Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Kent Hovind
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 91 of 349 (627094)
07-30-2011 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Dawn Bertot
07-26-2011 4:53 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Dawn Bertot, posted 07-26-2011 4:53 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Dawn Bertot, posted 07-31-2011 4:06 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 92 of 349 (627095)
07-30-2011 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Coyote
07-23-2011 11:07 AM


Re: Debating creationists
The facts concerning why we see no human apes today negates ToE to smitherins. Th eons of years are escapist slight of hand science, depending on a time factor wich does not apply in an on-going process. If apes became humans, even via a host of branchlike pauses and changes, we should see this in our midst at all times, every second, based on an on-going process. Its called MATHEMATICS - so do the math.
Cherry picking of science is not science. Here is a piece from a science journal of recent vintage, which negates the premise of any missing links. Scientists negate cross-speciation: Don't believe everything you believe, applies. Unlike Genesis, ToE can see its fulcrum factors negated, contradicted or questioned. This news negates cross-speciation [read, Genesis seed factor prevails]:
quote:
Science stunner! 'Missing link' for 150 years and now it isn't?
Expert says Nature report highlights sands on which Darwin theory built
July 28, 2011
Archaeopteryx: Bird, dinosaur or what?
A fossil touted since the time of Charles Darwin as the "missing link" between dinosaurs and birds is likely just a dinosaur, scientists have admitted in a new report in the journal Nature.
Similarly, millions of skeletal structures which negate cross-speciation by virtue of saying the reverse concluded by evolutionists are ignored. They cherry pick a bone fossil which can fit another species and hype this up to kingdom come, quoted by all other scientists who are blackmailed in their careers if they say otherwise. But math is a most unbiased truth and it cannot be distorted. Pls display your maths which says an on-going process is impacted by time?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Coyote, posted 07-23-2011 11:07 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Coyote, posted 07-30-2011 11:29 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 93 of 349 (627096)
07-30-2011 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by IamJoseph
07-30-2011 10:45 PM


Re: Debating creationists
The facts concerning why we see no human apes today negates ToE to smitherins. Th eons of years are escapist slight of hand science, depending on a time factor wich does not apply in an on-going process. If apes became humans, even via a host of branchlike pauses and changes, we should see this in our midst at all times, every second, based on an on-going process. Its called MATHEMATICS - so do the math.
Sorry, no. What is so hard to understand about the concept of extinction? Your ten-times great grandfather is not still around, nor is mine. That does not mean they never existed, nor does it mean they should have continued to exist as-is. For that is the argument you are attempting to make here.
Cherry picking of science is not science. Here is a piece from a science journal of recent vintage, which negates the premise of any missing links. Scientists negate cross-speciation: Don't believe everything you believe, applies. Unlike Genesis, ToE can see its fulcrum factors negated, contradicted or questioned. This news negates cross-speciation [read, Genesis seed factor prevails]:
quote:
Science stunner! 'Missing link' for 150 years and now it isn't?
Expert says Nature report highlights sands on which Darwin theory built
July 28, 2011
Archaeopteryx: Bird, dinosaur or what?
A fossil touted since the time of Charles Darwin as the "missing link" between dinosaurs and birds is likely just a dinosaur, scientists have admitted in a new report in the journal Nature.
I agree, cherry picking science is not science. Unfortunately, that's all creationists have.
With Archaeopteryx what we have is a transitional. What is being debated is just where on the line between dinosaurs and birds that species should be placed. The previous placement was somewhere near the middle, while the new claim is that it is very close, or within, the earlier dinosaur groups. Let's wait a few years and see if that claim is accepted, and if perhaps through this ongoing debate we can better understand the placement of Archaeopteryx.
I know creationists jump for joy whenever some new discovery causes scientists to reevaluate a previous understanding of some aspect of our research. But 1) that is a strength of science, not a weakness, and 2) with each new discovery and reevaluation science becomes more and more accurate. That is not something I would expect creationists to celebrate, but perhaps they don't understand the process as well as they might.
Similarly, millions of skeletal structures which negate cross-speciation by virtue of saying the reverse concluded by evolutionists are ignored. They cherry pick a bone fossil which can fit another species and hype this up to kingdom come, quoted by all other scientists who are blackmailed in their careers if they say otherwise. But math is a most unbiased truth and it cannot be distorted. Pls display your maths which says an on-going process is impacted by time?
Fine! Apply mathematics to the study of the past.
But you might be cautioned, that doing so is not that easy. Unless you are doing something like multivariate statistics, how are you going to enumerate most fossil finds? Or are you going to try to sell us the old creationist misunderstanding of how mutations work?
Here is an example of what I mean. Your task is to use 25 dice and to roll all sixes. There are two ways to do this:
--One (the creationist way) is to repeatedly roll all 25 dice until you get all sixes in a single roll. You'll be there trying this cor thousands of years, if not longer.
--The other way (used by evolution) is to roll all 25 dice, and then roll only those that are not sixes. Then roll again with the remaining dice. You'll be done in just a few minutes.
I am also quite skeptical of creationists' claims to use mathematics to disprove evolution. On another website a few years ago one creationist repeatedly told us that the odds against evolution were 1720. He couldn't understand why we kept laughing at him. (Do you?)
These two problems seem to sum up creationists' understanding of both evolution and mathematics. In short, they know that evolution is wrong because their religion tells them so. There is no need to worry about the details--they aren't important anyway--so why study evolution and work at understanding what it is and how it works. Creationists know the TRVTH, and that's all that's necessary.
This is the way it seems to many of us. Your post has not done anything to dissuade me from this view.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by IamJoseph, posted 07-30-2011 10:45 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by IamJoseph, posted 07-31-2011 12:11 AM Coyote has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 94 of 349 (627097)
07-30-2011 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by dwise1
07-30-2011 10:11 PM


