Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,565 Year: 4,822/9,624 Month: 170/427 Week: 83/85 Day: 0/20 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Kent Hovind
Panda
Member (Idle past 3789 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 166 of 182 (626977)
08-01-2011 6:02 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by IamJoseph
08-01-2011 6:00 AM


Re: Logic dermands
IamJoseph writes:
I am not at all into any theology; I mention sections of Genesis only in an emperical mode. But I did more than just saying it - that is your position which I merely tried to point out. The scientific cause & effect premise is with Creationism; what have you got - name a scientific premise, as cause and effect cannot be allocated to a self propagating stream of nothingness as its alternative.
Proof and dis-proof cannt apply to any of those two premises and is thus neutralized. We are left with only one alternative from a science POV: a complexity is the result of a source of wisdom, intentional and purposeful - else it is not borne of wisdom or intelligence; this is the reason I find Genesis more plausable; namely the cause and effect for a complexity is more aligned with a source of transcendent wisdom, than random selection. One of those premises is not scientific, yet widely accepted as such. Someone is telling fibs here, and passing it off as science! But scence itself is a post-universe phenomenon which never existed at one time: how could it when there was nothing around to apply science to?
Very well said [clapping hands enthusiastically]. But that's all you did. Saying so is not evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by IamJoseph, posted 08-01-2011 6:00 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by IamJoseph, posted 08-01-2011 6:10 AM Panda has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3744 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 167 of 182 (626978)
08-01-2011 6:10 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by Panda
08-01-2011 6:02 AM


Re: Logic dermands
Pls tell us why nature is more scientific than a creator? Note that physical proof and the observance of an already working system cannot be put forth as a valid reasoning. IOW, you cannot say the sun gives energy and sustains life as the causative factor supporting nature: these are mere observances, not evidences, which can more easily be allocated to a creator.
Reductionist analogy: you cannot point to a steering wheel of a car swaying left and point this as the cause; ths is all that nature worshippers do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Panda, posted 08-01-2011 6:02 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Panda, posted 08-01-2011 6:25 AM IamJoseph has not replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3789 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 168 of 182 (626980)
08-01-2011 6:25 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by IamJoseph
08-01-2011 6:10 AM


Re: Logic dermands
IamJoseph writes:
Pls tell us why nature is more scientific than a creator? Note that physical proof and the observance of an already working system cannot be put forth as a valid reasoning. IOW, you cannot say the sun gives energy and sustains life as the causative factor supporting nature: these are mere observances, not evidences, which can more easily be allocated to a creator.
You are the one making claims - it is your job to provide evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by IamJoseph, posted 08-01-2011 6:10 AM IamJoseph has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 13081
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 169 of 182 (626982)
08-01-2011 6:59 AM


Moderator On Duty
Hello everyone!
As of this morning I will be actively moderating this thread.
This thread began as an attempt to promote a debate with Kent Hovind, but as he is in jail it morphed into a discussion of the nature of debates between creationists and evolutionists. This would be fine as a Coffee House topic, but discussion can't seem to resist debating actual creation/evolution topics.
I could request that someone propose a topic to discuss some of the things that IamJoseph has been proposing, but he is not at present making any concessions to requests for clarity concerning his claim that there is no such thing as nature. Dawn Bertot is doing little better, for example at one point claiming that creationism has nothing to do with religion, and meanwhile IamJoseph keeps bringing up the Hebrew Bible.
So my inclination is to move this thread to Free For All (which should perhaps be renamed Beyond the Looking Glass) where there won't be any significant drain on moderator time. Any objections, or do participants plan on following Hooah's lead in Message 159 and discuss the topic?

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-01-2011 9:36 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34045
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 6.2


Message 170 of 182 (626985)
08-01-2011 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by IamJoseph
07-31-2011 11:13 PM


Re: Logic dermands
I said Natural cause.
I have a puddle in my back yard, the cause is that it rained.
There is evidence of natural causes.
Please present the evidence of the creator or the method used by that critter to influence evolution.
Until you present evidence equal to the evidence of natural causes you have nothing.
Since there is evidence that there are natural causes but no evidence of a creator or any method used by that critter to influence evolution logic demands that until such evidence is presented that the creator or the method used by that critter be simply disregarded.
Your continued posting of absolute falsehoods does not make them true.
It really is that simple.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by IamJoseph, posted 07-31-2011 11:13 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by IamJoseph, posted 08-01-2011 8:55 AM jar has replied

Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 3717 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


Message 171 of 182 (626990)
08-01-2011 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by Dawn Bertot
07-31-2011 4:40 PM


