not as they assumed, then this throws age estimates off. Again, not the same thing. I agree that one can believe in deep time without the need to believe in evolution (such as OECs for example), but evolution requires lots of time. Charles Darwin said so himself (Darwin, "The Descent of Man", p. 22).
Asking for evidence isn't just an "apologetic thing" it should be something that all scientists ask for. I understand the Scientific Method just fine, I just don't abuse it like evolutionists do. The word "theory" can carry a number of definitions. The way most people use "theory" is in a loose sense, almost synonymous with an hypothesis. In the strict scientific sense (as it is used by the Scientific Method), scientists typically use it by the definition of a particular explanation that has facts and evidence supporting it, and perhaps some experimentational evidence as well. The way the Scientific Method is suppose to go is that it starts as a hypothesis (an educated guess), and then facts and evidence are used to support the view, a model is formulated that is centered around the theory, and if it is proven in an absolute sense it becomes a law. However, with the theory of evolution, you went backwards. You jumped to it being a fact and then you worked on getting evidence for it. There is no evidence for it, so it is more of a hypothesis than a theory. So, when we use the word "theory" for evolution it is being used in a loose sense, not in its strict scientific sense. So, to elevate evolution to the strict sense of "theory" as proposed by the Scientific Method is to elevate it to a status it does not rightly deserve.
He tried to use my words against me, but I told him, that before he used my words against me, such as with the fallacy of equivocation, he needs to try and learn what they mean first so he can use them in their proper context. An equivocation is when you change the meaning of the word in the middle of a context, which makes him accusation of me making no sense at all. Darwinian evolution has no observational evidence behind it, and that's not an equivocation.
Patrick: Chairs and couches both nest in the category "sitting furniture" so it is completely reasonable, accurate abd rational to call both of them that. Do you not refer to chickens as birds, fowl or vertebrates even? Ironically, the kinds concept requires hyper massive post flood evolution on steroids to get to the level of biodiversity we see today.
Brian: Actually, "sitting furniture" is actually not a category, so he's making it up. Besides, he was making the fallacy of division. Even if you could categorize chairs and couches in a broader category, chairs are still chairs and couches are still couches. It appears he's trying to get around the law in logic called the Law of Identity, but there's no way of "getting around it" unless you assume the Law of Identity in the first place. There are clear distinctions between chairs and couches. They are not the same, and one cannot designate them as one or the other. I had assumed that by bringing this up he was alluding to what I had said about the distinctiveness of chairs and couches from each other in the video he was responding to above his comments.
A chair is not a couch, anymore than a couch is a chair. They both have their own purpose and shape. Couches seat multiple people on it at once, while chairs sit one person at a given time. He didn't seem to know much about logic. There are three laws of logic (generally speaking): the law of identity, the law of non-contradiction, and the law of excluded middle. The law of excluded middle claims "either A or non-A" which shows if two things truly contradict, then there is no middle ground, only one of them can be correct. The law of non-contradiction states that "something can't be both A and not-A at the same time and in the same sense." This is similar to the other one, but it explicitly defines what a contradiction is, and its logical implications. The law of identity states that "A is A and not B." Simply put, something is what it is, and not what its not. A chair, by definition, is not a couch. If it were a couch, it would have all of the defining characteristics of a couch, and therefore, would not be a chair. There are other kinds of logic (such as modal logic), but they will always come back to these three laws of logic which are universal, immaterial, and non-contingent. They come from the Mind of God. They find their justification within the Christian-Biblical worldview. They do not find their justification in any other worldviews, including ones that are apart of the evolutionary worldview. They are agreed on by everyone, but they are non-temporal (not bound by time), non-spatial (not bound by location--someone in Europe cannot develop their own "laws of logic" for everyone to follow; in fact, if such a thing was possible any logical communication between everyone would break down), and is universal (non-contingent).
Yes, I do refer to chickens as birds, fowls, and vertebrates. What\s his point here. In all three of those cases, they can be defined as characteristics of a chicken. However, these are defining characteristics within a kind. Would it be OK to classify a chicken as a dog or a cat? Why not?
He reference the bio-diversity and speciation of life following the Flood. This appears to be a red herring. What does kinds have to do with the Flood? Created kinds was created from the beginning back in Gen. 1, not after the Flood, so we don't get our understand of "kinds" from this event. It seems that he is trying to deviate away away from the issues at hand of the nature of the created kind by targeting the event of the Flood in the Bible, which has absolutely nothing to do with the nature, nor our definition, of a kind.
