|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4452 days) Posts: 415 From: Australia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Kent Hovind | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Didn't mean to evade your points, but when you mention archaeology I tend to focus on that, as that is something I've been doing for >40 years.
And I googled Mollar, but the passage I ended up finding was somehow Ron Wyatt. The page I landed on wasn't very specific. Not really on topic anyway I guess.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
Moller is a follower of Ron Wyatt who did his own half-baked investigation to prop up Ron Wyatt's claims. And to answer Buzsaw's question in my view his work had far more to do with religion than science.
Buz. If you can show us any REAL science behind Moller's claims you should have produced it when Admin was asking you to produce evidence. Instead of whining about it because you didn't have any of any worth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2522 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
Whether or not you believe Lennart Moller's marine research in Aqaba proved anything, he was not practicing his religion, what ever it be. He was doing science. No? No. Science is about collecting data and then drawing conclusions. Moller draws conclusions and then goes to look for confirming data. However, he ignores contradictory evidence. In other words, religion not science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Dawn Bertot writes:
One, such as yourself, cannot be taken seriously if you do not respond to our posts and the particular arguments therein. Let us know when you are ready to be something other than a parrot. One such as yourself cannot be taken seriously if you do not respond to my posts and the particular arguments therein. Let me know when your are ready to be something other than a parrot Edited by Panda, : No reason given. Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Butterflytyrant Member (Idle past 4452 days) Posts: 415 From: Australia Joined:
|
Hello folks,
There has been a bit of a back and forth on this thread about using logic. I would like to throw my own 2 cents worth in. The first part of having a debate is establishing your premise. If your premise is true and your arguments are logical, then your conclusion must also be true. This is where nearly all of the debates on this site fall down. They burn out before even beginning. This has two main reasons (probably more, these are just the ones that spring to mind). 1. Many premises put forward are unwarranted assumptions. If a premise has not been established with enough certainty to be considered true, then it cant be used to start a logical argument. The conclusion may end up being true but as it has been reached from a faulty premise, it is irrelevant. This is the problem that a lot of Creationists face here. Many on the other side already view their premise as faulty so the arguement is lost before it begins. If your beginning premise is that God or a deity of some sort exists, then you have an unwarranted assumption as the premise. A great many of the Evolutionist debates here are made with no deity or lack of deity impacting their premise. I am not aware of any debates that start with the premise that there is no God therefore x, y, z. Evolutionary Biology can function just as well if God were 100% true or 100% false. This is an important distinction. Most people only begin believing something exists once they have been provided sufficient evidence to believe it. If we did not work in this way then there would be entire teams of scientists out there proving that griffins, fairies, dragons and unicorns do not exist. We begin with the assumption that they do not exist. Even with impecable logic, the conclusion is still shakey because the premise is an unwarranted assumption. I would argue that the assumption that there are no deities is a much stronger logical, warranted assumption to begin with. If for no other reason than the fact that there are thousands of Gods and Goddeses (plus ID) who all all claiming to be true. They cant all be true. If there are 10 000 Gods, Godesses etc and I have been assured by all of their adherents that only one of them, or a select few are real, then just by the numbers I am fine with saying that the most likely conclusion is none of them are true. The discussion up thread between jar and Dawn Bertot is a good example of this issue.
Jar : Please present the evidence of the creator or the method used by that critter to influence evolution. Until you present evidence equal to the evidence of natural causes you have nothing. Since there is evidence that there are natural causes but no evidence of a creator or any method used by that critter to influence evolution logic demands that until such evidence is presented that the creator or the method used by that critter be simply disregarded.
