|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4443 days) Posts: 415 From: Australia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Kent Hovind | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2127 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
The second thing I noticed as a result of your Coyote's comments is, that because disagreements and misunderstandings exist between religious groups, they must not and cannot be correct in some areas. Is your implication that all scientist agree on all points in science and specifically evolution and that if they dont agree they must be mistaken about evolution, or they shouldnt teach it because there is disagreement. Or that it should be considered false because there is disagreement? You have misconstrued my point. My point was that science has means for determining which of two claims might be correct and which might be wrong. That means is empirical evidence. Religion has no such means, and as a result you tend to have schisms instead of agreement. Further, when there are fundamental religious disagreements, such as are found among some 4,200+ world religions and 40,000+ Christian denominations, at least one and most likely most will be wrong in their beliefs. Perhaps they are all wrong? As they don't tend to use empirical evidence that very well may be the case--but how can you tell if you have no empirical evidence against which to evaluate?Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5948 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
You are aware that a child can ask the simplest of question that, in order to do justice to the question, can take an expert some time to explain properly? Case in point was Clifford Stoll's description of his oral exams for his PhD Astronomy. The question was: "Why is the sky blue?" It took him two or more hours to answer the question fully. It took him two or four hours, but it's been quite a while since I've read his book, The Cuckoo's Egg, which tells the story of how he had discovered and tracked down a German spy for the Soviets breaking into US government and university computers for information of the Strategic Defense Initiative, AKA "Star Wars". It was reenacted for an enjoyable 1990 episode of Nova, The KGB, the Computer, and Me, which I found on YouTube a few years ago. The book has apparently been reprinted, since I spotted it last week during Borders' liquidation sale.
As I explained to Chuck77 above, meaningful debates should be on a written format to remove the showmanship element and trickery. When this is done there is NEVER a bewildered scientist in a written debate - but plenty of crushed creationists! As creationists are well aware of. They are more than eager to engage in oral debate any time anywhere, more than willing to go far out of their way. But they absolutely refuse to engage in a written format. Yes, there have been a few exceptions with the results that you predict, but creationists know full well that a written format will remove their single advantage: being able to baffle us with their bullshit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
being able to baffle us with their bullshit. Can you give an example that would support this statement Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
You have misconstrued my point. I might have misconstrued your buried point that could be indirectly implied and for that I apologize, but I doubt i misconstrued your visible meaning
My point was that science has means for determining which of two claims might be correct and which might be wrong. That means is empirical evidence. Oh thats what you were getting at, its hard to see in all the anger and resentment Unfortunately even the mighty science has no means of determing which claim is true or false concerning creation or soley natural causes, wouldnt you agree
Religion has no such means, and as a result you tend to have schisms instead of agreement. Not about creation, or the creator, wouldnt you agree Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Dawn Bertot writes: Unfortunately even the mighty science has no means of determing which claim is true or false concerning creation or soley natural causes, wouldnt you agree There is evidence of natural causes, but no evidence of special creation or a creator.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
There is evidence of natural causes, but no evidence of special creation or a creator. Exactly right, except for what appears to be very specific design. Now, can you give me the exact information and details in specification, without hesitation and or reservation that makes you know and be able to prove that it is by soley natural causes. How did it accomplish such a feat? Remember, saying I dont care is not very scientific and does not follow the scientific methodolgy do we have an explanation of those seeming invisible naturally occuring causes, can you explain it in detail with no fear of contradiction, how it works If the Enterprise accidently and immediately transported a device not recognizable to myself or any human, would it be reasonable to assume it did not initiate from somewhere other than nowhere or itself. After examination of its SEEMING purpose and obvious design, would I be justified otherwise Specific design is of the same category. there is no reason to assume that either its initiation or specifications, did not originate from an intelligent source or another physical property it would be extremely silly to assume it came form nothing, even if there is debate about the definition of nothing 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 Dawn bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2127 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Not about creation, or the creator, wouldnt you agree No, I don't agree. There are creation stories in virtually every culture in the world, but they seldom agree with one another. Many or even most are mutually exclusive. Without the use of empirical evidence you have no method for evaluating them and determining which, if any, might be accurate. And no, I am not angry or resentful, and I would hope that my posts don't give that impression. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Too funny.
