Register | Sign In

Understanding through Discussion

EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,204 Year: 5,461/9,624 Month: 486/323 Week: 126/204 Day: 0/26 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Kent Hovind
Member (Idle past 3753 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009

Message 57 of 349 (627060)
07-29-2011 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Chuck77
07-26-2011 7:05 AM

Re: Debating creationists
Oh dear!
Yeah, well don't tell me, tell Ken. He's the one making a fool of himself, im simply pointing it out
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?
Who? Never heard of Him.
'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
Are you actually saying you know more? Say michael Behe for instance? He wrote a great book called "darwins black box" which is one of the best book for ID or Creation ever written. Can you do better?
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 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!
And yet, you debate them day and night, right here, on this very site, day after day, night after night, comment after comment.
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 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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Chuck77, posted 07-26-2011 7:05 AM Chuck77 has not replied

Member (Idle past 3753 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009

Message 58 of 349 (627061)
07-29-2011 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Dawn Bertot
07-26-2011 4:53 PM

Re: Debating creationists
Ive watched Dr Warren rdeduce men to complete silence and close scheduled 3 night debates, the first night, because the evo or atheist didnt understand what was involved in these issues.
You could also see the light bulbs pop on over their heads through thier expressions
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 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.

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 59 by Dawn Bertot, posted 07-30-2011 4:31 PM Drosophilla has replied
 Message 62 by dwise1, posted 07-30-2011 5:35 PM Drosophilla has replied

Member (Idle past 3753 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009

Message 107 of 349 (627110)
07-31-2011 7:14 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Dawn Bertot
07-30-2011 4:31 PM

Re: Debating creationists
Here we go:
And I am sure you are aware of the fact (new comer) that there is difference between an assertion and an argument.
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!
Knowing that you cannot do that, I will be happy to know that you are not only uninformed but a poor polemist. Fire away.
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?
Happily logic and sound reasoning are what we employ, sophistry aside. Again another assertion by yourself. Do you have any examples or arguments to accompany that ignorant assertion?
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!
Thus far your post and points are a snooze fest. Do you have any SPECIFC examples of where I have provided anything of that nature
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?
Perhaps if you were better prepared and informed you could make a better appearance and presentation. Yeah, I understand its hard to think on your feet
Part of these poor scientist problem, is that they dont understand the issues to begin with
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.
In written ofrm or in person, it wouldnt help your case. Due to the fact that you are trying to wedge a principle into the discussion that is either non-existent or imaginary. Your trying to create a case or scenerio that is not a problem in the first place
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Dawn Bertot, posted 07-30-2011 4:31 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Dawn Bertot, posted 07-31-2011 4:40 PM Drosophilla has replied

Member (Idle past 3753 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009

Message 108 of 349 (627111)
07-31-2011 7:59 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by dwise1
07-30-2011 5:35 PM

Re: Debating creationists
Case in point was Clifford Stoll's description of his oral exams for his PhD Astronomy. The question was: "Why is the sky blue?" It took him two or more hours to answer the question fully.
It took him two or four hours, but it's been quite a while since I've read his book, The Cuckoo's Egg, which tells the story of how he had discovered and tracked down a German spy for the Soviets breaking into US government and university computers for information of the Strategic Defense Initiative, AKA "Star Wars". It was reenacted for an enjoyable 1990 episode of Nova, The KGB, the Computer, and Me, which I found on YouTube a few years ago. The book has apparently been reprinted, since I spotted it last week during Borders' liquidation sale.
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by dwise1, posted 07-30-2011 5:35 PM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by IamJoseph, posted 07-31-2011 9:56 AM Drosophilla has not replied

Member (Idle past 3753 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009

Message 171 of 349 (627174)
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 replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-01-2011 6:02 PM Drosophilla has replied

Member (Idle past 3753 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009

Message 209 of 349 (627437)
08-02-2011 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by Dawn Bertot
08-01-2011 6:02 PM

Re: Debating creationists
Logic is an abstract term we use to help us understand the real world.
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!
No one starts with the assumption of Gods existence. It is deduced from physical realites. Youve got it backwards
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!!
No one said written debates werent more exhaustive or comprehensive.
In other words you agree this is the superior way to conduct a debate - thank you for agreeing (in retrospect) that I am right.
is this another way of saying you cant or wont make an attempt at a rebuttal. Give it an actual try and see how fun it can be
OK then. Well the original statement you made that invoked my word-salad comment was this:
In written ofrm or in person, it wouldnt help your case. Due to the fact that you are trying to wedge a principle into the discussion that is either non-existent or imaginary. Your trying to create a case or scenerio that is not a problem in the first place
1. 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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-01-2011 6:02 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by Panda, posted 08-02-2011 5:20 PM Drosophilla has replied
 Message 224 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-02-2011 7:07 PM Drosophilla has replied

Member (Idle past 3753 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009

Message 217 of 349 (627527)
08-02-2011 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by Panda
08-02-2011 5:20 PM

Re: Debating creationists
Dawn was raised and educated in America and continued to live there for many years (and maybe still does).
There are not many possible reasons for his lack of ability at English - but the cause has not yet been diagnosed on this forum.
He also rejects any suggestion that his English is abnormal.
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 is almost tempted to think it is done on purpose!
Edited by Drosophilla, : typo corrected

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Panda, posted 08-02-2011 5:20 PM Panda has seen this message but not replied

Member (Idle past 3753 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009

Message 256 of 349 (627851)
08-04-2011 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by Dawn Bertot
08-02-2011 7:07 PM

Re: Debating creationists
As I stated before to which you paid no attention, I agree with this element of aspect of logic, why wouldnt I. What I said was and I provided you with an example, is this. 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.
That being the case if falls to reality to set the standards, boundries and limitations for not only what we call logic, but everything else as well. reality only allows to alternatives to answer of the question, why and how things are here
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???
reality only allows to alternatives to answer of the question, why and how things are here
How exactly does reality confer the 'why' of things?
Those choices or standards are set long before my inclination. They are a result of anything being in existence in the first place, a result of finiteness or eternality, regardless of which one is true
I never said it must mean a God. I said, due to the nature of reality as we know it, it does not resemble anything infinte or eternal in the first place.
More word-salad! Pretend you are talking to a five year old and re-word this please!
In the second place reality clearly exhibits signs of design and the creative nature in the physical world, ie, law order and purpose
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.
So why wouldnt someone conclude a designer or God?
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.
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
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!
In contrast why would one conclude an infinte universe or existence, from such finite properties.
Please provide evidence that the Universe is finite or has come from finite 'elements'.
In written form or oral creationist dont use guile or deciet in debate as was implied by Dwise and others. there point was that in oral we acted like used car salesmen. That is why I refered him to Dr Thomas B Warren, as to why that was not the case.
So the 'Gish Gallop' is all in our imagination is it?
Yeah yeah yeah, just respond to the arguments please. Loosen your neck tie and relax inspector gadget
Even your ad hominem 'barracking' is word-salad!

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 265 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-06-2011 9:43 PM Drosophilla 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