Kent Hovind

This appears on the Dr Dino webpage in relation to a brochure produced bt the Skeptics Society title 'Top 10 Myths about Evolution'...Written by Kent Hovind. Is there anything we can do to help this debate happen?I would be willing to put in some funds to help it along.Would this forum consider putting together a team to challenge Kent Hovind?Edited by Butterflytyrant, : typo

Dawn,I think you missed Coyotes point. I have made and agree with his
point that it is very difficult to debate Christians because each one has their own correct interpretation of all things Christian. Seeing as though there is nothing to be resolved among Christians you should be able to let us all know who is right among the following issues. I am sure you will be able to use your "reality, logic and simple common sense" and sort these issues out.Age of the Earth -Biblical literalists -6000 years oldRoman Catholics -4.5 Billion years oldCreation -Mormons -Mormon teachings clearly deny the doctrine of creation ex nihilo (creation out of nothing). They claim this is a late development in the theology of the Christian church, believing that Joseph Smith's understanding of eternal matter has more in common with restored Christianity. What is found is a God who did not necessarily create the world and everything in it, but instead organized the world. God found himself in an arena of chaotic matter that had always existed. Realizing this, he chose to organize and order this matter into the world we have today.Young Earth Evangelicals -The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six [6] consecutive twenty-four [24] hour days of creation. This occured about 6000 years ago.
The gap theory has no basis in Scripture.Gap Creationism -Gap creationists believe that science has proven beyond reasonable doubt that the Earth is far older than can be accounted for by, for instance, adding up the ages of Biblical patriarchs and comparing it with secular historical data, as James Ussher famously attempted in the 17th century when he developed the Ussher chronology.To maintain that the Genesis creation account is inerrant in matters of scientific fact, Gap creationists suppose that certain facts about the past and the age of the Earth have been omitted from the Genesis account; specifically that there was a gap of time in the Biblical account that lasted an unknown number of years between a first creation in Genesis 1:1 and a second creation in Genesis 1:2-31. By positing such an event, various observations in a wide range of fields, including the age of the Earth, the age of the universe, dinosaurs, fossils, ice cores, ice ages, and geological formations are allowed by adherents to have occurred as outlined by science without contradicting their literal belief in Genesis.Progressive Creationsim -In contrast to young Earth creationists, progressive creationists accept the geological column, of the progressive appearance of plants and animals through time. To their viewpoint it reflects the order in which God sequentially created kinds, starting with simple, single-celled organisms and progressing through to complex multicellular organisms and the present day. They do not however accept the scientific consensus that these kinds evolved from each other, and believe that kinds are genetically limited, such that one cannot change into another. They are no more specific than YECs about what constitutes a kind.Proponents of the Progressive creation theory include astronomer-turned-apologist Hugh Ross, whose organization, Reasons To Believe, accepts the scientifically determined age of the Earth but seeks to disprove Darwinian evolution. Answers in Creation is another organization, set up in 2003, which supports progressive creationism. The main focus of Answers In Creation is to provide rebuttals to the scientific claims of young earth creationism which are widely regarded as a pseudoscience.Framework Interpretation -The framework interpretation is an interpretation of the first chapter of the Book of Genesis which holds that the seven-day creation account found therein is not a literal or scientific description of the origins of the universe; rather, it is an ancient religious text which outlines a theology of creation. The seven day "framework" is therefore not meant to be chronological but is a literary or symbolic structure designed to reinforce the purposefulness of God in creation and the Sabbath commandment.Day-Age Creationism -Day-Age creationism, a type of Old Earth creationism, is an interpretation of the creation accounts found in Genesis. It holds that the six days referred to in the Genesis account of creation are not ordinary 24-hour days, but rather are much longer periods (of thousands or millions of years). The Genesis account is then reconciled