Until you provide evidence that there is a creator or some model that explains how that creator influences and directs evolution it is simply irrelevant. And that is the thing you have never provided. Until you do provide it you have nothing but bullshit and word salad. It really is that simple.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Too funny. Until you provide evidence that there is a creator or some model that explains how that creator influences and directs evolution it is simply irrelevant. And that is the thing you have never provided. Until you do provide it you have nothing but bullshit and word salad. It really is that simple. Lest you and I get to far off into that again and we get a scathing from Percival, Let me once again point out that you have supplanted opinions and emotion for what should simply be a simple logical proposition. As i demonstrated in my post and to which you gave no logical reply to a very logical argument, except to belittle and berate, you have no evidence concerning your own conclusions. If you did you would have presented it. it does not matter what you think i need to provide in the form of evidence, when you yourself cannot provide evidence for you conclusion Its really not that simple, because all you have provided is an explanation of what is visible and how it works, not its origination and creation properties. If the visible properties in the form of the most minute particles of the universe, that cause the other existent properties, were constant, always there, and unchanging you might have a point. it should be obvious they are not, even to our greatest measuring abilites Without any real evidence for thier coming into existence, you have no real evidence as to thier source. Isnt that the point So Jar in the absence of opinion and your feeelings, it will always be reduced to a logical proposition, in the absence of that which is presently knowable. Wouldnt you agree neither you or I have a MODEL Jar where there is not enough evidence to form a model If your implication is that you can provide a model for that which is not knowable, then please present it, Post hast Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Bullshit and another example of you continuing to state falsehoods.
There is evidence of natural causes. Please present the evidence of the creator or the method used by that critter to influence evolution. It really is that simple.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5948 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5
|
Perhaps if you were better prepared and informed you could make a better appearance and presentation. Yeah, I understand its hard to think on your feet Part of these poor scientist problem, is that they dont understand the issues to begin with That was the situation in the beginning of the creationist "debates" in the 1970's. Those poor scientists went in thinking that the debate would be about what science is and says and shows us. Instead, they got hit by an avalanche of creationist bullshit the likes of which they had never seen before and could have never imagined in their wildest nightmares. They were totally unable to deal with the mass of misrepresentations, misquotes, and outright lies that was being thrown at them. So, they started taking creationists seriously. They started reading the creationists' books and articles. They saw the scientific citations in those claims and they did what no creationist ever would do: they looked up those scientific sources cited by the creationists to see what those sources had actually said. It's SOP for scientists and academics, but completely foreign to the creationist mentality. That revealed how the creationists were misquoting and misrepresenting their sources. It also gave the scientists and professors familiarity with creationist claims and what was wrong about those claims. Then, through informal communications, those early victims of creationist "debators" got in touch with each other (were probably already in touch with each other through every-day work) and shared their experiences and what they had learned. This led to the state-wide "Committees of Correspondence" (CC), which by 1980 led to a nation-wide clearing-house for these CCs, the National Center for Science Education (NCSE). From the history offered at that link:
quote:I started getting involved in 1981 and first heard about the NCSE in 1984. I've seen a lot of the history unfold during that time. I've been discussing creation/evolution on-line since circa 1987. I know what I'm talking about and I know about creationist misconduct from very personal experience. One thing that has worked to our advantage is that the creationists' presentations are very well-polished. That means that they are running through a script; eg, Duane Gish, the universally acknowledged creationist "master debator" (you won't get it, but everyone else is fully free to play with the wording inside those quotation marks). This means that, while that well-oiled machine may serve the creationist well against uninitiated opponents, the more studious opponents will know exactly what the creationist will do, what false claims he will use, and what the appropriate responses are. A little sage advice; you should include this scroll in your scripture:
quote: What the scientists and educators did was to alleviate themselves of their ignorance of their opponents, the result of which was the turning of the tide circa 1980. For example, in 1979 there was a new public school policy to include "creation science" in the local curriculum in Tampa, Florida. Shortly thereafter, Dr. Kenneth Miller (a biology PhD and professor and a self-professed creationist, yet an ardent opponent of "creation science") debated Institute for Creation Research (ICR) then-President (now deceased) Dr. Henry Morris (PhD Hydraulic Engineering) in Tampa. At the time, Henry Morris and Duane Gish, both of the ICR, were the two top creationist debators and had actually quite literally written the Book on "creation science". The ICR reported that Morris' performance in that debate had substantially strengthened the creationist position in Tampa (not the first time they've lied), but in reality as a result of the debate the school board indefinitely shelved their planned implementation of a creationist curriculum. Gish fared even worse in a subsequent debate with Miller, sealing the fate of that creationist curriculum. Get somebody in there who knows what he's doing and the creationist will have a very hard task before him. It's the newbie who doesn't know what kind of utter bullshit he's about to be hit with who remains easy prey for creationist deception. And like B.T. Barnum's suckers born every minute (model for all these new creationists reading the long-refuted false creationist claims, never knowing the rich history of their absolute refutation, yet another creationist lie being told them), there are scientists and educators out there who are unaware of the rich resources available to them. But as they also become educated, they also cease to be such easy prey for your deception.