However, he is equivocating on the word "evolution" again, since, although organism speciate, they don't "evolve", at least not in the Darwinian sense, which is how Patrick is using the term. In addition to that, there has been experiments that have been demonstrated that whenever two of the same kind of animal has been introduced into an eco system they had bio-diversified extensively over short periods of time. These experiments were done both by creationists and evolutionists, so what he's saying is not only a myth, but speculation. If he had bothered to read the literature on this, he would know this to be true. A geologist named John Woodmoreappe stated several of these studies. Here is what he had said:
Both creationists (Jones 1982; Lester and Bohlin 1989, pp. 123-5, Brand and Gibson 1993, p. 72) and evolutionists (Briggs 1974, pp.442-3) have compiled numerous examples of various invertebrates and vertebrates giving rise to new species and genera in thousands of years (or less). Some of these examples have subsequently been subject to detailed studies. For instance, Berry (1992b) has updated the long-available evidence for speciation in mice in only a few decades, whereas Kornfield (1978) has investigated the origin of reproductively-isolated species of African cichlid fishes in only 5000 years...Owen et al. (1990) have recently shown that some cichlid fish species have arisen in merely 200 years (Woodmoreappe, "Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study", p. 181).
This provides us with experimental, or empirical data that shows that such diversity over a period of time is not only possible, but probable. What makes him think that 4,000 years is not enough time for extensive bio-diversity anyhow? This is what makes this such a speculation. I think the reason evolutionists and old-earth creationists use this argument is because they never bothered to do the study themselves, instead of listening to atheistic arguments of people who also never studied it either. They just assume (speculate) that such diversity is impossible. However, this claim is factually untenable.
Patrick: The foundation of modern biology and biological research including biomedical research, bioinformatics and biotechnology is based on evolution. Just as atomic theory is the basis of chemistry, evo [sic] theory is the foundation of biology. Evolution is what kicked biology into high gear for the modern era. Here is a corroborating statement from the molecular biology department at UT Southwestern, a very large and prestigious medical school near my home in Dallas, TX. In it they explain that the simple act of using model organisms only "works" because of common ancestry. "Research in the Department of Molecular Biology focuses on understanding mechanisms that control normal and abnormal cell growth and differentiation during development and disease. Many of the basic molecular mechanisms that control cell growth and differentiation are evolutionarily conserved in widely divergent organisms Thus, elucidation of biochemical pathways in simple, genetically tractable organisms can have direct relevance to comparable processes in humans." In the Department of Molecular Biology, investigators are using a variety of model organisms including mice, frogs, chicks, fruit flies, and nematodes to uncover and characterize fundamental cellular, molecular, and genetic pathways that control proliferation, differentiation, and oncogenesis."
Brian: Although it is a common argument for evolutionists to claim research into biology and genetics is based upon "evolution" in reality it is not. The concept of Darwinian evolution, the idea that the various kinds of animals all evolve from a common ancestor going back to the first living cell has nothing to do with discoveries in either biology nor genetics. Since the earlier must involve information-gaining structures with new body plans, and this has nothing to do with discoveries and research done in these areas. In order to be claiming this, he must be equivocating on the word "evolution" again, assuming that Natural Selection, which they assume, along with mutations, must be driving the evolutionary process, and the developing of new traits, which is created from existing information, is the same thing as Darwinian evolution when it is not.
No study in bioinformation is going to yield results in information where natural processes can create new information. In fact, bioinformatics, the discipline that studies this, presupposes Creation, since their research is in the study of complex information within the cells. Notice, also, he named a lot of different disciplines relating to biology, he will later switched this in Round 2 of our debate to the discipline of genetics which is a slight of hand trick in debating.
Although I failed to point this out to him, Patrick appears to be elephant hurtling this list at me. Furthermore, his analogy of comparing the concept of Darwinian evolution, and evolutionists' assumption that this is the same as Darwinian evolution, to atomic theory is the false analogy fallacy. Atomic theory is a "theory" by the strict scientific sense of a theory, which means that it has empirical data behind it. However, "evolution" would qualify as origin science which tries to use the tools of science to make assumptions about the past. These two are not the same things, thus Patrick has made a false comparison.