with the age of the Earth, providing a broad base on which any number of theories and interpretations are built. Proponents of the Day-Age Theory can be found among both theistic evolutionists (who accept the scientific consensus on evolution) and progressive creationists (who reject it). The theories are said to be built on the understanding that the Hebrew word yom is used to refer to a time period, with a beginning and an end, and not necessarily that of a 24-hour day.Dawn Bertot version - ID as far as I can tellEvolution -Roman Catholic Church - (this statement covers the Big Bang Theory too)According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5—4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.Evangelicals and any denomination who follow a literal interpretation of the BibleEvolution has not and cannot occur. Regardless of any evidence to the contrary. No amount of evidence will ever be able to support this theory.Dawn Bertot version - not really sure but seems pretty anti evolution.Homosexuality -Baptists -The Southern Baptist Convention, the largest of the Baptist denominations and the largest Protestant group in the U.S., considers same-gender sexual behavior to be sinful, stating clearly that its members "affirm God's plan for marriage and sexual intimacy — one man, and one woman, for life. Homosexuality is not a 'valid alternative lifestyle.' The Bible condemns it as sin. It is not, however, an unforgivable sin. The same redemption available to all sinners is available to homosexuals. They, too, may become new creations in Christ.Eastern Orthodoxy -The Orthodox Church holds the opinion that sexuality, as we understand it, is part of the fallen world only. In Orthodox theology both monasticism and marriage are paths to Salvation (sotiriain Greek; literally meaning, "becoming whole"). Celibacy is the ideal path, exemplified in monasticism, while marriage is blessed under the context of true love ("Man must love his wife as Jesus loved his Church": this phrase is part of the Orthodox Marriage Ritual). This context can be interpreted by the non-Orthodox as not being exclusive of homosexuality; whereas it is seen as exclusive of homosexuality by the vast majority of the Orthodox. Traditionally, the church has adopted a non-legalistic view of sin (see above), in which homosexuality is a sin. Although some members of the church may have assumed an active role in encouraging negative social stereotypes against gay individuals who do not repent, they misrepresent the stance of the Orthodox Church, which does not promote judgment of people but judgment of actions. However, several prominent members of the clergy have made statements condemning homosexuality.All jurisdictions, such as the Orthodox Church in America, have taken the approach of welcoming people with "homosexual feelings and emotions," while encouraging them to work towards "overcoming its harmful effects in their lives," while not allowing the sacraments to people who seek to justify homosexual activityLutherans -The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the largest Lutheran church body in the United States, as of 21 August 2009, voted 559 to 451 in favor of allowing non-celibate gays to become ordained ministers. During the national meeting in 2005, delegates voted against a measure that would have allowed non-celibate gay ordination and the blessing of same-sex unions by 503 against to 490 in favor. ELCA Lutheran policy states that LGBT individuals are welcome and encouraged to become members and participate in the life of the congregation. The ELCA does not yet have a rite for blessing same-sex unions, but another motion passed at the 2009 Assembly directed its leaders to develop one. ELCA congregations that specifically embrace LGBT persons are called Reconciling in Christ congregations. The group Lutherans Concerned supports the inclusion of LGBT members in Lutheran churches in the ELCA and ELCIC. All other Lutheran churches in the United States oppose ordination and marriage of homosexuals.I am glad you will be able to point out the correct interpretation of the Christian Faith. It should not take you too long to let all of the 2 billion or so Christians know which of them are in error and they will all be able to have 1 unified interpretation.One thing I am not sure of. As you do not believe that evolution is occuring, how are you going to convince the Roman Catholics?Disclaimer **I plagarised my arse off throughout this post. If you want to find out where the info came from, just cut and paste the sentence into google and you should find it.**Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add one more blank line which I found to be marring an otherwise wonderful message -Besides, it was in the section I was most interested in.

