Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8852 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-15-2018 2:49 AM
181 online now:
GDR, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat) (3 members, 178 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: rldawnca
Post Volume:
Total: 836,903 Year: 11,726/29,783 Month: 748/1,642 Week: 162/460 Day: 1/62 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
78
9
10111213Next
Author Topic:   Kent Hovind
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 121 of 182 (626790)
07-31-2011 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by frako
07-31-2011 10:09 AM


Re: People Who Laugh
frako writes:

As for the creationist claims cmmon just look at why do people laugh at creationists on youtube 34 episodes of pure bullshit and explenations why it is bullshit.

The majority secularistic population will always laugh at creationist minded phenomena but the same majority are fine with the secularistic notion that the universe's origin/genesis had no existing area in which to have happened, no time in which to have happened and no outside of into which to have expanded.

Edited by Buzsaw, : Fixing submit problem

Edited by Buzsaw, : 2nd attempt to fix "submit"


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by frako, posted 07-31-2011 10:09 AM frako has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by frako, posted 07-31-2011 2:36 PM Buzsaw has acknowledged this reply

jar
Member
Posts: 30701
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 122 of 182 (626791)
07-31-2011 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by Buzsaw
07-31-2011 10:56 AM


Re: Hovind Singled Out
It really is simple.

Either the Government is unaware of them or they are simply so totally irrelevant and unimportant to be worth the cost of going after them.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Buzsaw, posted 07-31-2011 10:56 AM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Buzsaw, posted 07-31-2011 11:17 AM jar has responded
 Message 125 by subbie, posted 07-31-2011 11:19 AM jar has acknowledged this reply

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 123 of 182 (626793)
07-31-2011 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by jar
07-31-2011 11:08 AM


Re: Hovind Singled Out
jar writes:

It really is simple.
Either the Government is unaware of them or they are simply so totally irrelevant and unimportant to be worth the cost of going after them.

Why thanks, jar; thanks very much, for inadvertently making my point as to why the government singled out Hovind for prosecution. It had to be, therefore, other than evasion for singling him out. No?


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by jar, posted 07-31-2011 11:08 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by hooah212002, posted 07-31-2011 11:19 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 126 by jar, posted 07-31-2011 11:25 AM Buzsaw has acknowledged this reply

hooah212002
Member (Idle past 87 days)
Posts: 3181
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 124 of 182 (626794)
07-31-2011 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Buzsaw
07-31-2011 11:17 AM


Re: Hovind Singled Out
What do you mean he was "singled out"? Do you really believe he is the ONLY person who has been convicted of tax evasion?????

"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Buzsaw, posted 07-31-2011 11:17 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 125 of 182 (626795)
07-31-2011 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by jar
07-31-2011 11:08 AM


Re: Hovind Singled Out
Seriously man, why do you bother? You'd have a more pleasant afternoon and be just as effective if you went outside and tried to teach a tree to tap dance.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by jar, posted 07-31-2011 11:08 AM jar has acknowledged this reply

jar
Member
Posts: 30701
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 126 of 182 (626796)
07-31-2011 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Buzsaw
07-31-2011 11:17 AM


Re: Hovind Singled Out
Not at all. He is simply a BIGGER crook and screwed more people than the ones you are aware of it seems.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Buzsaw, posted 07-31-2011 11:17 AM Buzsaw has acknowledged this reply

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16030
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 127 of 182 (626799)
07-31-2011 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by Buzsaw
07-31-2011 10:56 AM


Re: Hovind Singled Out
I'm not convinced that they are not supported by the constitution of the US of A. Jesus advocated to render to Caesar, i.e. the government what was Caesar's and to God what was God's.

These folks are convinced in their own minds that they are fulfilling their obligations to Caesar. If they are not, why is the government not going after all of them as was the case with Hovind? Why have many lived and died, never having been prosecuted?

I would again ask if you've turned them in.

Doubtless there are also murderers who have got away with it. If you know who they are then speak up, don't imply that they're innocent because they've not been caught yet.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Buzsaw, posted 07-31-2011 10:56 AM Buzsaw has acknowledged this reply

dwise1
Member
Posts: 3162
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 128 of 182 (626820)
07-31-2011 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by IamJoseph
07-31-2011 9:56 AM


Re: Debating creationists
Can we see some examples of what is called BS in the Hebrew bible - whether from a view of science, history, geography, math or anything which has been disproven - none were given?

What does that have to do with creationist debates? Or with "creation science" for that matter?

