Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham

I think that highlights the points you and others have made, which is certainly a valid point, that we can only speculate according to our historical model.Often I am lying in bed at night and I sometimes think, or well, it's really a kind of wish, that scientists would invent a machine that they could place in space, like a satellite, and it could take pictures of the earth as it was in the past. It's pure science fiction, but the reason I wish for it is because sometimes we desperately want to just know for sure what really did happen. I guess that's just part of the human condition, because, and I'm sure evolutionists will agree with me here - let's face it, the universe just doesn't care what we do or do not discover.I must have had that daydream maybe ten times though, because sometimes you listen to evolutionists and they're so convinced that you kind of think, "Lord, could they be right?" Or at least any honest person does, because it's quite a thing to reject the tidal wave of people in favour of it.I won't be coming back to EvC, but I just wanted to let you know I think you've made some good points, I know it won't be acknowledged but don't worry, because I am cleverer than most people at this forum, and my opinion is that you've made some good, cogent points. Not to say that to boast, but that you should listen to the person that is perhaps in the best position to judge.

Calm down dear, I was only trying to encourage her, it can be hard being one soldier against the many. Nobody is going to encourage me, that's for sure, so I can at least state some positives about myself. Those two particular emotive terms, are called epithets. Epithets are usually used IN PLACE of arguments, as with this empty assertion.Notice your claim needs nothing but the accusation itself, rather than the proof of the accusation. Just the two terms spoken aloud are enough to your mind, to prove it. And since all evolutionists bandy such terms around about creationists, then as soon as anyone reads it, they are convinced. Forget the jury, forget the evidence, forget the judge, just execute, because we believed you at, "ignorant."It's the same with "homophobe", all you have to do to win the gay-debate, is call the Christian a homophobe, even it he isn't one. How thoughtful, how clever!But I don't feel the need to insult you back, as that would be ad hominem.And largely that's why I urge clever creationists like Faith to not hang around these parts too long, because if they do, they will soon realize that they are expending exponential energy fighting against an angry mob. I would have thought that was obvious if you had read my posts, it's because I prefer to provide a syllogistic and sound argument to back up my claims, as I so did, without refutation. Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

You STATED I have a lack of thought, and my conclusions are unreliable, you didn't show it. It's nothing more than an ad hominem remark.I won't state anything personal about you. I don't need to.Secondly, I claimed Faith made some cogent points, which you incorrectly took to mean whatever you wanted it to mean. It did not mean what you thought it meant because you don't know what points I meant, given I never divulged the information. Think more carefully before jumping to preconceived conclusions about super-mikey. Perhaps a trip to specsavers might not allow you to convert "some cogent points" to, "Faith's arguments", in case you didn't notice, you conflated two different things. I haven't even read a lot of her arguments, which just shows the silly error you make, to jump to conclusions you have already made about me. Pretty obtuse error for someone that claims I need to think more and my conclusions are unreliable, given you jumped to an astoundingly incorrect one. I didn't try to obscure what you call, "false boasting", I actually shown that my reason to tell Faith I was cleverer than most here, was so that she could see that when I said she had cogent points, she could accept that judgement. Another empty assertion. I haven't been "caught" making bad arguments, you have concluded I have made them, in your unworthy opinion. I don't accept your counter-offerings, because you didn't flesh them out, whereas I provided a whole blog entry. Nice soundbite. But I don't value your opinion. Yet another empty, unproven assertion. Don't you notice the fact that you simply state these things?I've seen no evidence that you have any comprehension of what constitutes a good or bad argument given you seem to think that empty and opinionated assertions are sound syllogisms rather than sophistry. That's the first statement you've made that has any backing. There you go, you can back up statements after all!!You said I need to think more, I suggest you need to think more cleverly. PK.I see that you have predictably used my post as an opportunistic assassination of Faith's character. This is transparent, and predictable of your style, you used to do this with Buzsaw if anyone chose to state something positive about his posts. It's a kind of indirect, passive agressive dig at the other Christian, you use my post to get to her.It's all ad hominem argument, but you don't realize it because of your own biases, but your mistakes are so overwhelmingly OVERKILL to an almost absurd degree but what always amazed me is that you never noticed you were making them. You think it proves great things but it's all simply an attack of character, because you don't have the ability to form a sound argument. Notice how many times her name was used in your post even though your post was supposed to be in response to me.People that argue well don't need to use such tactics so we can safely rule out your opinion as having any credence.I suggest you concentrate on perhaps improving your debate skills. If you were not so quick to attack people on a personal level, and actually tried to show some form of syllogism, with some true premises, and some effort you have put in yourself, rather than trying to simply sit there like a spider, waiting for flies to get caught in your web.Your style now makes me predict you shall have your famous last word. By all means do, I won't be reading it, because as you have said, I am not stupid, therefore I already know I would not value it.All the best. Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Why do you NEED to mention the person's knowledge? Did you know that a lunatic in an asylum can state a correct thing about genetics? Did you know an expert in genetics can state an incorrect thing about genetics?As long as a person states something sound, that is all that counts, which means that in debate, you actually have to address what was said, rather than saying something about the person's character, which is either ad hominem or an ad hominem allusion.In debate, to appeal to scientific knowledge indirectly, is an appeal to authority. This is ultimately your argument, though it is not stated explicitly. You state her lack of knowledge in order to prove your own, as though this settles something.Please be aware, I have not read her argument, nor yours, I have only highlighted your extremely basic logical error.Go back and ACTUALLY ADDRESS something she said or do not speak at all.

Your post is an indirect attack on another person, an ad hominem, personal reference, Paul K also used my post to get at Faith with a character attack, whereas this time you use your pal's post to imply something derogatory. It's a, "we all agree with eachother" display.I'm sure that comforts you greatly if you are all with eachother, but from the outside? Pretty lame, a bit like chimps throwing scat.I believe I am suggesting the correct course in agreement with the rules of the forum and of debate.