I agree with a lot of points about a debate with Hovind.I know it can be a problem debating some creationists.I know that debating some creationists seems to give credibility to their arguements.However, not debating them leaves them as unnopposed lecturers.As Hovind is such a predictable creature, it may be possible to soundly defeat him.I have noticed, after (painfully) watching a great many of his debates and videos, that he used an almost identical Gish Gallop for each debate.He uses the same slides and the same arguments. He has a selection of arguements, with slides which to tackle any response.He seems to do a quick search on his laptop for the correct rebuttal. As soon as someone mentions carbon dating, he uses the same 5 or so examples of why it does not work. All of his examples have been soundly refuted.Because he works on such a program, as he has less and less ground to stand on, it should not be hard to demolish him.Any debator against him would have to continually narrow the discussion back to the actual topic as he does smash out a huge amount of bullshit in a very short period of time.Are there any members on this forum who actually use the sort of arguements he does? eg the carbon dating examples he still uses on his webpage (http://www.drdino.com/carbon-dating/)

Hello IamJoseph,I think this may be a language issue. Thinking about the definition that I use for nature and I would suggest it is the same definition most people use, if you are using the same definition you could not possibly be making your statements and claim to be rational.Can you tell us what you think nature mean please?It is very possible that you are using the word in a totally different way that everyone else here is using it.I dont know anyone who would be able to consider that nature is a deity or that there is no evidence of nature. Also, from the standard definition of nature as I understand it, being an athiest has no effect on it. It does not matter what faith you are, nature does not change.So if you could define the word nature as you understand it, it may help us clear up this issue.