Furthermore, I am aware of several of those experiments, particularly with fruit flies, but fruit flies still remain fruit flies, and frogs still remain frogs, and so on and so forth. None of these experiments yielded results where such research showed an information-increasing type of progression. Whether, instead, it showed a loss of information, and remaining of the basic kinds remained the same. Darwinian evolution is the changing between the basic kinds of creatures on earth which would require new information increasing as new body plans are developing, but no naturalistic process can give rise to new information, and mutations create a loss of genetic information, which is the direct opposite of evolution which should be a progression of new information. Apparently, Patrick is hoping to win the debate by pointing to what we do observe, and then assuming what we don't, but this is an irrational leap in logic.
Patrick: So, you know this is an official statement from the molecular biology department at UTSW, right? So why should anyone believe you over, and I'm working off memory here but I think a molecular biology dept. that has Nobel laureated amongst its ranks. If not then very highly successful scientists with well-funded labs from the likes of the NIH and Howard Hughes Medical Institute. What do you do all day? I've seen your streams abd its certainly not consumed with hygiene or cleaning. Would you honestly say this to any of the faculty members? Why don't you write the Department telling them what you just communicated to me?
Brian: Here, Patrick tries to appeal to false authority, and then went straight from that to an ad hominem fallacy. What does a biologist know about whether all life descended from a common ancestor or not? Biology deals with life in the present, not the past. Biology is an empirical science, not a historical science, and there is a difference between those two. He also seems to be assuming that UTSW's statement is an infallible one, which also commits the faulty appeal to authority fallacy. How does appealing to a source with the same assumptions as him proves validity of Darwinian evolution, or showed that such views are foundational to modern biology? It doesn't! However, he is hoping to swing people in that direction.
In their labs they are, no doubt, learning a lot about genetics. It seems that Patrick thinks that any progression in genetic research would be discoveries made in "evolution" but none of these discoveries and research has anything to do with Darwinian evolution, which is the concept that is on the table for discussion for us. This is also what he has yet to provide any evidence for, and which I keep constantly asking him for, which I also did again for the millionth time if he had any evidence for Darwinian evolution. I had, I think reasonably, concluded that he had no such evidence or he would've produced it by now.
I told him that I had no problem telling anyone if their arguments, claims, or models were faulty that such arguments were bad. He seems to act as if challenging a model in science is a terrible thing, treating evolution almost religiously, but this is the nature of science. We are supposed to challenge completing models, and demand evidence where there isn't any. Patrick seems to be treating evolution like it is a religion. Dogmatically holding to it, refuse to allow it to be challenge, and refusing to accept its problems even when those problems are obvious, and refusing to look at alternatives, and even shunning those who would dare to challenge Darwinian evolution, but this isn't "science" anymore, it's religion.
That part on my videos "lacking hygiene or cleaning" was an ad hominem attack. I think he might've even be trying to level that argument at me. However, that made no sense. I take showers before I do videos, and wear clean clothes. I even put on body spray, although no one can smell me, it makes me feel even cleaner. I try to dress up, but occasionally I may feel a bit more casual. If it refers to my video set up, I use a high quality web camera and a high quality microphone (a $200 microphone), so my videos are in high quality. However, none of these things have anything to do with my arguments. Once again, Patrick is hoping to deter everyone away from the fact that he has still not provided any demonstration of Darwinian evolution by trying to attack me and to lower everyone's opinion of me to make them question my credibility, but my arguments are holding their own against this so-called "scientist" who I was starting to think had lied about his degrees.
Patrick: "Evidence not arguments.. "..lol let me remind you of the name of your channel. Apologetics is based solely on arguments and ignores or distirts [sic] evidence to the contrary.
Brian: I do not know what Patrick is citing me from. I thought it was from a previous post, but now I'm not sure. Perhaps he was watching my video above the comments as we were debating, and hit something I had said. Either way, Patrick is confused about what Christian apologetics is, that is clear from his comments. The name of my YouTube channel, which has the same name as my ministry and website, is Apologetics 101. Apologetics does not distorts evidence. That has nothing to do with Christian apologetics. Apologetics means to make a defense of what one believes. It comes from the Greek word apologia which is the Greek word for "defense" or reasoned response, and, essentially means "to make a defense for what one believes" and it finds its Biblical support in 1 Peter 3:15.
