Kent Hovind

Oh dear! 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? '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 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! 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."

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.

Here we go: Ah so you think I'm a new comer do you? Is that because I haven't bothered posting to you before or because of my relatively low post count? Either way you are wrong - I've been on EvC for over 4 years - I just don't post flurries of babbling nonsense as you do. By the way - what you've done there is an 'ad hominem fallacy' - attack the man not the argument - classic creationist live debate technique! Hasty generalisation fallacy - another classic creationist hallmark. Well, to give you a little background - I am scientifically trained (in the biological sciences) so have a good understanding of both the scientific method and the ToE. My job currently involves me drafting communication re government regulatory changes. This means my use of English and specifically the content I use has to be explicit and as free from possible misinterpretation as possible (given the modern propensity to litigative recourse). I have become very adept at spotting 'crap' inserted in the English language. Are you really sure you want to debate me? You seem to use the word 'logic' quite a lot in your posts I've noticed. But do you really understand the limitations of its application? Logic isn't used to say that something is true or not. Logic is the formal process of the validity of inferences.for example a statement may say that "If A is equal to such and such this means B must be so and so" Logic provides that inference between the conditions of A and B. It does not say A is correct (and therefore B) only that given starting conditions, logic can be used to provide inference between conditions. How is this relevant for your 'God' theory? Simply, religion starts out assuming there IS a god and going on from there. Logic is then applied onwards - BUT if the opening premise is wrong (there ISN'T a God) then all subsequent logic is invalid - there are no relevant inferential links applicable.In a nutshell this is your problem. Your grand opening statement (there IS a God) is assumption (built on 2000 year old bronze-age texts written, translated, re-written over time, languages and via political and cultural agendas. And this is the ONLY 'evidence' you use for your opening premise. Please don't use the word 'logic' anymore in your word salads -it's an affront to the Boolean language! Is reading and comprehension so difficult for you? I was explaining the verbal snake-oil techniques used in live creationist debates and you asked the above question. When did I say YOU, specifically have used those techniques in a live debate? So you value style over substance do you? Are you really so clueless that you don't recognise stage-managed guile and deception? Give me one reason that live debates are 'better' than written ones. I'll give reasons why written ones better - let's see your countermand:1. Written debates are permanent. Neither debater can retract statements without it being obvious his position is jeopardised.
2. Written debates can cover every issue - no chance of a debater 'forgetting' to answer things he found difficult
3. Written debates give each side time to reflect and research questions. This is the ACADEMIC way to proceed - and we are dealing with academic issues here aren't we? Live debates appeal to the media and public lust for live 'action' - but that is no way to progress issues requiring deep reflection.
4. Written debates eliminate showmanship trickery. A debate should not revolve around which personality can best 'play' an audience, but instead it should only focus on the subject under discussion. If you need to 'play' to a live audience there is something fundamentally weak about your position.Now - give me reasons why you think a live debate is preferable. The above sentence is pure word-salad - English words strung together with no sense at all - if I did this in my job I'd be looking for another post by now. Incidentally this is another ploy used in live creationist debates (you should get in touch with Gish - he'd see you as a natural). If you said the above statement to a scientist in a live debate he'd look puzzled and would remain silent. The audience would lap it up thinking - "that great Dawn - hasn't he got that scientist in trouble", when in reality the scientist would be thinking "Well he seems to be talking English - I understand each word he has uttered - but the sentences just don't seem to make sense - what is he actually trying to ask me?"You see, scientists deal with concretes and specifics. Word-salad is alien and strange to them. Do you not think the Gish's of this world don't know that?By the way - do you really read all the posts sent back to you? If so then please re-read dwise1's post number 71 - the perfect post laying out the creationist 'strategy' to dealing with the tiresome 'scientific' objection to their fairyland beliefs.

Thanks for that - interesting character!By the way - your post No. 71 was awesome - the whole dishonest creationist campaign form its roots onwards laid out beatuifully.........unfortunately it's very much a case of 'peals before swine' with Dawn!

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. 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 conditionsAs 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! 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! 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?