Hello IamJoseph,I think you have just displayed the language barrier.other posters can correct me if I am wrong in speaking for them but your description of what nature is in no way matches the definition of nature.Nature - The phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.It is a simple as that. It just means stuff that is not made by people. There is nothing about how it is created, by whom it is created, why it is creted etc. It is a word that describes all things not made by people.That is the only factor. It is not vague. There are no abstract terms. Either a person made it or they did not. It is really that simple.Mother nature is something different.Mother Nature (sometimes known as Mother Earth) is a common personification of nature that focuses on the life-giving and nurturing aspects of nature by embodying it in the form of the mother. Images of women representing mother earth, and mother nature, are timeless. In prehistoric times, goddesses were worshipped for their association with fertility, fecundity, and agricultural bounty. Priestesses held dominion over aspects of Incan, Algonquian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Slavonic, Germanic, Roman, Greek, Indian, and Iroquoian religions in the millennia prior to the inception of patriarchal religions.
read more here : Mother Nature - WikipediaNatural process is also something different -natural process - a process existing in or produced by nature (rather than by the intent of human beings); "the action of natural forces"; "volcanic activity"There are no contradicting theologies here. Either a person made it or they did not. Theology does not enter into its description at all. This sentence makes it clear that you do not understand the definition of nature. The description says nothing about a creator at all. A hard core creationist is just as capable of identifying a product made by a human being (an aluminium can) as opposed to an object not created by a human being (a rock). It is not non denominational as theology never enters its description. It is either made by a human or not. The Nile River is not made by a human. So it is part of nature. This does not mean that God did or did not make it. It just means that humans did not make it. A tree is not made by a human. Thus, a tree is part of nature. This does not mean that God did or did not make it. It just means that a human did not make it. A car is made by a human. The interaction of God is irrelevant. As it was made by a human, it is not nature. There is plenty of science behind nature. A raindrop falls from a leaf and hits the ground. In that one natural occurance there are many laws and theories. Gravity, physics, hydrogen bonds etc etc etc
There is plenty of science behind natural causes. Take an ice cube out of your freezer and put it in the sun. The ice cube turning to water has a normal, natural (as in without human action) scientific explanation. your comments regarding ecosystems leads me to believe that you dont actually know what an ecosystem is either. Any person can see ecosytems working out of their window. Ecosystems are equally valid regardless of any theological or non theological persepctive one might have. Again, this is showing that you do not know the actual meanings of the words you are using. You have one correct statement in this post and it is that we do not call a car's working nature. It is not, a human made the car. A human did not make the rain and a human did not make the sunshine. So they are nature. Again, it does not matter if you believe that God made the rain or sunlight, or if you have a valid scientific theory about how it was made or if you think the fairys made it. If you believe that it was not made by a human being, then it is classed as nature. There is no need to capture Mr or Mrs nature (whatever that means) or come up with any description of its creation, theological or otherwise. The deciding factor of what is natural and what is not is if it is made by a human being.I dont know if I can explain it any better than that.

Hello Admin,I started the topic.At the time I did not know that Hovind was a jail bird.I admit I find it pretty funny how many times he brings up how he does and does not want his tax dollars spent when he does not pay taxes.Anyway, I think that the Hovind topic has pretty much run its course.I am happy for your to move it wherever you want.i am actually starting to make some headway with IamJoseph at the moment and dont want to lose too much momentem.Cheers,BT

Read my post IamJoseph,Your definition of the word nature is not correct.

Hey Jar,I get the distinct impression you may go hungry with your request.I say just keep asking until you get too bored to repost it.It is a good way for you to not get sidetracked by the other bullshit arguements.