Apologetics can use arguments, facts, and evidence from a wide variety of disciplines including science, philosophy, history, textual criticism, etc. Every worldview has some kind of "apologists" in them, even if they don't call themselves that, even atheists. Patrick seems to be assuming that if we are against "evolution" then we must be "distorting the facts" but this seems to assume that the facts are on his side when they are not. In fact, it is him that is trying to go from we do observe to what we don't observe, and therefore it is him, not me, that is distorting the facts.
Patrick: "Yes I focus on evidence not arguments.." "What does hygiene have to do with the quality of my ARGUMENS..? Well which is it clodhopper?
Brian: Here he assumes that "arguments" and "evidence" contradict each other, which seems to suggest he is confused by what an argument is. Arguments can contain facts, evidence, and logical reasoning, or even all three of those. We all make arguments all of the time, and we are always constantly bombarded with arguments and counter-arguments. In fact, whenever he tries to argue against my position he is presenting an argument. Not all arguments are created equal. There are some that are good arguments, and some that are bad. So far, I have been presenting good arguments and counter-arguments, but his arguments has been bad, often littered with bad reasoning. For example, that last part, calling me a "clodhopper" was making the abusive ad hominem fallacy. What's more, he seemed to be dodging my challenge for him to produce evidence for Darwinian evolution, an interesting development.
Patrick: I'm not appealing to authority. I'm appealing to evidence. Something you don't do bc you have no positive evidence for creation, just negative arguments against evo [sic]. Now let's do a side by side comparison of the microbiological approach to treating leprosy based on evolution vs sacrificing a pigeon as on the OTPS citing a group of experts who are in agreement as to what evidence means in terns of a conclusion is not an appeal to authority. Taking your mechanic's advice about replacing your transmission is not the same as rejecting it bc your neighbor who has so so experience working on cars in his driveway says you don't need to. You really need to learn what these logical fallacies mean as opposed to randomly and arbitrarily throwing them out hoping something will stick.
Brian: Here, Patrick is trying to shift the burden of proof from him onto me by changing the subject to Creation, but our topic was on Darwinian evolution, not Creation. Patrick seems to be trying to shift the burden of proof by making the red herring fallacy. However, since our discussion was on Darwinian evolution, and that has always been the crux of our discussion, the burden of proof was on him, not me.
Appeals to authority are not evidence of anything, short of someone's personal opinion. It's hard for me to believe that Patrick really believes by submitting someone's opinion on something that this would be the same thing as evidence when that's not the case. We can defer to an authority regarding information, facts, and evidence--where else are we going to get such things--but when an authority is clearly just presented their opinion on something, this does not count as evidence since an opinion is always based upon someone's personal viewpoint, even if they feel that such opinion is based upon evidence and facts, it is still subjective. In addition to that, this cuts both ways. Can't I just present my opinions as "evidence" too? The only way to avoid this is either 1) for your authority to produce evidence for what they are saying within the quote, or 2) for you to present evidence along with the citation which would back up the quote. Otherwise, it just looks like you're presenting the citation as the evidence, which it is clear from his comment on this that is exactly what he was doing.
He claimed that we have no evidence for Creation, but this is a false statement. We do have positive evidence for God's existence & that He created the universe. However, everyone, ultimately, knows that God exist. Rom. 1 tells us that God reveals Himself through His Creation so you are now out of excuses. Even if you do a good job of convincing yourself and others that you don't believe that God exist, you know otherwise. Rom. 1 further tells us that you "suppress the truth in unrighteousness" so it is the job of the apologist, not to convince you that God exist, but to expose that suppress knowledge. If he wants to get into a conversation about the existence of God we will. Laws of logic are only justified within the Christian-Biblical worldview, as well as laws of nature, induction, regularity in nature, the fact that we can find patterns in nature, all imperative to science, but they are only justified within the Biblical-Christian worldview. We could also add objective morality, consciousness, design of life and the universe that are so self-evident, the concept of self, personal identity over time, a solution to the problem of the one and the many, Irreducible complexity (something Darwinian evolution can't account for--see "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution" which was actually written by a theistic evolutionist named Michael Behe), specified complexity (information inside cells), etc. Need I go on? Btw, even if evolution was true, this would not invalidate the existence of God, just keep that in mind.
