Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Post Volume: Total: 918,048 Year: 5,305/9,624 Month: 330/323 Week: 174/160 Day: 10/38 Hour: 2/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Kent Hovind
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2212 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 6 of 182 (625483)
07-23-2011 11:07 AM


Debating creationists
Check Mazzy's posts in the "Why are there no human apes alive today?" thread.
This will clearly illustrate why it is futile for scientists to try to debate hard core creationists.
And doing so in a venue with an audience, where showmanship and glib count much more than empirical evidence, would be even worse.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by ZenMonkey, posted 07-23-2011 11:40 AM Coyote has not replied
 Message 11 by DBlevins, posted 07-23-2011 8:05 PM Coyote has replied
 Message 92 by IamJoseph, posted 07-30-2011 10:45 PM Coyote has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2212 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 12 of 182 (625541)
07-23-2011 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by DBlevins
07-23-2011 8:05 PM


Re: Debating creationists
I agree.
To clarify, the "showmanship and glib" referred to a debate in front of a live audience, not a forum such as this. Think Gish et al.
Presentation and discussion of the evidence in written form is the best format. You see this in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, but that venue is seldom available to creationists because they are most often anti-science and fail to follow the scientific method. You also see evidence in written form on the web, including at this site.
But even in a forum such as this, debating a hard core creationist can be futile because 1) many often don't read the responses, 2) they wouldn't believe any evidence you posted anyway, and 3) many are here to preach to the heathens, not to debate and learn from them. One telltale characteristic of hard core creationistsis that they repeat the same PRATTs over and over no matter how often those points are refuted. They simply can't accept any answer contrary to their religious beliefs.
We have seen such an example recently. It may be more productive and less painful to beat one's head against a brick wall than try to engage such a poster in serious debate.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by DBlevins, posted 07-23-2011 8:05 PM DBlevins has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Minnemooseus, posted 07-23-2011 11:04 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied
 Message 14 by DBlevins, posted 07-23-2011 11:32 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2212 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 16 of 182 (625566)
07-24-2011 1:54 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Chuck77
07-24-2011 12:51 AM


Debating creationists
Question:
When there is a disagreement between (or among) creationists, how do they resolve that difference?
It appears to me that they don't. As there are an estimated 38,000 to 40,000 different Christian denominations it appears that rather than resolving differences through some empirical means, they simply split off into more and more denominations.
Given that, how can you tell that Hovind is "more of a crackpot than most?" What standard can you use? It would seem to me, an outsider, that you have no empirical means nor agreed-upon methods to determine who is right and who is wrong.
Perhaps this is another problem in debating creationists--they haven't worked out a uniform set of beliefs among themselves, and apparently have no method for doing so.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Chuck77, posted 07-24-2011 12:51 AM Chuck77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Chuck77, posted 07-24-2011 2:18 AM Coyote has not replied
 Message 29 by Dawn Bertot, posted 07-24-2011 5:59 PM Coyote has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2212 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 30 of 182 (625643)
07-24-2011 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Dawn Bertot
07-24-2011 5:59 PM


Re: Debating creationists
If there is such a level of agreement, why are there some 40+ thousand different Christian denominations? (And some 4,300 world religions?)
And why is there no way to determine which belief is correct?
Tell you what, you guys fight it out among yourselves and when you get down to a single religion, then science can take on the winner. That's fair, eh?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Dawn Bertot, posted 07-24-2011 5:59 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Dawn Bertot, posted 07-24-2011 7:16 PM Coyote has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2212 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 42 of 182 (625840)
07-25-2011 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Dawn Bertot
07-25-2011 11:31 PM


Re: Debating creationists
Coyotes statement of differences was concerning the different views of creationism amoung christians. My point was that those opinions and differences matter little when trying to decide between evolution and creationism, because they are not opposites
No, the issue is that on the creationist side there are thousands of denominations, all believing different things. Hovind is a good example: many creationists seem to disagree with his particular beliefs.
Secular fundamentalist atheists use this strawman argument and wedge to advance evolution and crush religion by contrasting the two items.
Religion makes its own problems by having some 4,200 different types.
Of these, Christianity alone has some 42,000 different denominations.
If you folks can't agree on these matters, and have no way to judge between competing claims, don't expect to convince outsiders that your particular brand of belief is the only one that is accurate.
Theres no need for that and the only reason is to keep the ID principle, creationism and design out of the science classroom
That's a good enough reason all by itself. Preach in your churches and leave the rest of us alone.
If his implication is to imply (and it was) that because there are different views of creationism, creationism is invalid and christians are illogical and inconsistent, he is wrong and I am prepared to deal with that as well
Deal away. But first explain why there are about 42,000 different denominations of Christianity. And explain why your denomination is the only correct one. (That leaves 41,999 or so that are incorrect.)
His implication is dirty pool and sloppy debating tactics
It's not my fault you folks can't agree on your beliefs, and have so many differences among yourselves. If you all believed the same things, and had some empirical methods for demonstrating that those, and only those beliefs were correct, then maybe you'd have something. As it is, you folks all over the place. Why should we have any trust in what you are preaching to us if you have no evidence and no empirical methods for discerning who is right and who is wrong?
I'd sooner buy a used car that ran on snake oil.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Dawn Bertot, posted 07-25-2011 11:31 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2212 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 61 of 182 (626633)
07-30-2011 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Dawn Bertot
07-30-2011 4:57 PM


Re: Debating creationists
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 have misconstrued my point.
My point was that science has means for determining which of two claims might be correct and which might be wrong. That means is empirical evidence.
Religion has no such means, and as a result you tend to have schisms instead of agreement.
Further, when there are fundamental religious disagreements, such as are found among some 4,200+ world religions and 40,000+ Christian denominations, at least one and most likely most will be wrong in their beliefs. Perhaps they are all wrong? As they don't tend to use empirical evidence that very well may be the case--but how can you tell if you have no empirical evidence against which to evaluate?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Dawn Bertot, posted 07-30-2011 4:57 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Dawn Bertot, posted 07-30-2011 6:00 PM Coyote has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2212 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 67 of 182 (626642)
07-30-2011 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Dawn Bertot
07-30-2011 6:00 PM


Re: Debating creationists
Not about creation, or the creator, wouldnt you agree
No, I don't agree.
There are creation stories in virtually every culture in the world, but they seldom agree with one another. Many or even most are mutually exclusive.
Without the use of empirical evidence you have no method for evaluating them and determining which, if any, might be accurate.
And no, I am not angry or resentful, and I would hope that my posts don't give that impression.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Dawn Bertot, posted 07-30-2011 6:00 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2212 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 77 of 182 (626664)
07-30-2011 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Dawn Bertot
07-30-2011 9:07 PM


Re: Debating creationists
So, how does this affect the proposition of creationism as a logical principle. Do you even understand what the argument is or is not
Creationism is a religious belief, not a "logical principle."
Creation "science" was invented after creationism was banished by the courts. But creation "science" was itself shortly thereafter banished, as was it's stepchild, "intelligent design."
All of these were disallowed because they are religion, not science.
And still creationism is a religious belief in spite of these attempts to take on the trappings, and respect, relegated to science.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Dawn Bertot, posted 07-30-2011 9:07 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Dawn Bertot, posted 07-30-2011 9:37 PM Coyote has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2212 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 93 of 182 (626701)
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

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2212 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 101 of 182 (626714)
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

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024