For one thing, creationists' aren't about what's actually in the Bible -- especially what's in a non-KJV such as the Tanakh which you mention -- , but rather about what they've been taught to believe about it. I've often wondered not just where some creationists' beliefs came from, but also and much more important whether they even know; asking them never seemed to work very well, triggering the same hostile reaction as I would get for trying to discuss their claims, a reaction that I've come to understand as being because they don't understand their own claims and were just mindlessly repeating what they had been told.

For another, "creation science" does not make direct use of the Bible. It doesn't dare to, since it was created as a deception to circumvent the US court system in which you can't base a law solely on a religious purpose. To make direct use of the contents of the Bible would be to expose their own lies, even though the courts have already discovered on their own that "creation science" is religious, not scientific. Bringing the Bible into the debate would defeat their purpose; it would be self-defeating.

"Creation science" claims that the scientific evidence best supports creation, but rather than to show that to be the case, all they do is to attack any science that appears to support evolution and an old earth. And those attacks employ misrepresentations, misquoting, and outright fabrications. That is the BS that creationists' debate opponents have had to learn to deal with. The Bible has nothing to do with it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by IamJoseph, posted 07-31-2011 9:56 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2776
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 129 of 182 (626825)
07-31-2011 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Buzsaw
07-31-2011 11:08 AM


Re: People Who Laugh
nope most rather say we just dont know yet
This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Buzsaw, posted 07-31-2011 11:08 AM Buzsaw has acknowledged this reply

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2776
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 130 of 182 (626826)
07-31-2011 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by IamJoseph
07-31-2011 10:26 AM


Re: Debating creationists
Yes, the text for leprosy represents the first initiation of medicine as a faculty of science.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH
HHAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH
HHAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH
HHAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH
HHAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Yea science get 2 pigueons kill one dip the feather of the other in the first ones blood sprincle the blood over the person (or a house) then let the piguen go away from the city.

Yup sounds realy scientific to me hhahahahaahahah

thanx for the laugh

Edited by AdminModulous, : FORMATTING


This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by IamJoseph, posted 07-31-2011 10:26 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 130 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 131 of 182 (626834)
07-31-2011 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by dwise1
07-30-2011 11:55 PM


Re: Debating creationists
PS
Yet again, just who the fuck is this "Dr. Warren" idiot you metioned? You really want to hide that, don't you?

Of course not. Dr Thomas B Waren was (he has now paased) a bible scholar, trained philosopher, held nearly every philosophical degree, member of every philosophical association. But most notibly he was a highly recognized logician and experienced apologist

Some of his memorable debates were with those with Dr Flew, Dr Wallace Matson at berkley and Dr Joe E. Barnhart, which followed and taught the principles of Jeremy Benthem/ Joseph Fletcher (Situation Ethics)

In the Churhes of Christ he was the leading Apologist in his day, excluding his mentor, Guy N Woods, which I believe was the single greatest debator, past or present.

Debates with Dr Warren became very one sided very quickly. he was a masterful apologist, but he was most noted for his Biblical schlorship.

Some of His books include

Logic and the Bible

Have atheist proved thier is no God.

And several several others

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by dwise1, posted 07-30-2011 11:55 PM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by dwise1, posted 07-31-2011 8:23 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 130 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 132 of 182 (626846)
07-31-2011 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by dwise1
07-30-2011 10:19 PM


Re: Debating creationists
So just who is this "Dr Warren" idiot you are referring to?

Tell me truthfully Dwise, you were drunk last night after a certain point in your posting , werent you?

And yes, I realize it will take some time for the post of yours, that will bring my downfall. I patiently and eagerly await

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by dwise1, posted 07-30-2011 10:19 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 130 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 133 of 182 (626852)
07-31-2011 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Drosophilla
07-31-2011 7:14 AM


Re: Debating creationists
Hasty generalisation fallacy - another classic creationist hallmark. Well, to give you a little background - I am scientifically trained (in the biological sciences) so have a good understanding of both the scientific method and the ToE. My job currently involves me drafting communication re government regulatory changes. This means my use of English and specifically the content I use has to be explicit and as free from possible misinterpretation as possible (given the modern propensity to litigative recourse). I have become very adept at spotting 'crap' inserted in the English language. Are you really sure you want to debate me?

Very impressive, I dont know what it has to do with the topic but very impressive, Im sure your mom is very proud. BTW, I thought I already was debating you.

You seem to use the word 'logic' quite a lot in your posts I've noticed. But do you really understand the limitations of its application? Logic isn't used to say that something is true or not. Logic is the formal process of the validity of inferences.