His reference to pigeon sacrifice was to Leviticus 14, but the critic failed to read the text carefully. It doesn't say that leprosy was healed after sacrificing a pigeon, but that a pigeon was sacrificed following the complete healing of a person's leprosy as a ritualistic act of "cleansing" the person of spiritual impurities. Here is what the text reads:
Then, if the case of leprous disease is healed in the leprous person, the priest shall command them to take for him who is to be cleansed two live clean birds and cedarwood and scarlet yarn and hyssop. And the priest shall command them to kill one of the birds in an earthenware vessel over fresh water...And he shall sprinkle it seven times on whim who is to be cleansed of the leprous disease. Then he shall pronounced him clean and shall let the living bird go into the open field (Lev. 14:3b-7, ESV).
He could be conflated the words "healed" and "cleans" which means two different things, but it is clear this is part of a spiritual cleansing following a person's complete healing from the disease. Also, by Patrick making the comparison to the modern-day disease of leprosy he was making the semantic anachronism fallacy, which is where you take a modern definition, view, or understanding of that view, and import it into an ancient context where the meaning that is intended is different. In this case, what the Bible calls "leprosy" is different from our modern-day versions. Leprosy in ancient times refer to a host of skin diseases, including our modern-day version, but not exclusively so.
Also, taking someone's advice regarding mechanics is not the same as taking someone's opinion on things we cannot observe. Here, Patrick is making the fallacy of false analogy again. This is not the same thing. I agree we should yield to expert advice, but this is not the same as personal opinion. Advice is usually made as a result of experience and personal observation. No one has ever observed Darwinian evolution happening, therefore it is not based upon neither observation nor experience.
Also, citing a group of experts on what they think commits the appeal to majority fallacy, aka, the bandwagon fallacy. When did he ever cited them to define what "evidence" is? You turn to a dictionary for that. He seems to think people are going to forget exactly what he has written only a few seconds before, or keeps forgetting it without checking back to what he actually said.
I haven't "arbitrarily" threw logical fallacies at him. I always tried to explain to you what they are, and how he was committing them. There was nothing "random" nor "arbitrary" about this. I do know what they mean, although I don't think he does. He was even confused about the law of identity, and in point of our conversation, he looked like he was even denying it. I still think, despite all of my explaining, he might still be confused by it. For a scientist he wasn't well-trained in logic. By the way, I have taken classes at the college level on philosophy. I don't have to hope something will stick. It all did, and I still noticed, once more, that he provided no actual evidence for Darwinian evolution. I can't say I was surprised to say the least.
Patrick: I have a BSc in microbiology and an MSc in molecular biology. Both most certainly are predicated on evolution as a framework for interpreting and testing questions. If evo [sic] was a bad framework it would provide incomprehensible results. Does the OT not claim that pigeon sacrifice will cure leprosy? I mean we cut out the middle man and that's exactly what I am doing here. Let's nit appeal to any person or group but instead let's test reality against reality. What does sacrificing a pigeon have to do with leprosy? Answer that and we can go into an evolutionary exploration of spirochetes.
Brian: His degrees are predicated on his educational requirements not Darwinian evolution. Now, he's making another categorical error. Understanding a position and a conclusion is not the same as evidence. YECs and other creationists understand their positions and conclusions quite well, but he'd never argue that makes us right. The issue is not if you comprehend your beliefs, positions, and conclusion, but if such positions is based upon evidence, of such things evolutionists are lacking, which is the problem.
Next, he tries to bring up the Lev. 14 thing again when I asked him to explain his what he is talking about. However, he just simply misinterpret the passage as already stated. I have already answered this above, so won't repeat that answer here (see above). He seems to be trying his best to avoid having to deal with the fact that Darwinian evolution lacks any evidence in favor on it. He's trying to deter everyone away from this point by targeting the Bible, something we are not even discussing. Once again, he's trying to badly shift the burden of proof, which he has failed to do.
Patrick: Have you taken a biology or geology course even at a community college?
Brian: Patrick appears to have a hidden, or loaded, assumption within his question. He seemed to be assuming that because I disagree with Darwinian evolution I must either of taken no classes on this, or possess no knowledge in these areas. However, whatever reason he had for asking the question, he never told me. I had answered that Liberty University is not a community college. Biology is a requirement as I was going through my undergraduate degree. Just because I don't agree with his evolutionary assumptions about the past doesn't mean I don't know nor understand biology and geology. I have plenty of books on both of these subjects.
