AronRa
Administrator
I don't know how many times I have tried to prove evolution to creationists over the last decade or so, nor how many venues I have used for that purpose. In this one forum alone, just in the last year, I tried it with swaggaboy_dna, Justice Frangipane, reasonablechristian, Gilbertus, TrueEmpiricism, Kanbei and someone from Craig's List. As you can see, they all followed the same pattern of dishonestly ducking-and-dodging every point or query necessary to prove the case. Because what they would rather pretend is more important to them than whatever is really true. So here's the next contender who will probably do the same, a YouTuber known as onceforgivennowfree.
Notice that his challenge is to "prove that evolution is a fact". OK, easy enough. But a moment later, he shows that he's not really asking for that at all. His challenge is really to prove that "life on earth is descended via blind random processes - not design". Of course natural processes are not random, and do result in an incidental design, but he is clearly talking about a deliberate design for an intended purpose. His challenge is to disprove God. Proving that evolution is a fact does not disprove the supernatural, magic, deism, destiny, Karma, the fates, or any of that nonsense. So these must be treated as two different challenges unrelated to each other.
Kent Hovind did the same thing. He offered a $250,000.00 challenge to present "evidence of evolution". Easy, I do that every day. But then on the next page of that challenge, he said that he didn't really want evidence of evolution; instead his challenge was to disprove God. He said that what he was really asking for was proof that God couldn't have done it. His challenge required that we assume that a god exists, and then demands that we prove that a god who could do anything he wants couldn't have done this. Creationists have to defend logical fallacies by misquoting experts, misrepresenting data, and misdefining or misusing terms, and this challenge is another demonstration of that.
I will now address the YouTuber, OnceForgivenNowFree:
Sir, no one is "pressurized" into accepting reality, but if you're going to make challenges of logic, then you're going to have to understand it, and you'll have to acknowledge reality in order to play this game. I'll warn you now, it is impossible to defend creationism honestly.
Dawkins was right; it is easy enough to prove that evolution is a fact, and anyone who rejects that is at least ignorant, or misinformed, if not idiotic, dishonest, and/or insane. But explaining something this complex to someone like that has to be an interactive process. Otherwise we'll talk passed each other, because you still don't know what evolution is, and you evidently don't know what a fact is either. So you can't know what proof is, and neither do you understand logic well enough even to be reasoned with. You don't even know the difference between knowledge and belief. I can give you the answer you're looking for, but first you'll have to be educated enough to understand your own question.
I will accept both of your distinctly different challenges which you have posed as if they were one and the same. I will prove to your satisfaction that evolution is actually factual and have you concede that I have. In so doing, I will also allow you to demonstrate the failure of the 2nd part of your challenge, your imagined mystic magically manipulating reality behind the scenes. But I will not submit any work for you to simply ignore and dismiss misunderstood and unconsidered. I will only explain this in a two-way conversation, right here in this thread, because I want to make sure you understand what I'm saying, and that you acknowledge each point as we progress. Ultimately I want to end your career as a YouTube creationist and collect your admission in writing as a matter of public record. Are you up to it?
Notice that his challenge is to "prove that evolution is a fact". OK, easy enough. But a moment later, he shows that he's not really asking for that at all. His challenge is really to prove that "life on earth is descended via blind random processes - not design". Of course natural processes are not random, and do result in an incidental design, but he is clearly talking about a deliberate design for an intended purpose. His challenge is to disprove God. Proving that evolution is a fact does not disprove the supernatural, magic, deism, destiny, Karma, the fates, or any of that nonsense. So these must be treated as two different challenges unrelated to each other.
Kent Hovind did the same thing. He offered a $250,000.00 challenge to present "evidence of evolution". Easy, I do that every day. But then on the next page of that challenge, he said that he didn't really want evidence of evolution; instead his challenge was to disprove God. He said that what he was really asking for was proof that God couldn't have done it. His challenge required that we assume that a god exists, and then demands that we prove that a god who could do anything he wants couldn't have done this. Creationists have to defend logical fallacies by misquoting experts, misrepresenting data, and misdefining or misusing terms, and this challenge is another demonstration of that.
I will now address the YouTuber, OnceForgivenNowFree:
Sir, no one is "pressurized" into accepting reality, but if you're going to make challenges of logic, then you're going to have to understand it, and you'll have to acknowledge reality in order to play this game. I'll warn you now, it is impossible to defend creationism honestly.
Dawkins was right; it is easy enough to prove that evolution is a fact, and anyone who rejects that is at least ignorant, or misinformed, if not idiotic, dishonest, and/or insane. But explaining something this complex to someone like that has to be an interactive process. Otherwise we'll talk passed each other, because you still don't know what evolution is, and you evidently don't know what a fact is either. So you can't know what proof is, and neither do you understand logic well enough even to be reasoned with. You don't even know the difference between knowledge and belief. I can give you the answer you're looking for, but first you'll have to be educated enough to understand your own question.
I will accept both of your distinctly different challenges which you have posed as if they were one and the same. I will prove to your satisfaction that evolution is actually factual and have you concede that I have. In so doing, I will also allow you to demonstrate the failure of the 2nd part of your challenge, your imagined mystic magically manipulating reality behind the scenes. But I will not submit any work for you to simply ignore and dismiss misunderstood and unconsidered. I will only explain this in a two-way conversation, right here in this thread, because I want to make sure you understand what I'm saying, and that you acknowledge each point as we progress. Ultimately I want to end your career as a YouTube creationist and collect your admission in writing as a matter of public record. Are you up to it?