In written ofrm or in person, it wouldnt help your case. Au contraire! -- et vous n'tes pas mon frre. The greatest advantage a creationist has is the element of surprise. If they are able to deceive their opponent into thinking that the issues of the "debate" are scientific, then they are free to chew him up piece-meal. The very last thing that creationists would want is to allow their opponent time to analyze their claims and to research them. An oral debate with time constraints ensures that that will never happen. A written debate opens the doors for actual examination of the evidence, which is the very last thing that any aware creationist would want. Of course, there are creationists who, according to Sun Tzu, do not know themselves. But, to my mind and in my three decades of experience, any creationist who has been involved in discussion for any length of time cannot help but know how weak their position is. This is why I believe that honest creationists don't last long, because they very quickly reach a point where they have to become wilfully ignorant, IOW to start to actively deceive themselves. {ABE: Dawn, you have seen for yourself how well your bullshit plays in written form. It doesn't play at all, does it? Why do you remain so deeply in denial? Because you believe that your faith depends completely on the lies that you keep spewing? Why are you unable to see what's so fundamentally wrong with such a sick and perverted theology?}
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 No, Dawn, you are the purveyor of bullshit. Drosiophilla was telling the truth. You really have no clue, do you? The perfect creationist patsy. BTW, may I please extend my congratulations? You have made incredibly enormous progress. Most of your writing is actually in complete sentences. I honestly would not have believed it possible, but you did it! It's a wonderful achievement! Now if you could only place actual content into those sentences. Edited by dwise1, : ABE Edited by dwise1, : spelling
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Bullshit and another example of you continuing to state falsehoods. There is evidence of natural causes. Please present the evidence of the creator or the method used by that critter to influence evolution. It really is that simple. Your frustration and anger make it obvious you are unable or unwilling to respond to the argument I have present BTW, calm down dude Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Bullshit and another example of you continuing to state falsehoods.
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. It really is that simple.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5948 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
dwise1 writes:
Can you give an example that would support this statement being able to baffle us with their bullshit. How about the countless misrepresentations of what evolution is and what evolutionary theory says? How about the countless misquotations and misrepresentations of scientific sources? How about the countless misrepresentations of science? Why don't you give us a specific creationist claim that we can explain to you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5948 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
It doesnt make the Bible or anyother inspiration claimed source a liar due to the fact that the two positions are not in oposition to eachother to begin with
You fracking stupid idiot! That's your opposition to Coyote? You fracking stupid idiot! You have no idea what Coyote was saying! The truth of any "inspired claimed source" was never ever the question! The question -- if this does not blow you miniscule mind -- is that [i]even though all these "Chrisitian" groups claim the same "inspired claimed source", they allj come up with different conclusions. That is all that Coyote was saying, that all these groups, even though they all claim the same "inspired claimed source", all come up with very different conclusions. As usual, Dawn, you don't understand anything. You are listed as the most prolific poster in this topic ... and you have absolutely nothing to contribute.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024