There is an important distinction between starting with a God existing as your premise and ending with God as your conclusion. This is an important point to make as I expect some to argue this point in reply to my post so I will get in first. It is fine that you start with a logical premise, then use logic to come to a conclution that God exists. I have not seen an argument that achieves this as yet. It is however, very different from using the existence of a deity as your beginning premise. I should also add that I have no problem with religious people starting with a shaky premise. As long as they are aware of the shakey premise to start with and are aware that, from the start of the debate, many people would consider that their arguments will not reach a logical conclusion because of this disagreement. It is possible to start a debate and put this on the table. You can say, let us assume for this debate that x is true. Then go from there. It may not actually get any meaningful result in many debates but at least everyone would know where they stand. 2. Rationalisation. A lot of the arguments are reverse engineered. A lot of arguments come from a premise that fits with a conclusion a poster prefers. The vast majority of these type of arguments come from Young Earth Creationists. Them continue to throw in ad hock hypothoses to their arguement to work to make it impossible to disprove. They are not coming up with something they can prove, they are adding and adjusting it to fit with their conclusion. There are examples of all sides doing this though. Check out this back and forth between Drosiphilla and Dawn Bertot
Drosiphilla - As you maintain from the outset a set condition (there IS a god) then you CANNOT invoke logic thereafter - it is pointless trying to make logic apply to situations where the initial conditions are merely ASSUMED. I really shouldn't need to tell you this twice! Dawn Bertot - No one starts with the assumption of Gods existence. It is deduced from physical realites. Youve got it backwards Drosiphilla is pointing out that Dawn Bertot is using an unwarranted assumption. Dawn Bertot is advising that she is not. However, Dawns argument does not make any sense. Noone can start from the premise that there is a god. This can only be taught.This is particularly evident by looking at the vast amount of differnet ways that each faith based group say different natural phenomena occur. One cannot look at a tree and come to the conclusion that the currently popular deity figure for your geoploictical region was the creator of that tree. Someone has to tell you that this is what happened. At most, a person will look at a tree and say they do not know how it was created. It is not logical to jump to the unnatural. Buzsaw -
There are many logical aspects of creationism. ID more logically explains the order and complexity than the notion that chaos naturally emerged into order. That nearly all cultures of the world since the recording of history (abe: have been religious) is just one of many logical reasons to believe higher intelligences exist in the universe. There are two problems here. One is that many of the aspects of creationism that you say are logical start with an unwarranted assumption as their premise. And the second point is an argumentum ad populum. Using the authority of many is not a logical reason to believe in higher intelligence. Lots of people can be wrong. Do you know how many people have said they have seen Elvis? I might pop down a rabbit hole for a bit...
And finally until we can determine, which you cant, that it originated from nothing, if that is possible, until you can determin it, you are in the same boat of logic as the rest of us, wouldnt you agree No, the non creationist side is not on equal footing. The non creationist side starts from a stronger position. With no unwarranted assumptions. The assumption that there is no God is made from the weakness of any evidence their is a God. Without stronger evidence, the logical starting premise is that there is no god. Therefore, we are not all in the same boat.
From Dawn Bertot to Jar - Since you claim I have no evidence for a creator and it is likely you will disagree about design, yet you wont be able to demonsrte it in argument form, then your implication is that natural causes is sufficient to establish the principle of soley natural processes. That being the case I will expect you to provide the processes in its entirity, start to finish, eternality or whatever . If its that simple your task should be simple This is some serious bullshit Dawn. For someone who discusses a very strong attatchment to logic (often at great length), it would seem odd that you can even have this thought, let alone put it onto the forum. In what reality do you think that a position on one subject or point requires and explanation of everything? How about this as a soley natural process. A leaf falls of a tree. Floats to the ground. Done. Natural process. It does not require that anyone give you every natural process from the creation of the universe to now to make that true. Natural causes is the first position to start from. Not unnatural causes. Jar is right, it is that simple.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
This quote appeared in your post:
From Dawn Bertot to Jar - Since you claim I have no evidence for a creator...etc... But if you said [qs=Dawn Bertot responding to Jar][/qs] then it would look like this:
Dawn Bertot responding to Jar writes: Since you claim I have no evidence for a creator...etc... --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Coyote writes: Didn't mean to evade your points, but when you mention archaeology I tend to focus on that, as that is something I've been doing for >40 years.And I googled Mollar, but the passage I ended up finding was somehow Ron Wyatt. The page I landed on wasn't very specific. Not really on topic anyway I guess. But you did evade them all and you appear to still be evading. As to my question, I repeat, Was Swedish scientist Lennart Moller and his science ship crew doing science or practicing religion while doing their Aqaba research so as to falsify or verify the Exodus account? Edited by Buzsaw, : Add word for clarityBUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Good for you, but as expected, utterly irrelevant and simply more false assertions.
There is evidence of natural causes. Please present the evidence of the creator or the method used by that critter to influence evolution. Until you present evidence equal to the evidence of natural causes you have nothing. Since there is evidence that there are natural causes but no evidence of a creator or any method used by that critter to influence evolution logic demands that until such evidence is presented that the creator or the method used by that critter be simply disregarded. Your continued posting of absolute falsehoods and irrelevancies does not make them true or relevant. It really is that simple.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Buz writes: As to my question, I repeat, Was Swedish scientist Lennart Moller and his science ship crew doing science or practicing religion while doing their Aqaba research so as to falsify or verify the Exodus account? He did answer it. Mller was NOT doing science and was simply making a commercial film to sell to the gullible Christians.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 336 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
Hahaha the only thing Kent Hovind needs in this video is a foil hat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
He thinks that the anti-christ was born in 1935 - which means that the antichrist should be far into his retirement.
Phew - that's a relief. Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9202 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
Whether or not you believe Lennart Moller's marine research in Aqaba proved anything, he was not practicing his religion, what ever it be. He was doing science. No?
You have been asked numerous times to show this scientific evidence. As of yet you have to shown anything. Links to him or his crappy "documentary" are not evidence. Can you show anything scientific in his "research"?Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
In terms of archaeology -- no, they were not doing science.
