|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4675 days) Posts: 415 From: Australia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Kent Hovind | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member (Idle past 228 days) Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Chuck77 writes: Maybe it's because Kenneth Miller is a biologist and not a paleontologist? I hope you realize that these are different sciences? He wouldn't know much about paleontology. He acknowledges it. Kenneth Miller reminds me a little of Hovand. Yeah, refuting IC with a mouse trap Although he doesn't do that in this particular debate he does struggle to explain "tansitional fossils". He basically says they are "transitional" because well, he says so. Unlike Dr. Dino, who's got no scientific training at all, but pretends to know everything. Anybody with even a little bit of knowledge on either of these subjects immediately picks Hovind is a fraud and nothing else. The only scientific debates are done in writing. For a scientist to have an oral debate with a creationist just gives that creationist prominance which he does not deserve at all. They don't do science. Creationists don't know anynthing, but pretend to know what science is. Just to be able to tell untruths. They pretend to do science, for the only reason of deceiving the flock at church. It's not worth even pretending that they are worth debating. They're nobodys. Don't debate them, unless it is on paper where you can show everly falsehood that they tell. That's all they have. Falsehoods. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given. Edited by Pressie, : Changed a sentence Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chuck77 Inactive Member |
Pressie writes: Maybe it's because Kenneth Miller is a biologist and not a paleontologist? I hope you realize that these are different sciences? He wouldn't know much about paleontology. He acknowledges it. Yeah, well don't tell me, tell Ken. He's the one making a fool of himself, im simply pointing it out
Unlike Dr. Dino, who's got no scientific training at all, but pretends to know everything. Who? Never heard of Him.
Creationists don't know anynthing Are you actually saying you know more? Say michael Behe for instance? He wrote a great book called "darwins black box" which is one of the best book for ID or Creation ever written. Can you do better?
It's not worth even pretending that they are worth debating. They're nobodys. And yet, you debate them day and night, right here, on this very site, day after day, night after night, comment after comment. Your actions speak louder than words. Seems you are contradicting yourself by even responding to my comment. Please do us all a favor and stick by your words. Show some integrity and take your own advise. Practice what you preach
unless it is on paper where you can show everly falsehood that they tell. Oooooh, nice save Pressie, you seem to think your above debating in general but find it's "ok" to debate here among like minded folks. Your a brave dude.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chuck77 Inactive Member |
Percy writes: Where in this debate do the positions of creation get discussed? In the 4th part Behe talks about design. I think it's more so exposing the flaws with the TOE tho, overall, it seems.
By the way, Berlinski, the first creationist to take the podium, is an agnostic and a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute. Yeah, im familiar with him. I think he's great. I've listened to him a lot. He makes good arguments. Mostly from a mathimatical standpoint like "how many morphological changes does it take to go from land to water", Which is interesting. Well, it's a lot, it seems, and he breaks it down pretty good for people like me to understand. He makes a good case against evolution IMO. Here's what im talking about. He gives His view on Evolution. Dr. David Berlinski - On Evolution (1/3) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5r5cRlctLM He does debate in that debate I posted earlier, but would like to see him one on one with someone. Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
Dr. David Berlinski - On Evolution (1/3) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5r5cRlctLM Haha yea you can spot the guy who posted the video is a creationist the first second you see the video Comments disabled http://youtu.be/254wgTgxuj4 I guess he dosent like people pointing out his flaws. Oh and p.s. Dr. David Berlinski is actualy an agnostic he is just speculative. Edited by frako, : No reason given. Edited by frako, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2548 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Chuck77 writes:
Kent Hovind's (self chosen?) nick name is Dr. Dino.