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. 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 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 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... 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. 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.

hey Dawn,I have been referring to you as female in my posts.I know two Dawns, both female so it was the natural thing for me to do.Other posters have now advised you are male so I will do so from now on. Sorry for the error.I have posted about logic on this thread and it covers some of your questions and statements regarding logic. I wrote it after being tied in knots by discussions mostly with IamJoseph.here it is - Message 200

Hello Buzsaw,You had a lot of posts in your thread so I just picked one that was of particular interest to me. This is all from an evolutionary perpsective...All living creature have evolutionary advantage that allows them to gain an advantage in the niche they occupy. The particular evolutionary path that humans have taken to taken is intelligence. We are capable of altering the environment around us to make the best use of this advantage. However, take off all of your clothes and head down onto the savannah in africa and it may not be the case. There will be animals that can see you in the dark, who can smell you from a mile away, who can creep up on you undetected and who can kill you very efficiently with tooth and claw. The one thing we have to succeed is our smarts.If you look at pretty much any other trait that we have, we are often far down the list when it comes to how good we are.Our senses - There are animals who can see, hear, smell and taste with far better precision than us. Our sense of touch is also less than many creatures.Reproduction - Without medical technology, many more women and children would die in childbirth. There are animals that can spawn hundreds of offspring in a single birthing. Even rats can have dozens of young in a single litter. Our young are also pretty much useless for at least a decade after birth. An impala can outrun a predator on the day of its birth. My daughter is more than a year old and has trouble navigating the living room.Defence - We are woefully unprotected. Our skin is soft and easily broken as we have no armour or even a hide of decent toughness. We dont have horns or great strength. We dont have venom. We cant spurt anything nasty smelling at a predator. We dont have claws or impressive teeth. We dont have great speed or agility. Our main, instinctive form of defence, punching, often ends up breaking our hands as often as breaking something on an opponent. We have relatively low resistence to naturally occuring venoms and poisons.Lifespan - We do live a fairly long life due to improved medical technology. But that is very, very recent. As recent as the middle ages, we only lived somewhere around the forties or fifties if we were lucky. There are animals who, with no medical intervention can live for over a century. There are jellyfish that are effectively immortal as they can regenerate every cell in their body. They will really only be killed through total mechanical destruction.Food - we are extremly picky eaters. We cant eat something that has been dead for too long. Considering the vast number of plants there are, we can eat only a small percentage (unless you are interested in intense abdominal pain, vomiting, violent diarrhea and possibly death). We are not great at killing things and poor at telling what plants we should or should not eat.The environment - We have little tolerance for extremes of heat and cold. We cant survive for more than a few days before water becomes a serious issue. Outside of the comfort of our homes, the environment is most often our enemy.There are also many, many problems with the human body. Lower back, hip, knee and ankle problems because we have not quite become used to being upright being one of the most obvious ones. The designer was not so great if this current body is his best model (have a look in the mirror next time you get out of the shower, and wonder if this is really the best he could do).Just how successful are we really? Our intelligence has allowed us to dominate this planet. We can domesticate many animals and slaughter others. But is that really a good thing? It could be argued that our intelligence has caused an awful lot of problems for us. We have made our lives very difficult. And we seem to be adding even greater complications the smarter we think we are getting. The phrase ignorance is bliss could be right.Has our intelligence really got us that far. Is this better than being a spider? How many times do you look at the family pet and think it has the better life.My point really is that it is difficult to argue that humans are superior to all other animals. We are currently the most dominant. But it is arguable if we are the best.Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.