Patrick: I am not talking about minor variations. I am saying outright that amoebas and humans are evolutionarily related bc they are eukaryotes. I don't care about short fur vs long fur. That has nothing to do with what I'm discussing. Sequence and align any common gene from human, amoeba and e. coli and the two eukaryotes will cluster. Tge e. coli will be excluded as an outgroup. DNA destroys creationism for the obsolete hoax that it is. Besides all these organisms are very different. There should be no trace of design. Would you expect a can opener abd a speed boat to cluster together to the exclusion of a trampoline? Even if they were made by the same person? This common designer claim makes absolutely no sense, because it doesn't predict anything based on the prior identification of eukaryote vs bacteria. If this is an identity fallacy why do we detect this pattern?
Brian: Even though he might not be talking about minor variations, that is always what we observe that is the point. However, the real issue isn't just the amount of change. You can get a significant change within a kind as well, the real issue is the direction of change. Going from a kind's present information, but gaining new genetic information which is what Darwinian evolution would require. When I used terms like "minor" and "major" in reference to the changes these are, of course, relative to each other since they're relative terms. He goes from these "minor changes" to assuming these "major changes" which is why I keep accusing him of equivocating on the word. My point was that he is going from what we do observe to what we don't observe without missing a beat. I think he assumes that any change in the genome is ultimately the same as these fundamental differences.
He is arguing in a circle with his "evolutionary classification" system of relationships. He may believe that eukaryotes are related to humans, but this is, again, what needs to be demonstrated. Simply assuming that because that's what he believes is not evidence of relationship. Thus, his argument is circular. He, furthermore, assumed that eukaryotes are related to humans because he believes that evolution had happened, and all life is related. Again, classification systems ae conventional, so the fact that evolutionists can draw points on a textbook to claim relationship doesn't mean they are actually related.
Next, he talks about clustering DNA together as a result of similarities. This wrestles with the building blocks of life, but this is also what we would expect from a common designer. According to the null hypothesis this would nullify any prediction/expectation from being used against another model/theory, since we would expect the same things. The null hypothesis states that if two theories predict the same results whatever the prediction, similarity, etc. cannot be used to validate either theory, since both can make the same claim. Creation by a single common designer would predict the same thing, so this voids his argument. A common designer would use common materials to create multiple arguments for example in the case of cars where you can contrast how Ford creates their different cars, but use similar constructions, designs, and materials. This would have been expected if the universe had a common designer, which is why the entire universe is made up of atoms, and all matter is made up of molecules. Even if you could combine physiological components this would only prove similar building blocks, it wouldn't prove relationships.
How is it that the molecule that carries information in it "destroys creation." He does not really explain this. Information presupposes creation, and therefore it affirms it. According to Dr. Werner Gitt, who is the premiere expert in the world on information science, says, "When its progress along with the chain of transmission events is traced backwards, every piece of information leads to a mental source, the mind of the sender" and he also said, "There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this...There is no known law of nature, no known process, and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter" (Werner Gitt, "In the Beginning was Information: A Scientist Explains the Incredible Design in Nature", pp. 72, 79-80, and 106). What Gitt said is correct. We only ever observe information coming from an intelligent source. If you read a book do you assume that the words on the pages came from a monkey randomly typing on a keyboard, or do you assume that a mind is behind the information? If a kid goes downstairs and discovers a hot bowl of Alphabet Soup with the words aligned to spell out "Have a good day, Love Mom" and just assume that these words randomly floated together to spell a message, or does he assume that his mother made the soup and then spell out the letters? If you approach the strict of Hollywood you noticed large letters that spell out "HOLLYWOOD" would you assumed that an earthquake just happened to cause giant letters to roll into place? Or would you, more correctly, assume that someone with intelligence spelled those words out.
Creation is not a hoax. Nobody made it up, and all of the available evidence demonstrates that we were created by God. Organisms' differences work against evolution, but not Creation. We would expect differences because our creator is, well, creative! However, there are also similarities too, but the evidence suggest that we were designed. For example, there are certain constants in the universe that are set on a narrow range. There is an infinite number of possibilities, but only a narrow range to make life possible on planet Earth, and for the universe to exist and function. For example the week and strong forces of an atom which is set to a narrow range. If you change the direction even by a little bit, and no more atoms!