Pressie writes:
Who? Never heard of Him. Unlike Dr. Dino, who's got no scientific training at all, but pretends to know everything.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22941 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
Hi Chuck,
You seem to be missing the point of my original comment, that a panel of creationists committed to no public disagreements must necessarily be silent on the topic of creationism. The primary area of agreement among creationists is that evolution is wrong. Beyond that their beliefs are all over the map. So when you said, "Here ya go Percy," what you really have is, "Here you ain't." What you need to find in order to counter my point is a place in the debate where the creationists talk about the positions of creationism. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member (Idle past 228 days) Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Chuck77 writes: You don’t have to be brave to point out the untruths people tell. Especially if you have evidence that people tell porkies. Anybody can do it. Oooooh, nice save Pressie, you seem to think your above debating in general but find it's "ok" to debate here among like minded folks. Your a brave dude. Chuck77 writes: No, he didn’t make a fool of himself. The people who made fools of themselves were the creationists, who thought that debating a biologist about paleontology would make them look clever. They didn’t realize that they really are the dumb one's even to try and do it. Scientists are not stupid. Creationists are. Don’t tell me, tell Ken. He's the one making a fool of himself, im simply pointing it out Chuck77 writes: Dr. Dino, the one who is still the hero of every creationist in the world. Don’t pretend not to know about him; your hero has been caught as an "untruthteller" and a thief. The same that happened to your favourite website, CMI. All they can do is to deceive people. Who? Never heard of Him. Chuck77 writes: As I’m neither a creationist nor a biologist, but a geologist , so no I can’t. However, I have seen his porkies, as they were divulged in a court case in the US. As in every biological journal in the world. He is a porkieteller and a fraud. I would never believe a word he says. Are you actually saying you know more? Say Michael Behe for instance? He wrote a great book called "darwins black box" which is one of the best book for ID or Creation ever written. Can you do better? Chuck77 writes: No, I just point out the untruths. No debating involved. Why don’t you have an answer for the porkies from your side I pointed out? And yet, you debate them day and night, right here, on this very site, day after day, night after night, comment after comment. Chuck77 writes: Who would point out your false statements? Do you think that you can keep on telling porkies all the time with nobody calling you on it? Creationists are porkie-tellers, frauds and deceivers. That’s all they are. I’ll point to every porkie they tell. Please do us all a favor and stick by your words. Show some integrity and take your own advise. Practice what you preach BTW: I hope you don't consider the evc forum as being a scientific forum? Edited by Pressie, : No reason given. Edited by Pressie, : Added the last sentence Edited by Admin, : Apply member's censored word list. Edited by Pressie, : Got rid of the word "***" and "***" Edited by Pressie, : Got rid of the word "***" and "***"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 336 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Probably the best way for evolutionists to achieve victory How would you acheive victory and what would it be about? How would you know when youve demonstrated creation/ID to be false? Do you understand that creationism is a logical proposition? do you understand that evolutions tenets, less its theoretical process, is a simple logical proposition What victory?
they would have to remain silent and cede all their time to the lone evolutionist. Ive watched Dr Warren rdeduce men to complete silence and close scheduled 3 night debates, the first night, because the evo or atheist didnt understand what was involved in these issues. You could also see the light bulbs pop on over their heads through thier expressions What part of creationism is it that you contend is false and how does the TOE interfere with the proposition of creationism or ID? So again, what victory? Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3966 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Dawn Bertot writes:
Aaaww...do you not know? ...and how does the TOE interfere with the proposition of creationism or ID?Or are you being dishonest? quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
What part of creationism is it that you contend is false and how does the TOE interfere with the proposition of creationism or ID? Well creationism and ID say that man and animals where created in their current form. Evolution states that the current form of man and animals evolved from other forms of animals. These statements are exclusive if evolution is true then creationism and ID cannot be true and if creationism or ID is true then evolution cannot be true. side note:This does not mean if evolution is wrong then creationism is true and if creationism is wrong then evolution is true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22941 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
Hi Dawn,
This thread began with a proposal to set up a debate with Hovind, but as he is in jail it has morphed into a discussion of difficulties that lie outside the actual science when debating creationists . We're not actually debating creation/evolution in this thread. If we were then it wouldn't be in the Coffee House forum. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Drosophilla Member (Idle past 3894 days) Posts: 172 From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK Joined:
|
Oh dear!
Yeah, well don't tell me, tell Ken. He's the one making a fool of himself, im simply pointing it out And yet you later prattle on about the 'great' Dr Behe who was CRUSHED at the Dover trial where Ken Miller was instrumental in his humbling...more of that later.....oh, and did you know that Dr Ken Miller is a devout Christian - rather knocks you sideways, no?