hey Buz,You psot covered a whole heap of different points. i just picked one.My response only applies to the one part that I included in my post.Which part of my post did you think was a weak argument for evolution? I was not really trying to defend the theory. I was trying to point out that saying that humans use of their intelligence as proof of a creator is not likely to work.You said - The statement that I was disagreeing with was that our intelligence is a good supporting arguement of a creator. By all means keep using it, it is a valid arguement. Its just not a partiularly strong one for the reasons I mentioned. I dont think we are all that great of a design. I think that if there was a God, he would no doubt be able to do a bit better. At least from what I have read of his abilities. At the very least, he should have worked out a way to prevent armpit hair from becoming knotted.You do make a lot of other points that I chose not to discuss as it would have taken me all day. You fit a lot into one post. And there are others who know more about the different areas. Some of what you posted about, my knowledge is limited. better to leave it alone than make myself look like a moron by making blind unsubtantiated claims. If science never, ever works out how abiogenesis works. Or the current theories are proven to be totally incorrent. If it is proven tomorrow that the current theories of abiohenesis are proven to be 100% wrong. There will be no change or impact of any kind on the Theory of Evolution. It is almost like saying that the theories we have on how stars form cannot be true because we cant prove how the universe was formed. I hope that was not too much of a straw man but it seemed relevant to the forum. My point is that abiogenesis is irrelevant to the the Theory of Evolution. Thats why we have creationists who are also evolutionists. Because the way it started does not matter. As to the early stages of evolution, you will have to let me know what time period we are talking about. The first 100 years, the first 1000 years, the first 1000 million years?I found a really good tree of life image that I will add to this post and might add to some others because it is so good. You might be able to use it to help in some of your arguments too. It is always good to have a good to know your enemy. hey folks, this is probably the best tree of life representation I have ever seen. Pretty poor at the current scale but head to the link for a better view.here is the link to the image -http://evogeneao.com/images/Evo_large.gifit is from this website -http://evogeneao.com/tree.htmlEdited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.

hey Dawn,
I have posted this previously but you must have missed it.I have been referring to you as female in my posts.I know two Dawns, both female so it was the natural thing for me to do.Other posters have now advised you are male so I will do so from now on. Sorry for the error.I have posted about logic on this thread and it covers some of your questions and statements regarding logic. I wrote it after being tied in knots by discussions mostly with IamJoseph.I notice you are still using terms logic and premise when discussing your point of view. Check out my post for another point of view.here it is (again) - Message 200

Hello Dawn, I think you missed my point. My point was that a lot of the people debating on this forum will see the creationist argument as starting with an unwarranted premise.Your definition of unwarranted is not quite correct. An unwarranted assumption when is an assumption that is based on insufficient evidence. This is very different from having no valid reason to believe in something. This forum often has many debates discussing this very issue. If there was sufficient evidence to warrant the assumption that God exists or the Theory of Evolution was false, then none of us would be here.Theism is the belief in a god or gods.That is an unwarranted assumption when putting forward a premise. If there was sufficient evidence to believe in a god or gods, most of the science community would be believers. It is these people who, for the most part, associate their beliefs with evidence. We need a fair bit of verifiable supporting evidence before they choose a position. If the evidence was there, we would make the decision on whether to believe based upon that evidence. That's how scientists come to support any new theory. They ask for the evidence, evaluate, then decide to support it or not.I am not saying that theism is not valid. I am saying that it does not have sufficient evidence to become a warranted assumption. I am not sure if you are attempting to make a serious point here or if you are making a Star Wars joke.I will treat it as if you are making a serious statement.Who is the someone?When is a long time ago?Which far away galaxy are you talking about?What did this person observe, how did they record it and how did you get your hands on these records?What was the available evidence in this far away galaxy that is relavent to the discussion on theism on Earth?This statement is a perfect example of the unwarranted assumption that I am talking about. You are trying to make a point about something but all of the reasons you are using are not supported by any evidence.Your premise - Someone formed a valid, warranted premise from observations relating to the validity of theism.Your support - someone (who?), observed (how?) some available evidence (what evidence?) in a far away galaxy (where?) a long time ago (when?).Do you see why your argument does not really need to even be debated because the premise requires an unwarranted assumption? I stand by my statement for the reasons supplied. The evidence is not the same for both positions. I will assume we are both talking about the evidence for the existence of a supernatural being here. The evidence for a god or gods is not even close to the evidence that there is no god or gods. There is no observable, testable evidence to support the existence of a god.Position one - There is a godPosition two - There is no god or there is no evidence to support the existence of god.Lack of evidence for position one supports position two.Lack of evidence for position two does not support position one.I believe that Jar has hammered this point home. I will leave that discussion between you two.I am not saying that people should not believe in their own versions of god. I am saying that there is insufficient scientific evidence to support a belief in God. From what I know of most religious people, this is not a criteria that is necessary anyway.My point is that many debaters on this site will see an argument that starts with a god figure as invalid because it starts with an unwarranted assumption. Considering that this is a one word reply that did not cover any of my supporting arguments and does not come with any explanation or supporting arguments of its own, I am going to ignore it as if it was not even said. My statement stands. Just to make sure I am not misunderstanding you...You believe that in order to discuss the origin of existence, you need to discuss everything from that origin all the way to the present moment.
Is that right?If it is, I will be calling bullshit. There is no requirement to discuss current existence when talking about the origin of existence. From current theories (Stephen Hawking and a few other guys) there was no beginning in the sense you suggest. To discuss a beginning in this sense, there would still be a point before the beginning. And this is like discussing a point south of the south pole. Maybe you need to define existence.Take the Theory of Evolution for example. It is not necessary to prove abiogenesis, or even discuss it to support the theory. Proving abiogenesis does not directly support or prove evolution. It is not necessary to discuss the things that occurred after the origin of the universe when discussing theories of the origins of the universe. Unless they are actually part of the actual process being discussed. You will have to clarify what you mean by natural causes. Are you using the term natural causes as a catch all term to mean everything that has ever occurred? What event or process are you talking about when you say natural causes. There is no event or single process that I am aware of called natural causes for me to demonstrate from start to finish. The terms natural causes is not an event that has a start or a finish. I can demonstrate a process that requires only natural causes from start to finish. A drop of water falls from a leaf down to the ground. This can be explained mostly with physics as to how it occurred. No unnatural causes required.Creationism is a more valid position than what? Are you using the terms 'natural causes' as the opposing position to creation? If you are, this may be where people are having a problem with your arguments. As natural causes is a description of how an event takes place, rather than an event or theory regarding an event, it does not make sense to use it as the opposing terms to Creation. What are you comparing creationism to exactly? I have explained how an unwarranted assumption works. As soon as god enters the premise, it is an unwarranted assumption.I agree that evidence does not need my approval. Evidence needs no one's approval. It is evidence. I don't really know what this is referring to.