This argument is even acknowledged by atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer. In fact, in an interview with Lee Strobel, the atheist Michael Shermer called this a "good argument" for design (Shermer as he was interviewed by Lee Strobel in "The Case for Miracles" by Lee Strobel, p. 63). Occam's Razor claims that if you have competing explanations the simplest one tends to be correct. Both parties agree that the universe looks designed, but Christians maintain that it looks designed because it was designed. This is the most simplest possibility. Trying to posit chance against all astronomical possibilities, or multiple universes (something that's non-observable, commits the gambler fallacy--a fallacy where you assume that if all of the other "flips of the coin" were heads, you make an assumption for the next "flip" in order to assume that the odds are different even though the odds are the same--and is an ad hoc explanation) are less likely. I don't assume a house came into existence because a tornado blew through here, or Mt. Rushmore's president heads just happened that way because of an earthquake. Houses are made by a builder, watches are made by a watchmaker, paintings are made by a painter, and someone carved those heads on Mt. Rushmore. Design is evidence of both Creation and a Creator. Why does he think that there would be no trace of design? That seems like he is making a non sequitur to me. A non sequitur is a Latin word that means "it does not follow" and, thus, it is applied to any argument that logically doesn't follow into its conclusion. If the universe was designed we would expect evidence of design, which is what we get.
He starts talking about the relationship of different things, but this is a red herring, because the issue isn't can you prove relationship, bur, rather, the issue is if all life evolved from a common ancestor across the various major classification of creatures. Since we had a common designer we would expect some relationships to exist within all life. The fact that all living creatures are carbon-based, the fact that our bodies are made of mostly water, the fact that all life utilizes DNA molecules, etc. YECs do accept physiological relationships at the kind level whereby all life was designed by a common designer anyhow, but this isn't "proof" for Darwinian evolution, which he still hasn't provided any evidence at this point.
For example, I think wolves, cayotes, and dogs are all related. I think they shared a "common ancestor" with one belonging in the canid family, but that wouldn't prove they are related to a cat, or that humans are related to a banana. Here he seemed to making an implied strawman. Does he think that my position was that nothing was related? He had a misguided thinking over what I had actually believed and was arguing for.
It seems to me that he may be trying to making a false analogy. Whether something could be combined or not has nothing to do with whether it was designed or not. If someone creates water in a laboratory experiment (by combining the elements of two hydrogen atoms with one oxygen atom), but you can't merged the newly created water with a coffee table does that mean it was undersigned? If astronauts through specialized filtering equipment filters the water out of their urine (as gross as that is that is a thing) to make drinking water, should we assumed it, and the machine, wasn't designed if you can't merge to their space shuttle? This is an absurd argument. If something cannot come into existence apart from it being made that way, such as information, then it was designed. It predicts that the cells would be complex of intelligence is behind. This is another falsifiable criteria behind Darwinism. Darwin assumed that we would see evidence of a cell's "simple beginnings" (they couldn't peer inside a cell in Darwin's day), but everything about a cell screams complexity. Even a single celled organism like the amoeba that he'd mentioned) has the complexity of a space shuttle with no evidence of any simple beginnings. This is what we'd expect from a designer. Also, we would expect information inside of these cells. This would not be expected on the evolutionary model since no naturalistic processes can give rise to information. Once again, he has misunderstood the law of identity. I am not claiming that something can't have similarities which we would expect if there was a common designer. An even interesting question would be why would we expect patterns in nature or life at all? Only through the Christian-Biblical worldview do we find such patterns justifiable. In the atheistic worldviews of naturalism and materialism, and in a strictly materialistic universe that you believe in, filled with chance and chaos, there is no reason to expect patterns, which is one of the things science is predicated on, in nature. We expect patters because our God created the universe and designed it with a purpose. The fact that we find patterns is not only expected, but justified within the Christian-Biblical worldview. How would he, as an atheist and a scientist, justify that within his worldview?
Patrick: I took a course on microbial evolution, Intro to majors bio->"Mitochondria are endosymbiotic bacteria- > Molecular Biology: We studied protein evolution through mechanisms like exon shuuffling. shuffling.. Yeah my training in bio is indeed predicated on evolution theory....Amoeba would cluster with humans in a sequence specific manner. The number of cells is irrelevant. Yeast won't cluster with amoeba and e. coli based on being unicellular. They'd cluster based on sequence homology with mushrooms and other fungi...Nested clades don't evolve into each other. A reptile would not evolve into a mammal. But both diverged from a common ancestor that was an amniote (both mammals and reptiles are amniotes,)
Brian: Yeah, and I'm sure that within that course evolutionary assumptions abound. Just because a person calls these minor changes "evolution" does not mean that they are the same as Darwinian evolution. Charles Darwin saw these "changes" as limitless, which means he saw them, ultimately, leading to horizontal changes which we don't observe. Exon shuffling has to do with gene insertions and duplication, which is still not new information New information refers to information that was not there previously, which is what would be required for Darwinian evolution and the production of new body plans in the fossil record. You would need information that was not there previously. Simply duplicating new genes, or even creating them from other genes, are processes that occurred naturally, apart from any need of lab work, but it is still not producing new information in the genome.