Re: Debating creationists
Very impressive, I dont know what it has to do with the topic but very impressive, Im sure your mom is very proud.
It was a little background so you knew who you were debating - call it public courtesy. And a warning to be careful about accuracy, brevity and claity of the English language.
When i use the word logic I am only referencing it in its more general use of the word as sound reasoning
Well that didn't take long!
Let me repeat for those who stuggle with such concepts: Logic is mainly used for the VALIDY OF ARGUMENTS - the inferences between conditions
As you maintain from the outset a set condition (there IS a god) then you CANNOT invoke logic thereafter - it is pointless trying to make logic apply to situations where the initial conditions are merely ASSUMED. I really shouldn't need to tell you this twice!
The same things can be accomplised in a public week long debate
You're taking this piss.....right?
How would a week long verbal debate ensure nothing was inadvertently retracted?
How would a week long verbal debate ensure absolutely everything was answered - nothing 'forgotten'?
How would a week long verbal debate ensure questions were researched and answered propely (academia remember!)
And how does a week long live debate in any way remove 'play to the audience and invoke trickery' tactics?
Written debate is superior in every one of those factors - have you nothing of your own to show here as an additive to those above? If not have the grace to concede!
It does not surprise me in the least you do not understand my meaning. It only bothers me that you did not attempt a rebuttal
How does one attempt a rebuttal of a pile of word-salad crap? Does it not make you think when so many people say you are less than lucid, that possibly a course on English grammar and content would be money well spent for you? I assume you would actually like people to understand you - then again you wouldn't be able to bask in a mish-mash of word salad would you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Dawn Bertot, posted 07-31-2011 4:40 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1481 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 172 of 182 (626991)
08-01-2011 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by frako
07-26-2011 5:36 PM


Re: Debating creationists
Hi frako,
Well creationism and ID say that man and animals where created in their current form.
Can you tell me what ID authority says this? As far as I can tell all ID states is that "something" was designed. See What exactly is ID? Message 1252 for example.
ID on it's own is not necessarily in conflict with evolution.
In usage most ID supporters revert to creationism for origins etc.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by frako, posted 07-26-2011 5:36 PM frako has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3744 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 173 of 182 (626992)
08-01-2011 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by jar
08-01-2011 8:10 AM


Re: Logic dermands
quote:
I have a puddle in my back yard, the cause is that it rained.
There is evidence of natural causes.
No sir. That is not evidence of MR/MRS/MS NATURE. Instead it says there is a complex program directive which causes a rain cycle. I even gave a reductionist real life analogy:
If your car steering turns left, does it mean NATURE did it? That is exactly what you are saying by manipulating a most bogus premise the rain was caused by NATURE. Its a slight of hand casino logic. You gave no reason why you even mention a ficticious premise called nature - did you ever see nature directing the rain and causing a puddle in your backyard - can we see a snap shot? You said you had 'evidence' - I say you have just a word coined recetly?
quote:
Please present the evidence of the creator or the method used by that critter to influence evolution.
I did present logical reasons which are based on scientific premises: mountains do not cause cars - car makers cause cars with intelligent input, and observable blue prints and processes. Similarly, the complex and majestic engineerings we see all around us was not caused by nature - it must require an intelligence at least greater than the complex and majestic engineerings - logical, no? The latter is a fully vindicated phenomena [the car example VS naturedidit]. It is you exclusively who has no evidence behind your claims other than a 'word'.
quote:
Until you present evidence equal to the evidence of natural causes you have nothing.
Where's the snapshot? Is there nothing other than a car steering driving itself - a result of nature? No car maker? And it took billions of years to happen too! You are confusing an effect as the cause!
quote:
Since there is evidence that there are natural causes but no evidence of a creator or any method used by that critter to influence evolution logic demands that until such evidence is presented that the creator or the method used by that critter be simply disregarded.
I aready prempted this reasoning: the proof factor is mutually neutralized. You are fantasizing you have evidence! You have just a word and nothing more.
quote:
Your continued posting of absolute falsehoods does not make them true.
It really is that simple.
Did nature instruct light to happen? And if light is the first product - did nature do this retrospectively? Did nature cause a host of actions in a row, like the separation of land and water on earth, which is critically conducive to forthcoming life - this shows remarkable intelligence very similar to a superior mind with knowledge from a time which even predated the universe. Forgive me - it appears to me this is caused by a transcendent mind as a far more scientific conclusion. Frgive me - I see the science of Genesis better than Jitterbugging quarks did it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by jar, posted 08-01-2011 8:10 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by jar, posted 08-01-2011 9:01 AM IamJoseph has replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34045
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 6.2


Message 174 of 182 (626993)
08-01-2011 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by IamJoseph
08-01-2011 8:55 AM