Re: Debating creationists
This forum does give us the tools for accomplishing my task. Even though it does take some work.
Your days are numbered, you fucking liar! Which is to say, "typical creationist".
Please by all means do this very thing. Please however, remember the principle of brevity. No lectures
You havent even paid attention to the fact I have not said evo is not true, its doubtful if youll be able to represent me accurately anywhere else.
Lets see, this will be fun
Geeeeez I didnt know you were going to kill me, my days are numbered
Your a funny guy dwise, an amature debater, but a funny guy
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by dwise1, posted 07-30-2011 10:11 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by dwise1, posted 07-30-2011 11:36 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 95 of 349 (627098)
07-30-2011 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Dawn Bertot
07-30-2011 11:29 PM


Re: Debating creationists
The issue here is that we have soundly refuted your repeated empty incantations to "logic". When we actually asked you about logic, you fled.
You fucking liar!
PS
So just who the hell is this "Dr Warren" idiot you brought up?
Edited by dwise1, : PS

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Dawn Bertot, posted 07-30-2011 11:29 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Dawn Bertot, posted 07-30-2011 11:45 PM dwise1 has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 96 of 349 (627099)
07-30-2011 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by dwise1
07-30-2011 11:36 PM


Re: Debating creationists
The issue here is that we have soundly refuted your repeated empty incantations to "logic". When we actually asked you about logic, you fled.
You fucking liar!
Do you have brain damage or something? Again, making assertions is not the same as referencing an argument in a post, then attempting to refute it
Please quit throwing out insults and assertions, present the argument where I have fled or I am a liar
If this was myself or some other believer here, doing what you are doing we would have already been suspended very quickly
Please present the arguments from my post please
If you cant do this, then simply admit it
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by dwise1, posted 07-30-2011 11:36 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by dwise1, posted 07-30-2011 11:55 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 97 of 349 (627100)
07-30-2011 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Dawn Bertot
07-30-2011 11:45 PM


Re: Debating creationists
I remember the posts quite well. Of course it will take me some time to hunt down those posts, but I will indeed hunt them down and I will post them here.
You are indeed a fucking liar and you will indeed be exposed. Yet again.
PS
Yet again, just who the fuck is this "Dr. Warren" idiot you metioned? You really want to hide that, don't you?
Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Dawn Bertot, posted 07-30-2011 11:45 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by hooah212002, posted 07-31-2011 12:17 AM dwise1 has not replied
 Message 131 by Dawn Bertot, posted 07-31-2011 3:44 PM dwise1 has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 98 of 349 (627101)
07-31-2011 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Coyote
07-30-2011 11:29 PM