His training might assume evolution, but science is not predicated by it. I think he might be making a strawman fallacy on a previous argument I had made. My argument wasn't that someone can centered their "learning" around evolutionary assumptions--my classes at Liberty University assumes the truthfulness of the Bible as they are teaching different things to me, is that acceptable to him?--but that science is predicated on the Biblical-Christian worldview. He has fundamentally misunderstood my argument on this. In a strictly materialistic universe of chance and chaos there is no reason for the things that all of science is based upon--regularity in nature, induction, patters in nature that are discoverable by us, the laws of nature, the laws of logic, the fact that we can trust our thoughts, etc. If evolution was true, and we are just flesh, chemicals, and electric synapses going off in your brain randomly, then how would you trust your thoughts? How could you ever trust your beliefs and conclusions, even in the theory of Evolution? Within the biblical-Christian worldview we have a justification for these things. In our worldview we are more than flesh, chemicals, and electric synapses going off randomly. We more than the trillions of neurons in our brain. We have a conscious, a soul, and a mind that exist immaterially apart from our brains. We have a justification for these things that makes science, as well as knowledge itself, possible. Within the atheistic worldviews, you have no reason to trust your thoughts, so why are we even having this discussion?
Yeah, as Gitt, whom I quoted had said, this still doesn't produce any new information, and no sequence of events can do this. Why does he think that something clustering together has anything to do with Darwinian evolution?
After this he just simply stated his position without evidence, but I already knew what he thought on this. Yes, this is his position, no doubt, but this is also what we don't have evidence for. What he described here is Darwinian evolution. I asked him, again, does he have any evidence for Darwinian evolution. Again, he was making the division fallacy with amniotes and reptiles (not to mention these classification systems are conventional as I had said over and over and over again to him). Simply put, its like arguing since chickens are flying animals, bats are also flying animals, therefore all bats are chickens. Attack a bat to see if you think he's chicken! Lol! Seriously, though, you can take any number of animals and list them within large categories like that, but that wouldn't make them the same thing. Please provide me some actual evidence.
Brian: At this point, I told him that we were getting no where on this, so maybe we should try and wrap this up. This was my first attempt at trying to wrap this up. He didn't send me a reply for awhile, so I thought he was done, but then he came at me for a "Round Two" and this time, he had lost our last debate so badly that he went after4 me more aggressively. We will continue this conversation in Round Two of my discussion with Patrick soon.
My Conclusion: My conclusion to this first debate of ours there was no doubt that I had won. All Patrick would've had to do was provide me evidence for Darwinian evolution which he claimed that he had, but instead he went everywhere, and all over the place, with his answers, accept where he would've needed to go to prove it to me, namely the millions of transitionals missing from the fossil record. He never would deal with this. I thought he would at least discuss the few "transitionals" that are heavily disputed among evolutionists, but he didn't even discuss these. At the end of the day I found me and Patrick's conversation disappointing and unfruitful. If we were going somewhere then I would've wanted to continue it, but he was repeating the same bad arguments he had already stated, we were going around the circle on this, and he refused to reply to my accusation of the lapse in evidence for Darwinian evolution.
However, this was very telling. He kept wanting to claim that there was evidence for Darwinian evolution, but whenever I asked for it, he ignored my challenge within his responses to me. He seriously needed a class in logic, philosophy, and rhetoric. He kept making logical fallacies, and he misunderstood a law in logic, namely, the law of identity. He also kept using my word back at me which really showed a lack of rhetorical training.
Patrick will come back at me for Round Two, and this time, having lost the debate so obviously and with an overwhelming amount of criticisms that he couldn't refute, he'll come at me much more viciously than before. Be watching for my post on this second round of attacks from The Irrational Evolutionist!
Comments