When i use the word logic I am only referencing it in its more general use of the word as sound reasoning
Logic is a term, its abstract concepts and usage as per your example above, are abstractions as well.

Reality, not terms and abstract usages, set the tone for what is and is not rational, concerning the existence of physical realites

The classic example is the only two explanations that reality will allow, for the existence of things in reality. reality and physical properties give me both the boundries and limations of my conclusions concerning these matters. regardless of my usage of reasoning principles, these two physical realites will persist.

IOWs, reality explains what is rational, what is logical, what is reasonable, not philosophical termsor symbolic logic.

This is why in my explanation of creationism I attempt to demonstrate that logic of reality, physical properties willl decide what will be my rational approach.

IOWs, creationism, ID and an explanation of Soley Natural Causes, can only be reduced to rational propositions, with the limited alternatives that reality will allow. they have nothing to do with religion or opinions, but will be strickly based on realites alternatives and limitations, concerning physical properties

So yes, I do understand what is involved in a logical approach, you have simply isolated one aspect of rational thought, that is described as 'Logic'

So you value style over substance do you? Are you really so clueless that you don't recognise stage-managed guile and deception? Give me one reason that live debates are 'better' than written ones. I'll give reasons why written ones better - let's see your countermand:

1. Written debates are permanent. Neither debater can retract statements without it being obvious his position is jeopardised.
2. Written debates can cover every issue - no chance of a debater 'forgetting' to answer things he found difficult
3. Written debates give each side time to reflect and research questions. This is the ACADEMIC way to proceed - and we are dealing with academic issues here aren't we? Live debates appeal to the media and public lust for live 'action' - but that is no way to progress issues requiring deep reflection.
4. Written debates eliminate showmanship trickery. A debate should not revolve around which personality can best 'play' an audience, but instead it should only focus on the subject under discussion. If you need to 'play' to a live audience there is something fundamentally weak about your position.

Now - give me reasons why you think a live debate is preferable.

The same things can be accomplised in a public week long debate

bertot writes

In written form 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

Dro writes

The above sentence is pure word-salad - English words strung together with no sense at all - if I did this in my job I'd be looking for another post by now. Incidentally this is another ploy used in live creationist debates (you should get in touch with Gish - he'd see you as a natural). If you said the above statement to a scientist in a live debate he'd look puzzled and would remain silent. The audience would lap it up thinking - "that great Dawn - hasn't he got that scientist in trouble", when in reality the scientist would be thinking "Well he seems to be talking English - I understand each word he has uttered - but the sentences just don't seem to make sense - what is he actually trying to ask me?"

You see, scientists deal with concretes and specifics. Word-salad is alien and strange to them. Do you not think the Gish's of this world don't know that?

By the way - do you really read all the posts sent back to you? If so then please re-read dwise1's post number 71 - the perfect post laying out the creationist 'strategy' to dealing with the tiresome 'scientific' objection to their fairyland beliefs.

It does not surprise me in the least you do not understand my meaning. It only bothers me that you did not attempt a rebuttal

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Drosophilla, posted 07-31-2011 7:14 AM Drosophilla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by jar, posted 07-31-2011 4:44 PM Dawn Bertot has responded
 Message 171 by Drosophilla, posted 08-01-2011 8:49 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30701
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 134 of 182 (626853)
07-31-2011 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Dawn Bertot
07-31-2011 4:40 PM


Logic dermands
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.

It really is that simple.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Dawn Bertot, posted 07-31-2011 4:40 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Dawn Bertot, posted 07-31-2011 4:52 PM jar has responded
 Message 137 by IamJoseph, posted 07-31-2011 6:14 PM jar has responded
 Message 150 by Dawn Bertot, posted 07-31-2011 9:52 PM jar has responded

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 130 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 135 of 182 (626859)
07-31-2011 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by jar
07-31-2011 4:44 PM


Re: Logic dermands
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.

It really is that simple.

I have to go out for a few hours. I will make one more attempt to answer this question, as I have already answered several times.

I will make one more attempt to have you actually break down my post and its content, without handwaving it and saying bullshit or to funny. If you do not, i will understand there will no more need to respond or pay attention to anything you have posted to myself

Agreed.

Dawn bertot

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix quote box (was no closing /qs), add a blank line in quote box.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by jar, posted 07-31-2011 4:44 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by jar, posted 07-31-2011 5:11 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
78
9
10111213Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018