Re: Debating creationists
quote:
The facts concerning why we see no human apes today negates ToE to smitherins. Th eons of years are escapist slight of hand science, depending on a time factor wich does not apply in an on-going process. If apes became humans, even via a host of branchlike pauses and changes, we should see this in our midst at all times, every second, based on an on-going process. Its called MATHEMATICS - so do the math.
Sorry, no. What is so hard to understand about the concept of extinction? Your ten-times great grandfather is not still around, nor is mine. That does not mean they never existed, nor does it mean they should have continued to exist as-is. For that is the argument you are attempting to make here.
Its not about extinction or what once existed. Its about a process which claims to be on-going; here, the tme factor cannot be used to prove or disprove what once existed. If the on-going process is still active or it never ceased, it must be evident in our midst and time.
quote:
Cherry picking of science is not science. Here is a piece from a science journal of recent vintage, which negates the premise of any missing links. Scientists negate cross-speciation: Don't believe everything you believe, applies. Unlike Genesis, ToE can see its fulcrum factors negated, contradicted or questioned. This news negates cross-speciation [read, Genesis seed factor prevails]:
Science stunner! 'Missing link' for 150 years and now it isn't?
Expert says Nature report highlights sands on which Darwin theory built
July 28, 2011
Archaeopteryx: Bird, dinosaur or what?
A fossil touted since the time of Charles Darwin as the "missing link" between dinosaurs and birds is likely just a dinosaur, scientists have admitted in a new report in the journal Nature.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree, cherry picking science is not science. Unfortunately, that's all creationists have.
With Archaeopteryx what we have is a transitional.
Transitional does not negate an on-going process; in fact it must afirm is continuance in our midst. It does not.
quote:
What is being debated is just where on the line between dinosaurs and birds that species should be placed. The previous placement was somewhere near the middle, while the new claim is that it is very close, or within, the earlier dinosaur groups. Let's wait a few years and see if that claim is accepted, and if perhaps through this ongoing debate we can better understand the placement of Archaeopteryx.
Its NOT about which came first; its about doctored, improvised reading of fossil bones, and why we do not see cross-speciation in our midst, when we should witness this as an on-going process. Its about the distortion of fossil similarities not being proof of speciation; its about the seed factor following their kind which is the winner here!
quote:
I know creationists jump for joy whenever some new discovery causes scientists to reevaluate a previous understanding of some aspect of our research. But 1) that is a strength of science, not a weakness, and 2) with each new discovery and reevaluation science becomes more and more accurate. That is not something I would expect creationists to celebrate, but perhaps they don't understand the process as well as they might.
It becomes a strength if the original claim was bona fide. Otherwise it becomes an embarrassment - mainly we saw no such re-evaluation in Genesis' mode of species - these are vindicated in our midst everywhere we look. If the seed factor previals, it also says that a dinosour or bird could not reproduce accept of the data transmitted by the host.
quote:
Similarly, millions of skeletal structures which negate cross-speciation by virtue of saying the reverse concluded by evolutionists are ignored. They cherry pick a bone fossil which can fit another species and hype this up to kingdom come, quoted by all other scientists who are blackmailed in their careers if they say otherwise. But math is a most unbiased truth and it cannot be distorted. Pls display your maths which says an on-going process is impacted by time?
Fine! Apply mathematics to the study of the past.
But you might be cautioned, that doing so is not that easy. Unless you are doing something like multivariate statistics, how are you going to enumerate most fossil finds? Or are you going to try to sell us the old creationist misunderstanding of how mutations work?
Here is an example of what I mean. Your task is to use 25 dice and to roll all sixes. There are two ways to do this:
--One (the creationist way) is to repeatedly roll all 25 dice until you get all sixes in a single roll. You'll be there trying this cor thousands of years, if not longer.
--The other way (used by evolution) is to roll all 25 dice, and then roll only those that are not sixes. Then roll again with the remaining dice. You'll be done in just a few minutes.
I am also quite skeptical of creationists' claims to use mathematics to disprove evolution. On another website a few years ago one creationist repeatedly told us that the odds against evolution were 1720. He couldn't understand why we kept laughing at him. (Do you?)
These two problems seem to sum up creationists' understanding of both evolution and mathematics. In short, they know that evolution is wrong because their religion tells them so. There is no need to worry about the details--they aren't important anyway--so why study evolution and work at understanding what it is and how it works. Creationists know the TRVTH, and that's all that's necessary.
This is the way it seems to many of us. Your post has not done anything to dissuade me from this view.
Its got nothing to do with religion. Its also farsical to use dice - this goes against your own claims. The time factor nor the odds apply here: these still have to manifest themselves in real time and in our midst. Of note you have not referred to the only known and proven factor for re-pro: the host seed output! Are you saying a human came from a chimp because it refused to follow the seed factor and bowed to environment and evolution instead? That is a loosing case from any premise of science - nothing to do with religion, which you use here as a defense prop, when my responses were based solely on emperical and scientific countering. The math, not the theology, KO's you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Coyote, posted 07-30-2011 11:29 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Panda, posted 07-31-2011 12:19 AM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 101 by Coyote, posted 07-31-2011 12:23 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 802 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 99 of 349 (627102)
07-31-2011 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by dwise1
07-30-2011 11:55 PM