Who? Never heard of Him. 'Dr' Kent Hovind alias Dr 'Dino' (self-styled). Did you know he starts his PhD with the words "Hello My name is Kent Hovind. I live in Pensacola, Florida". Page 82 has a poem! For a good review of his 'thesis' check out: The Dissertation Kent Hovind Doesn't Want You to Read
Are you actually saying you know more? Say michael Behe for instance? He wrote a great book called "darwins black box" which is one of the best book for ID or Creation ever written. Can you do better? Ah.....the 'great Dr Behe. Convincingly crushed in the Dover trial - forced under oath to admit he hadn't read the 50 plus volumes of work on the evolution of the immune system - despite saying in his book that 'there was virtually no work done on the evolution of immune systems....at the trial he could barely peer over the top of the pile of the work brought in to refute him. Judge Jones described his efforts of promoting ID as 'breathtaking inanity' and every attempt he's made to produce an example of irreducible complexity has been shown, in fact, to be merely the logical fallacy of 'argument from ignorance' Far from Darwin's black box it's more a case of Behe's. Credibility now rock bottom!
And yet, you debate them day and night, right here, on this very site, day after day, night after night, comment after comment. Of course we debate them on here - in written format precisely as Pressie indicated to you. It's the way to do it...make them put their nonsense in written format where it can't be retracted and the drivel forever is enshrined in cyber space. It's far too easy to twist things verbally and then deny, or to 'play' a live audience. Seasoned creationist debaters are actors and salesmen who 'play' to the audience, use the famous 'Gish gallop and any other dishonest ploys they can think of. Written format removes all that. Each side puts their points in hard format, without live interruption and time for research and reflection...it is the academic way to discuss. Finally - live debates bolster an amateur in a way he doesn't deserve. As one of Dawkins' biologist colleagues reported to a creationist who wanted live debate "That would look good on your C.V, not so good on mine."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Drosophilla Member (Idle past 3894 days) Posts: 172 From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK Joined: |
Ive watched Dr Warren rdeduce men to complete silence and close scheduled 3 night debates, the first night, because the evo or atheist didnt understand what was involved in these issues. You could also see the light bulbs pop on over their heads through thier expressions You are aware that just because a question can be phrased in English that makes a grammatical sentence - doesn't mean it isn't nevertheless nonsensical? Why is a toasting fork? Creationist debaters are VERY skilled at this sort of game - the one thing they are far, far better than real scientists at is the art of sophistry - or, as in these cases, snake oil actor facades. The Gish gallop is just one form of their tactics. Arrange a debate, pour out dozens of piffling questions at high speed and make sure there isn't enough time left in the debate for the scientist to even make an inroad into it all. Questions asked nonsensically, or strawmen versions of the tenet under discussion so that the scientist would first have to completely correct the query before being able to answer it. 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? Do you not think that creationist 'games masters' don't know this and play their man? When you watch these 'poor scientists' scuppered it is a mixture of cleverly designed questions (clever as in artifice not academia) mixed with the guile of a stage artist....next to that an honest academician has little chance in a live debate. 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! Edited by Drosophilla, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 336 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
You are aware that just because a question can be phrased in English that makes a grammatical sentence - doesn't mean it isn't nevertheless nonsensical? Why is a toasting fork? And I am sure you are aware of the fact (new comer) that there is difference between an assertion and an argument. Your obligation in this instance would be to provide a statement or sentence that I have ever provided that is tantamount to what you have provided above Knowing that you cannot do that, I will be happy to know that you are not only uninformed but a poor polemist. Fire away.
Creationist debaters are VERY skilled at this sort of game - the one thing they are far, far better than real scientists at is the art of sophistry Happily logic and sound reasoning are what we employ, sophistry aside. Again another assertion by yourself. Do you have any examples or arguments to accompany that ignorant assertion?
The Gish gallop is just one form of their tactics. Arrange a debate, pour out dozens of piffling questions at high speed and make sure there isn't enough time left in the debate for the scientist to even make an inroad into it all. Questions asked nonsensically, or strawmen versions of the tenet under discussion so that the scientist would first have to completely correct the query before being able to answer it Thus far your post and points are a snooze fest. Do you have any SPECIFC examples of where I have provided anything of that nature Again Dor, theres assertion, then there is argument and evidence to support your assertions. You do know the difference correct?