Re: Logic dermands
Utter bullshit as expected.
Please provide evidence I ever referred to "MR/MRS/MS NATURE"
It rained, Rain is natural. The puddle filled. That is natural.
I said Natural cause.
I have a puddle in my back yard, the cause is that it rained.
There is evidence of natural causes.
Please present the evidence of the creator or the method used by that critter to influence evolution.
Until you present evidence equal to the evidence of natural causes you have nothing.
Since there is evidence that there are natural causes but no evidence of a creator or any method used by that critter to influence evolution logic demands that until such evidence is presented that the creator or the method used by that critter be simply disregarded.
Your continued posting of absolute falsehoods does not make them true.
It really is that simple.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by IamJoseph, posted 08-01-2011 8:55 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by IamJoseph, posted 08-01-2011 9:20 AM jar has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3744 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 175 of 182 (626994)
08-01-2011 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by jar
08-01-2011 9:01 AM


Re: Logic dermands
quote:
I have a puddle in my back yard, the cause is that it rained.
My car is turning left, the cause is the steering wheel does it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by jar, posted 08-01-2011 9:01 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by jar, posted 08-01-2011 9:24 AM IamJoseph has replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34045
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 6.2


Message 176 of 182 (626995)
08-01-2011 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by IamJoseph
08-01-2011 9:20 AM


Re: Logic dermands
Good for you, but as expected, utterly irrelevant.
Please provide evidence I ever referred to "MR/MRS/MS NATURE"
It rained, Rain is natural. The puddle filled. That is natural.
I said Natural cause.
I have a puddle in my back yard, the cause is that it rained.
There is evidence of natural causes.
Please present the evidence of the creator or the method used by that critter to influence evolution.
Until you present evidence equal to the evidence of natural causes you have nothing.
Since there is evidence that there are natural causes but no evidence of a creator or any method used by that critter to influence evolution logic demands that until such evidence is presented that the creator or the method used by that critter be simply disregarded.
Your continued posting of absolute falsehoods and irrelevancies does not make them true or relevant.
It really is that simple.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by IamJoseph, posted 08-01-2011 9:20 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by IamJoseph, posted 08-01-2011 9:40 AM jar has replied

Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4498 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 177 of 182 (626998)
08-01-2011 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by IamJoseph
08-01-2011 5:43 AM


Re: Logic dermands
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 - Wikipedia
Natural 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.
it is more a generic, non-denominational method for the allocation of observations and what they may be caused by, without resorting to a creator.
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 no science behind nature, natural causes or ecosystem; there is only observation of a working process, also seen within the human body.
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.
We do not call a car's working observances as a natural cause; so why should rainfall or sunlight be given this allocation: both display complexity. It begs the question if we cannot physically prove the universe maker in a lab vase, does the logical premise of it also become discardable? I say the sound premise must apply and transcend what we cannot capture, especially so when we cannot physically capture Mr/Mrs. Nature!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by IamJoseph, posted 08-01-2011 5:43 AM IamJoseph has not replied

Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4498 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 178 of 182 (626999)
08-01-2011 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by Admin
08-01-2011 6:59 AM


Re: Moderator On Duty
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Admin, posted 08-01-2011 6:59 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3744 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 179 of 182 (627000)
08-01-2011 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by jar
08-01-2011 9:24 AM


Re: Logic dermands
quote:
I said Natural cause.
I have a puddle in my back yard, the cause is that it rained.
There is evidence of natural causes.
Rain is caused by a directive program - else it is not a scientific reasoning. One can emulate this in a lab, after making sure there is no nature in the room: heat the water in a controlled atmosphere, it will become mist and fall as rain; the traits in water properties constitute a directive program. Of note, one must also clarify what caused only one planet to display this directive; maybe it relates to critical separations of matter, embedded with a program that directs it to do so - because they align critically with forthcoming life? Why not, and is it not a more scientific reasoning than naturedidit? Why do you allocate rain to nature - does it know that life is forthcoming and made a great fluke guess?
I don't accept NATURAL SELECTION but I do accept DIRECTIVE SELECTEE. The latter appears more scientifically plausable. I don't accept NATURE formed the eye and dna - NS is based on random via a manipulation of word play. To me, science is based on an intelligence impacting of complex products and actions - else it is not science. If nature produced dna, it can surely produce TV sets and cars.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by jar, posted 08-01-2011 9:24 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-01-2011 9:42 AM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 182 by jar, posted 08-01-2011 9:48 AM IamJoseph has not replied

Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4498 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 180 of 182 (627001)
08-01-2011 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by IamJoseph
08-01-2011 9:40 AM


Re: Logic dermands
Read my post IamJoseph,
Your definition of the word nature is not correct.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by IamJoseph, posted 08-01-2011 9:40 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