Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Post Volume: Total: 918,040 Year: 5,297/9,624 Month: 322/323 Week: 166/160 Day: 2/38 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Kent Hovind
Taq
Member
Posts: 10187
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 41 of 349 (627044)
07-25-2011 11:42 PM


Hovind v. Shermer debate video
Here is the video from the first time Shermer and Hovind debated:
Error 404 (Not Found)!!1

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10187
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 195 of 349 (627297)
08-01-2011 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by Dawn Bertot
08-01-2011 11:19 PM


Re: Logic demands
One such as yourself cannot be taken seriously if you do not respond to my posts and the particular arguments therein.
You do not make arguments. You rely on solipsisms.
When you want to talk about evidence and reality then we will be more than willing to discuss.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-01-2011 11:19 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10187
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 223 of 349 (627549)
08-02-2011 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Dawn Bertot
08-02-2011 4:31 PM


Re: Logic demands
. . . law, order, identifiable purpose and design are proof of a creator.
Evidence please.
Of course both positions are equal in evidence,. . .
No, they are not. You have yet to support the argument that law, order, and identifiable purpose are signs of creator and a creator alone with evidence.
Please demonstrate how nature or natural causes is anything more than a display of nature?
please demonstrate how natural causes is an explanation of soley natural causes
Natural causes are just that, natural causes. You are suggesting supernatural causes, and are doing so without any observations of supernatural causation, nor evidence of it.
Law, order and purpose are more that sufficient and on the same equalitywith nature causes (as you use the term) to provide evidence of a designer
Why? How are law, order, and purpose evidence of a designer? It would seem to me that law, order, and purpose are evidence of law, order and purpose in the same way that natural causes are evidence of natural causes.
My prediction is that you are to lazy to make a rebuttal and one of your cohorts will pick up the ball
Claims made without evidence refute themselves.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-02-2011 4:31 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-06-2011 7:03 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10187
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.0


(2)
Message 225 of 349 (627555)
08-02-2011 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by Dawn Bertot
08-02-2011 7:07 PM


Re: Debating creationists
While logic has its uses, it is only an abstract term, the symbols, inferences and its other aspects are abstract, they are not real things.
The same applies to law, order, and purpose. These are abstract terms as well.
reality only allows to alternatives to answer of the question, why and how things are here
Reality offers no alternatives. There is only one reality. Period.
Reality only provides two logical alternatives to the reality of exitence, why it is here, how it operates.
Again, reality offers no alternatives. There is only the way things are. That's it. If you want to claim that things are a certain way, then you need to show us evidence that this is so.
So why wouldnt someone conclude a designer or God?
Why would they, given the absence of evidence for a designer or God?
If someone is still not convinced in this connection then it would fall to the fact that this is what reality permits in the nature of choices
Again, there is only reality. Not choices. Not possibilities. Just reality.
Gods eternal existence would be more reasonable as a choice
Where is the evience that God exists, or that God is eternal? You have yet to supply this evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-02-2011 7:07 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-06-2011 5:29 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10187
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.0


(3)
Message 240 of 349 (627738)
08-03-2011 6:25 PM


For what it is worth:
quote:
One of the individuals who I interviewed, who lost approximately 30,000 thousand dollars to Ron Wyatt, went to Israel with him, supposedly to see some of these sights and record them on film. An assignment editor of a major television station in Nasheville went with them. Not only did this individual not see any of these incredible discoveries, but his wife was told by one of Ron Wyatt's sons that the chariot wheels that Ron supposedly discovered in the Gulf of Aqaba were planted there by Ron. Mr. Wyatt gave this couple some coins which he supposedly found at the Ark of the Covenant site. Again, one of Wyatt's sons informed the wife that Wyatt bought those coins. Gentle, soft-spoken Ron verbally abused an Arab car rental agent when the agent told Mr. Wyatt that his son was to young to drive the vehicle.
This couple and the television man returned with nothing to show for the ten's of thousands of dollars he gave to Ron. Later, Ron returned and asked for $10,000 dollars more. This man told Ron he would give him the money if he agreed to take a lie detector test and sign a statement agreeing to allow this man to use the results of the test any way he wanted. Ron tried to get the money without agreeing to take the test, but when he saw that he would not get another dime without the test, he finally signed the statement and took the test. In the words of the man who put Ron Wyatt through the test, as told by the man who gave Ron Wyatt all the previous money, "He failed just about everything except his name."
source
Moller's connection with Wyatt taints all of Moller's claims. Wyatt was a con artist. Plain and simple.

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Buzsaw, posted 08-03-2011 11:36 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10187
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 246 of 349 (627772)
08-04-2011 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by Buzsaw
08-03-2011 11:36 PM


Re: Falsifying Evidence.
Interestingly, also, is that if so many are so anxious to debunk the evidence why aren't they there to do it fair and square themselves. That's easy. They don't want to find the evidence that Moller produced.
There is no evidence to debunk. That's the point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Buzsaw, posted 08-03-2011 11:36 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10187
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 284 of 349 (628298)
08-08-2011 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by Dawn Bertot
08-06-2011 7:03 PM


Re: Logic demands
If law order and purpose are not equal in evidence of a designer, to the answer of soley natural causes, then it would follow logically that you could or do have the means to demonstrate your position from start to finish.
Right back atcha. You need to show, with evidence, that laws, order, and purpose are caused by a supernatural designer. This is the claim you are making, so it is up to you to supply the evidence. The burden of proof is on you, not me.
Really taq? Please explain how your positionl and mine, do not stand or fall together. Given the available evidence
You mean "Why do I reject a false dichotomy?". That should answer itself as well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-06-2011 7:03 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-08-2011 10:22 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10187
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 290 of 349 (628340)
08-08-2011 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by Dawn Bertot
08-08-2011 10:02 PM


Re: Logic demands
Instead of all of this, just look at the logical possibilites, because if you reject the scriptures, that is all you have. Wouldnt you agree
You always seem to miss a step. It is not about rejecting scripture. It is a lack of evidence which does not allow us to accept scripture. It is evidence first, then acceptance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-08-2011 10:02 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10187
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 291 of 349 (628341)
08-08-2011 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by Dawn Bertot
08-08-2011 10:22 PM


Re: Logic demands
I am initially saying, demonstrate why you think you have evidence of natural causes that are the cause of everything.
I am not claiming that I know what caused everything. You are making claims that you know what caused everything. I am asking for evidence that backs up your claims. Where is it?
Are you ready to admit you have no evidence of natural causes, or will you continue with your word play
Word games? I am not the one shifting the burden of proof and using false dichotomies. That would be you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-08-2011 10:22 PM Dawn Bertot 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