If they were they would have had a serious examination of the evidence, not just vague photographs of what they claim is evidence. I presume Egyptian chariot wheels are well-represented in various museums, so comparisons in workmanship, materials, dimensions, etc. would be necessary to make claims, not to mention some chronological studies. Then the results would have been published in reputable archaeological journals and presented at archaeological conferences. If they had evidence they would have presented it; one can only conclude that they didn't have any.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Drosophilla Member (Idle past 3671 days) Posts: 172 From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK Joined:
|
Logic is an abstract term we use to help us understand the real world. Absolutely not! If you can say that you haven't got the foggiest notion of logic function. Logic deals with VALIDITY OF ARGUMENTS and this has NOTHING to do with reality. Example: A young(ish) boy who believes in Santa Claus could write a paper detailing how many children there are in the world, how far apart they all live in miles, how long Santa has on Xmas Eve in which to deliver all presents - and then present a case of a light speed sled (186,000 miles per second) which can cover said total distance within the time frame. The problem (delivering the presents in said time) and solution (light sped sled) are connected by validity of argument logic. In this case if the sled can deliver within the timeframe logic confirms the validity of the argument. However this in no way makes Santa a real true proposition. Logic is not being used to test reality (if you think it does it's because you really have no idea about logic application) - it is being used to test VALIDITY OF ARGUMENT not a position of reality. Reality comes from EVIDENCE that can be measured in the real world. You can't figure out reality from internal introspection (which includes logic processes). This is why solipsism may be a fun thing to debate philosophically, but has no practical use in the real world. Anything that doesn’t feed in data from the real world is a dead end in terms of describing the reality in which we live. Even quantum physics, whose maths is often the only way we can ‘understand’ what it is about — gets confirmation in the REAL WORLD by ACTUAL EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE. Your subsequent blurb re logic is invalid. Once you try to impose abstract concepts onto a reality (which can only be derived from physical data input) you are done!
No one starts with the assumption of Gods existence. It is deduced from physical realites. Youve got it backwards Please provide the physical realities that lead to the deduction of God's existence. Please state precisely why the realities stated imply must mean a God. Please note - do not ignore this request - I will hound you mercilessly for the answer otherwise!!
No one said written debates werent more exhaustive or comprehensive. In other words you agree this is the superior way to conduct a debate - thank you for agreeing (in retrospect) that I am right.
is this another way of saying you cant or wont make an attempt at a rebuttal. Give it an actual try and see how fun it can be OK then. Well the original statement you made that invoked my word-salad comment was this:
In written ofrm or in person, it wouldnt help your case. Due to the fact that you are trying to wedge a principle into the discussion that is either non-existent or imaginary. Your trying to create a case or scenerio that is not a problem in the first place sic 1. What 'principle' are you referring to - it's not at all clear. Please state your case rather than make oblique references to the debate at hand.....what principle?2. The use of the word 'wedge' is obscure in its meaning in your sentence. Do you mean I'm trying to replace one of your principles with one of my own. Or am I trying to squeeze it alongside one of your own - which is what to 'wedge' actually means....though I'm sure I wouldn't favour sharing opposing concepts - that's illogical (see - logic used here in abstract non-concrete form!) 3. Exactly what case or scenario are you referring to? Please state what you mean - your debating opponents shouldn't have to guess at your meaning because of poor language communication. Is English your primary language? If not then fair enough, I can make allowance for that and just be patient. If English is your primary language - don't try to be deceitful with its meaning. I WILL call you on attempted disingenuousness!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Good for you, but as expected, utterly irrelevant and simply more false assertions. There is evidence of natural causes. Please present the evidence of the creator or the method used by that critter to influence evolution. How many times will you need to be told and how long will you ignore the fact that there is only nature, not causes for nature, if there was an explanable and identifiable cause for nature, as you suggest,we wouldnt be having this discussion
Until you present evidence equal to the evidence of natural causes you have nothing. Only a moron or someone void of any reasoning ability would make such an ignorant comment. which one are you Jar? If natural causes are evidence of causes of themself, then please present the process from start to finish If nautral causes are evidence of SOLEY natural causes, then law, order, identifiable purpose and design are proof of a creator. Of course both positions are equal in evidence, to the conclusion of only two logical possibilites. Neither is superior in "evidence", regarless or your idiotic claim Please demonstrate how nature or natural causes is anything more than a display of nature? please demonstrate how natural causes is an explanation of soley natural causes Please explain how law, order, identifiable purpose and design are less min evidence, or why the are inadequate to draw a conclusion, like that of natural causes. keeping in mind you have completely bungled even the use of natural causes. There is only nature, not causes for nature. Law, order and purpose are more that sufficient and on the same equalitywith nature causes (as you use the term) to provide evidence of a designer Your obligation will now be to demonstrate why it is not of the same type order and nature My prediction is that you are to lazy to make a rebuttal and one of your cohorts will pick up the ball Come on Jar, grow a pair Dawn Bertot Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024