Absolutely not! If you can say that you haven't got the foggiest notion of logic function. Logic deals with VALIDITY OF ARGUMENTS and this has NOTHING to do with reality.Example: A young(ish) boy who believes in Santa Claus could write a paper detailing how many children there are in the world, how far apart they all live in miles, how long Santa has on Xmas Eve in which to deliver all presents - and then present a case of a light speed sled (186,000 miles per second) which can cover said total distance within the time frame. The problem (delivering the presents in said time) and solution (light sped sled) are connected by validity of argument logic. In this case if the sled can deliver within the timeframe logic confirms the validity of the argument. However this in no way makes Santa a real true proposition. Logic is not being used to test reality (if you think it does it's because you really have no idea about logic application) - it is being used to test VALIDITY OF ARGUMENT not a position of reality.Reality comes from EVIDENCE that can be measured in the real world. You can't figure out reality from internal introspection (which includes logic processes). This is why solipsism may be a fun thing to debate philosophically, but has no practical use in the real world. Anything that doesn’t feed in data from the real world is a dead end in terms of describing the reality in which we live. Even quantum physics, whose maths is often the only way we can ‘understand’ what it is about — gets confirmation in the REAL WORLD by ACTUAL EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE.Your subsequent blurb re logic is invalid. Once you try to impose abstract concepts onto a reality (which can only be derived from physical data input) you are done! Please provide the physical realities that lead to the deduction of God's existence. Please state precisely why the realities stated imply must mean a God. Please note - do not ignore this request - I will hound you mercilessly for the answer otherwise!! In other words you agree this is the superior way to conduct a debate - thank you for agreeing (in retrospect) that I am right. OK then. Well the original statement you made that invoked my word-salad comment was this: sic1. What 'principle' are you referring to - it's not at all clear. Please state your case rather than make oblique references to the debate at hand.....what principle?
2. The use of the word 'wedge' is obscure in its meaning in your sentence. Do you mean I'm trying to replace one of your principles with one of my own. Or am I trying to squeeze it alongside one of your own - which is what to 'wedge' actually means....though I'm sure I wouldn't favour sharing opposing concepts - that's illogical (see - logic used here in abstract non-concrete form!)
3. Exactly what case or scenario are you referring to? Please state what you mean - your debating opponents shouldn't have to guess at your meaning because of poor language communication.Is English your primary language? If not then fair enough, I can make allowance for that and just be patient. If English is your primary language - don't try to be deceitful with its meaning. I WILL call you on attempted disingenuousness!

Thanks for that Panda. I must say I'm somewhat bemused by an English-speaking individual managing to hash up the beauty of the English language so much....one is almost tempted to think it is done on purpose!Edited by Drosophilla, : typo corrected

Excellent - I think we may be making headway now! So......for us humans REALITY is measured solely by reference to the EVIDENCE brought to us by OUR SENSES......Agreed??? How exactly does reality confer the 'why' of things? More word-salad! Pretend you are talking to a five year old and re-word this please! Ah - the 'argument from ignorance' fallacy - "I think A looks designed and I can't personally understand how it could possibly be natural therefore it "clearly exhibits signs of design".'And yet science, the scientific method and a few million science-man hours shows that this IS just an argument from ignorance. Occam's Razor says so too - you don't need 'an intelligent designer' inserted where one isn't needed. As Laplace (French mathematician and astronomer) said to Napoleon who, (when listening to a treatise of celestial mechanics written by Laplace asked why Laplace did not include 'God' in his work) exclaimed: "Sir, I have no need of that hypothesis."Occam's Razor is as blunt (and - I believe you will find this wry!) - coldly logical. "When A and B explain a scenario as well as A, B and C then C is an extraneous term and the rule of parsimony says it is not needed. I'm afraid 'God' is your 'C' term here. Laplace knew exactly what he was saying to Napoleon. Personal conviction has sod all to do with evidence and reality no matter how you would like it to be otherwise. In the world of reality - people's opinions don't count a dam! Please provide evidence that the Universe is finite or has come from finite 'elements'. So the 'Gish Gallop' is all in our imagination is it? Even your ad hominem 'barracking' is word-salad!