MERGED: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1) & (Part 2)

[Esquilax]

Man you people kill me...every time someone disagrees with evolution they always have to get accused of being ignorant of the theory..."you just don't know what evolution is....you just don't understand it", as if the theory of evolution is this secret society and only those that believe in it can fully understand what is...bullshit.

I've made a thread asking this exact question in the past: is there anyone who disagrees with the theory of evolution who actually fully understands it? The answer I tentatively came to is no, and the reason for that is I've yet to see someone who doesn't accept evolution- both in the thread and out- that didn't have some major misconceptions about what it is and what it does. If you see this accusation that you don't understand evolution as a major theme of your discussions about it, perhaps you should consider the possibility that you genuinely don't understand it, rather than spinning it into some grand conspiracy theory to dismiss what you're saying.

Because I'll tell you this right now: Macro/micro-evolution? Not a part of evolutionary theory. Kinds? Not a part of science let alone evolutionary theory. Cosmic evolution? Not a part of evolutionary theory. You crow about how much you and Hovind understand evolution, but the major tentpole arguments that both you and he use (Hovind actually goes on to expand his "cosmic evolution" argument to include a few more things, most of which also aren't evolution) aren't even discussing the topic you purport to know about. How much can you really understand, if the majority of your arguments are so bad they aren't even addressing the topic?

I'm sorry you're frustrated that people keep reminding you of your ignorance regarding this theory, but the fact that you refuse to even entertain the possibility that you don't know absolutely everything isn't our problem. You genuinely do not understand evolution: either learn about it, or get over it.

But I'll tell you this for free: you're not going to convince everyone by lying and distorting information.

We don't believe in evolution, not because of what we don't understand, we don't believe in evolution because of what we DO understand...

Have you ever heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect, H_M? It's this metacognitive bias, all humans share it, where people who are uneducated in a given subject tend to vastly overestimate their own prowess in that subject, as they don't know how much there still is for them to learn. Conversely, people who do understand that subject tend to underestimate themselves, given that they're cognizant of ll the factors involved and know how easy it is to fail.

I'd say you fall into the former category with regards to evolution, and that's why you eat up Hovind's nonsense. Because, and I want to be clear on this, literally a few seconds of research will show that the things he, and you talk about aren't even connected to evolution. But because you don't understand this, because you don't understand even basic things about the biological sciences, you've mistaken it to be as simplistic as your view of it is. There's no shame in that if you correct it, but you've been singularly resistant to any intimation that you might be wrong on any point in the past, so I doubt you'll even consider the idea that there might be more for you to learn.

.and with respect to Mr. Hovind, the man has a longggg history of debating evolutionists, and he actually debated three evolutionists at one time...and during his lectures, he actually quotes and uses illustrations from actual biology books, right there on the projector screen, for all to see. So in the video, it isn't as if he is willing to have his beliefs challenged, he was actually out there on the forefront willing to debate anyone on the theory, and has debated many evolutionists, from the likes of Massimo Pigluicci, to Kenneth Miller, to Eugenie Scott.

Uh, your pal William Lane Craig does debates too, even after he admitted in both print and speech that he would never change his beliefs, even if he was given conclusive proof that his god did not exist. There are plenty of reasons someone could do debates other than having their beliefs challenged; in Craig's and Hovind's case, it's probably publicity and money.

So you can say what you want about Mr. Hovind, but you can't ever accuse him of getting his ass handed to him in any debate on the subject of evolution...but the same can't be said for the evolutionist that he's debated.

Sure I can accuse him of that, just as I can accuse him, and the people who lap up his garbage, of being intellectually incapable of seeing just how badly he performs in debates on these subjects.

Tell you what: let me demonstrate that. What's the "best" Hovind debate, in your opinion? Post a link to it, lemme see.