Re: Debating creationists

"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 97 by dwise1, posted 07-30-2011 11:55 PM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by IamJoseph, posted 07-31-2011 2:16 AM hooah212002 has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 100 of 349 (627103)
07-31-2011 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by IamJoseph
07-31-2011 12:11 AM


Re: Debating creationists
IamJoseph writes:
Of note you have not referred to the only known and proven factor for re-pro: the host seed output!
I put "host seed output" into google and only got one result: a message posted by you on this forum.
Why do you think that we will understand terminology that is not even in google?
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by IamJoseph, posted 07-31-2011 12:11 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by IamJoseph, posted 07-31-2011 2:04 AM Panda has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 101 of 349 (627104)
07-31-2011 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by IamJoseph
07-31-2011 12:11 AM


Re: Debating creationists
I'm sorry, you just aren't making enough sense for me to continue this debate.
There are so many things you have wrong that it is just not worth the effort.
If you want to debate in the field of science you have to learn something about science and follow the methods of science. This includes accepting the conclusions of science or providing a well-reasoned, logical, and evidence-backed rebuttal for another viewpoint.
And most of all your arguments have to make sense. Unfortunately yours generally do not.
If you want to try again, pick one point in my previous post and present a reasoned and evidence-backed response. We can start there.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by IamJoseph, posted 07-31-2011 12:11 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by IamJoseph, posted 07-31-2011 2:11 AM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 102 of 349 (627105)
07-31-2011 2:04 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Panda
07-31-2011 12:19 AM


Re: Debating creationists
quote:
"host seed output"
If you have a problem deciphering those three words in the context it was written you should examine both your comprehension and your understanding of science. These faculties require one to reduce them in every day language and usages, as opposed merely recalling texts parrot fashion. So please tell me what part of the quoted three words and their assembling together do you find confusing? Did you confuse host with anything other than the parents when this is attached with the word seed output - like what else?! How would you describe it?
Your confusion is confusing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Panda, posted 07-31-2011 12:19 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Panda, posted 07-31-2011 9:45 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 103 of 349 (627106)
07-31-2011 2:11 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Coyote
07-31-2011 12:23 AM


Re: Debating creationists
quote:
I'm sorry, you just aren't making enough sense for me to continue this debate.
There are so many things you have wrong that it is just not worth the effort.
If you want to debate in the field of science you have to learn something about science and follow the methods of science. This includes accepting the conclusions of science or providing a well-reasoned, logical, and evidence-backed rebuttal for another viewpoint.
And most of all your arguments have to make sense. Unfortunately yours generally do not.
If you want to try again, pick one point in my previous post and present a reasoned and evidence-backed response. We can start there.
Maybe I am making too much sense for you to debate? After all, you made the wrong assumption of confusing an on-going process not being impacted by time with other issues - which I pointed out to you. Also, your inference I was responding via a theological premise is also bogus - I gave non-theological reasoning which applied mathematics as the factor which exposes the glitch. You have not responded to the issue at all, using escapist means to make my logic as theological. It means your own science is deficient.
I ask anyone else to show how an on-going process can be impacted by time - and knock-knock! - its not a theological question!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Coyote, posted 07-31-2011 12:23 AM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 104 of 349 (627107)
07-31-2011 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by hooah212002
07-31-2011 12:17 AM


Re: Debating creationists
Remember, its not a troll which says there is no scientific alternative to Creationism, nor is creationism an unscientific premise. If you differ then pls enlighten via scientific reasoning how this "INFINITE" universe came into being - I'm listening. Remember Galeleo had to PROVE the earth is not flat - he never just called the flat earthers a troll!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by hooah212002, posted 07-31-2011 12:17 AM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by frako, posted 07-31-2011 4:25 AM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 114 by hooah212002, posted 07-31-2011 10:05 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 105 of 349 (627108)
07-31-2011 4:25 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by IamJoseph
07-31-2011 2:16 AM


Re: Debating creationists
If you differ then pls enlighten via scientific reasoning how this "INFINITE" universe came into being
Zeuse used his lighting to light his fart on fire that is what made the universe npw porve this wrong or teach it in the classrooms as truth or prove your version true

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by IamJoseph, posted 07-31-2011 2:16 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024