Hello Dawn,If I may be so bold as to correct you on some of your language. Throughout my reply will be definitions of words and their usage in common English. If you choose to disagree, please research the points I have made first. I believe that some of the confusion in your debates comes from incorrect or confusing usage of terms. I am supplying the correct usage in order to help clarify to help both the readers of your posts and yourself in writing clear statements. 1. There is no direct evidence of a design or a designer. If there was, you would have supplied it when asked, repeatedly to by several other posters here. Evidence is the currency by which one fulfils the burden of proof. At best, there is circumstantial evidence which may suggest a creator, but does not prove creator (and that is being generous). If you do continue to insist that there is observable evidence of a designer, please supply it. This does not mean you can say that you have already supplied it or go on some random tangent and believe that you have adequately answered the question. I can help, start your answer with this : Here is the direct evidence that proves there is a creator - then finish it with your evidence.2. My original thread was discussing unwarranted assumptions on the premise that there is a god. That's what my post was about. You have introduced the design, designer (not a god) part of the argument. If you choose to add something not in my original discussion, you can't use it to disagree with my position. I was specifically talking about theists. What is your designer? Again, my original post was specifically about theists. Those who believe in God/Gods. So you point about a designer is a random tangent not related to the discussion. I was talking about the difference between people who use their belief in God as part of their premise and people who do not believe in God reading it. Those are the two groups I was discussing. Creating a third team (those who believe in a non god designer) does not affect my original argument in any way whatsoever. You are right when you say that evidence in God is not the same as evidence of a designer. So what, that is not what I was talking about. You need to read and understand the original post before you start to refute it. The belief in god as an unwarranted assumption is in a different category. It is in the category that my post was in. A different category to what you are discussing. You have created this category. It sounds like you are saying that our mere existence is evidence of a designer and this makes it a warranted assumption. How does our existence prove a designer exactly? It does not. The only thing our existence proves is that we exist. Nothing more. Which statement is unwarranted and invalid? How nice of you to move the goalposts. 'To call bullshit' - When someone calls bullshit, it means that they strongly suggest that what another person states is obviously incorrect or a lie.
An example - Someone says to you 'I just saw Elvis Presley ordering cod and chips at the local takeaway ', you could say to that person 'I call bullshit' because you are aware that Elvis is dead and could not possibly be ordering a meal.Why I called bullshit on your position.Your position - in order to discuss the origin of existence, you need to discuss everything from that origin all the way to the present moment.Why would this be true? Why would this even make sense? As we are discussing creation, why would it be a requirement to discuss and prove the everything in order to prove a particular theory of creation? If we prove or disprove the Theory of Evolution, abiogenesis or theories on the breeding habits of the spotted warbler, will it have any effect whatsoever on current theories of how the universe came to be? No, they will not. When discussing the creation event, it is not necessary to discuss or prove anything that has occurred from then to know, unless it is actually associated with that event. For example, it is necessary to discuss gravity, some cosmology, some chemistry, physics and some other sciences when discussing the creation event. It is not necessary to discuss evolution, plate tectonics, volcanism etc as they are not related to the event being discussed.
Therefore, I believe that your position that in order to discuss the origin of existence, you need to discuss everything from that origin all the way to the present moment is bullshit. My position in my original post was that if a starting premise was made with an unwarranted assumption, it had a negative effect on the issue being discussed. You introduced existence. Why the hell should I have to define it? If you are going to try to dispute my position by bringing something new in, it is up to you to define the term you are introducing. How can I define the term you are introducing. Particularly in light of the fact that you are using terms in a way that shows that your definition is not the same as the standard use of the terms (I will get to that later).Your suggestion that there is only two logical possibilities is an example of a false dichotomy. this is a logical fallacy. You have actually argued that there are three possibilities, God (theism), ID and (the incorrectly used words) natural causes. In your own arguments you have 3 possibilities. You seem to jump between talking about the creation of the universe and existence. These are two different things. Which one do you want to talk about?You need more than theories? What is wrong with theories? What exactly do you want that is more than a theory? Are you after a set of laws? Are you aware of what theories actually are? Are you aware that the Einstein's Theory of General relativity is just a theory? What about cell theory, atomic theory and acoustic theory? Are these theories not up to your standards because you need more than just theories?Nothing is unexplainable. The only limitation is our ability to explain. there is nothing wrong with saying that we don't know. The things we don't know are the things we most want to study. I don't really like to speak for other people, and Jar can correct me if I am wrong in any of this.
I believe that this issue stems from your incorrect usage of the term 'natural causes'. As far as I can tell, you are using the words 'natural causes' to mean the beginning of the universe by natural means. This is not what those two words mean.In the English language the usage of the two words 'natural causes' together are called superordinates. Superordinates can be used to refer to a category or a class of things. For example. sheep, cows, horses are farm animals. In this case, 'farm animals' is the superordinate term. Natural causes is a superordinate term used to describe a category of things that have occurred by natural means. This includes all things caused by natural means. This includes a snowflake melting in the sun, a leaf falling from a tree, a snake shedding its skin, a mountain forming through uplift, an island forming after a volcano etc. This is how I believe that Jar is using the term. This is the correct usage of the term. Jar is quite right in his statement that there is plenty of evidence for natural causes.your statement from Message 64 where you many denials of natural causes began. Do you see where this discussion became derailed. There are many examples of things occurring by natural causes. I am not understanding your point because you are not using the English language correctly. Natural causes is a description of how something occurs. You can choose to understand the English language or not. But you are not making your arguments in a clear manner by incorrect usage of the language. I do not believe that you are saying what you actually mean. Again with the false dichotomy. Again with the incorrect usage of the term natural causes. As far as I can tell from googling it, eternality of matter is only used on creation websites. Can you supply me with the definition of this term with a link so I can check it out. I want to make sure we are actually talking about the same thing. Your definition of Creationism is also strange. I have never heard it worded that way. Would you like to have another stab at it because I am not sure what you mean. Where do you get this definition of Creationism from. This is the definition I use - Creationism - The belief that the universe and living organisms originate from divine creation.Your posts seem to be a game of 'pick my fallacy' or 'pick my stereotypical creationist avoidance tactic '.There are frequent appeals to ignorance (argument from incredulity), arguments from personal incredulity, possible circular reasoning, red herrings, confirmation bias, confusion of correlation and causation, post hoc fallacies, use of the cosmological argument, moving the goalposts, use of the teleological argument and use of the anthropic argument.Look those up and try to avoid using them in debates if you can avoid it.Perhaps with the information on the correct usage of natural causes, you will better be able to answer some of the questions presented to you. I believe that Jar is still waiting. I don't really need to respond to any of your arguments until you have responded to his. That answer will move the conversation forward.Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.Edited by Butterflytyrant, : 4 attempts at getting the links rightEdited by Butterflytyrant, : will get it right eventually