When you watch these 'poor scientists' scuppered it is a mixture of cleverly designed questions (clever as in artifice not academia) mixed with the guile of a stage artist....next to that an honest academician has little chance in a live debate. 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
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! In written ofrm or in person, it wouldnt help your case. Due to the fact that you are trying to wedge a principle into the discussion that is either non-existent or imaginary. Your trying to create a case or scenerio that is not a problem in the first place Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 336 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Well creationism and ID say that man and animals where created in their current form. Evolution states that the current form of man and animals evolved from other forms of animals. These statements are exclusive if evolution is true then creationism and ID cannot be true and if creationism or ID is true then evolution cannot be true. side note:This does not mean if evolution is wrong then creationism is true and if creationism is wrong then evolution is true. Well as I see it, you have avoided my first point altogether and headed straight for what the scriptures has to say concerning the world. Which means that my original argument about creation and ID having nothing to to do with religion or the Bible directly, substantiates the point that ID and creation are valid as logical points on thier own Thus logically ID is not and cannot be demonstrated to be false simply because evolution might be true Further creation on its own is more than valid, not only as a contemplation but as a valid explanation for the nature of things. And finally, your inability to deal with my original argument demonstrates that the imaginary contrast between evo and creation do not exist. Unless your prepared to demonstrate otherwise. Can you.
These statements are exclusive if evolution is true then creationism and ID cannot be true and if creationism or ID is true then evolution cannot be true. 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 see the hole your diggin
Well creationism and ID say that man and animals where created in their current form. As you well know the Bible is not meant to be a chronological illustration of what took place each and every moment in time. It is an expresssion of Gods power and demonstration o fhis majesty This could of happened at anytime during the universes history. The six literal days could have been how it started, with great gaps in time concerning days and times. They do not have to be consectutive days, only that it was done within a days time period The creative act is Im sure not a long drawn out process in and of itself (the exact moment) would have occured with in a 24 hour period, as we measure it. The big bang incident occured Im sure with in a small fixed period of time. Whereas its results or causes were slow and incidental. The Bible often represents events as if they happened quickly or over slow periods of time, when in fact those instances could have been long or short periods of time Our usual concept of Moses is that he left Egypt and returened a couple of weeks later, when in fact it was 40 years later or longer, if the 40 years is not used as a designation of time, even as something different than forty years i.e Samson killed 1000 philistines, is probably meant to represent a large number which seemed like 1000. The actual creation of man could have been after a long period of earths time, with many spcies and types including primates. Man could have been created within a day and representd as the seventh day., even being the seventh day as an expression of a creative act Numbers as you know are used to represent many things in biblical usage. this interpretation does nothing to violate a 24 hour usage My implication here is not that I believe in evolution, only that the earth may indeed be much older than we would contrive as presented by the Bibles expressions, because the Bible was never meant to be taken a chonological blow by blow Trying to understand the Bible in that manner also does not make the Bible uninspired, untrue or unreliable. How many other ancient piecies of literature could we also examine in that time period with the same type and usage No where are we specificaaly instructed or commanded to believe that the earth is only 6000 years old. Nor should one assume the bible to be faulty or unreliable because of its usage of numbers as long or short fixed periods of time. If this seems as rationalization one should consider that the same source (the Bible) also speaks of miracles, intervention, inspiration and omniscience by the same God that supposedly created said universe. many things are possible where an eternal God exists Many things could have transpired by that same God that are not recorded. Luckly we are not required to know all such things and they do nothing to harm or represent the scriptures as unreliable, atleast in that context And finally as I have demonstrated to many times to mention, creationism and ID should not be presented as true, because the Bible or evolution may or may not be true, but because logic and a logical examination of the natural world, clearly indicate such a conclusion if we are going to be sepratist in the areas of scripture or science only the science of logic can settle the question as to what should or should not be taught In a democracy and stage of separation of church and state, only logic can settle the question at hand if anyone has a better approach please by all means demonstrate it to me 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. 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024