|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4422 days) Posts: 415 From: Australia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Kent Hovind | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Drosophilla Member (Idle past 3641 days) Posts: 172 From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dirk Member (Idle past 4024 days) Posts: 84 Joined: |
In either case, there was good reason not to publicize further research.
Of course they had good reason not to publicize further research. First of all because there wasn't any, and second, if they had done that research properly, it would have shown that they are just making stuff up. Anyway, as regards the landbridge, here's the bathymetry of the Gulf of Aqaba:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
The claim will be made that the area between the Elat Deep and the Arabonese Deep is a potential landbridge.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member Posts: 3571 Joined: |
The same applies to law, order, and purpose. These are abstract terms as well. true they are, but unlike reality, law and order, logic has no bases in reality. it cannot be observed, evaluated independant of the human mind. its properties are completely subjective in nature.
Reality offers no alternatives. There is only one reality. Period. true but that reality does not reveal it initiation source. So we are left with only two alternatives that it will allow
Why would they, given the absence of evidence for a designer or God? Taq, your trying to think outside the box. reality limits us to a certain logical choices, because we dont know absolutely. So this is why I say the creation bit is non-religious and is reduced or elevated, depending on how you view it, to a simple logical proposition By the very nature of the case, if there is a lack of evidence for a creator, then then there would be a lack of evidence for the universe being a cause of soley natural causes because both are very reasonable conclusion or atleast logical possibilites, that dont involve logical contradictions and there seems to be no other alternatives, then both should be taught not as religion, but as science. They both involve scientific investigation, whether in the field of natural studies or deductive reasoning
Where is the evience that God exists, or that God is eternal? You have yet to supply this evidence. taq, in this instance "evidence" is reduced to what is logically possible and demonstratable, not what you can prove I dont need to prove Gods eixstence to know it is a very real probabilityt from the available evidence if we are allowed to ASSUME that nature is a result of itself, (naturally occuring causes)with no PROOF to support it, (Not demonstrating and setting out the entire process) why would you question the evidence and method I use to conclude the existence of God Order, law and purpose are as real and valid as any naturally occuring cause. Wouldnt you agree? Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member Posts: 3571 Joined: |
so laws like a2+b2=c2 is evidence of a creator ???? Or is this law just a natural property of a right angle triangle ???? Or do you have any other law in mind ??? These are contrived subjective evaluations, they cannot be observed only evaluated after they have been imagined. They are subjective non-realities DNA is a reality that can be touched, measured and evaluated, with its appearent design to a purpose
You are arguing like the ancient Greeks argued someone had to have lit the stars on fire so logically there has to be a magic person with a lighter to do that. If an anwser is not known like what "created/lit" our universe that does not mean that magic man had to do it it just means WE DO NOT KNOW YET !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! No what I am arguing for, is the simple understanding, of what can be logically deduced from the available evidence. I dont need to produce the designer to have good reason to believe in his existence reality doesnt need my opinion or approval for what it will allow A failure to distinguish between what is logically allowable and evidential verses opinion andpreference, often causes much confusion Here is an example. For years evos and creos have torn at eachother over the age of the earth. Both cite and use Gen 1 as thier point counter point. This confusion could be avoided by simply observing the days of Gen 1 and 2 (for what they were intended) as days of the creative act, not consective days of the age of the earth. for example, would it be reasonable to assume that God stopped resting after the seventh day?. Ofcourse not. He stopped creating after the six day of creation, not six consecutive days of earths time period. The is no need for them to be back to back days They are days of creation,not days of the age of the earth back to back as consecutive days The sixth day could have been a literal 24 period in which he choose to create again at that time, with eons of time between actual literal days Would we be warrented in assuming because of a literal and hard translation that God never created again, because it says he stopped creating on the seventh day. of course not. The Bible often represents long periods of time as if they happened very quicly or in short periods of time This not an attempt to harmonize evo and creation, but an attempt to demonstrate the nature and purpose of Gen in the first place It does no harm to the text to believe the earth is much older than six thousand years, because that may not have been what was meant or intended to be conveyed by inspiration in the first place Once you remove your attention from the original purpose of Gen in the first place and focus all you energy looking for contradictions or inconsistencies, the original purpose will probably be missed The seventh day should not be viewed as some strict period of time, but a time when he knew the creation and the creative act were Good or complete. That being the case why should we view the others days as anything less than a creative act, occuring within and what is described as a literal 24 hour "The evening and morning were the sixth day", of creation, not a chronological blow by blow of time. Its pictorial language of literal days of creation, not a calendar. After all, isnt that what Gen is about, creation There is no real contention between evo and creation because they are not at odds with eachother. The truth or falsity of evo has nothing to do with the validity of the scriptures and vis versa Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
fear.... writes: Likely??Possibly?? Want to add an "If" in there somewhere? Science demands proof, not a bunch of unsupported maybes and ifs. If you can find me something to support your claims about how coral would form on a wooden structure and take the shape of that structure even possibly preserving some of it, then by all means point it out to me, I am always open to learning by being proven wrong. It shouldn't be too hard considering all the ship wrecks that have occurred on or near coral reefs. Hey, good bud, there's a whole lots of liklies, possibilities, ifs and un-provens in science theories, especially in the abstract QMs and relativities. You must've forgotten; science proves nothing. It theorizes on data observed. It categorically denies anything smacking of ID or creationism, abstaining from research in it. It's narrow-minded approach leaves a lot to be desired. Edited by Buzsaw, : Tidy UpBUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member Posts: 3571 Joined: |
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. Only a person that doesnt understand how reason works would make such a comment. 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. Not to simply observe some natural causes Your obligation would need to be demonstrated from start to finish or it would follow logically that law order and purpose are as much evidence as a designer without absolute proof, as observing some natural causes, is an answer for soley natural causes for which you have no absolute proof Are you starting to see how evidence and reason work in this instance, Taq?
Claims made without evidence refute themselves. Really taq? Please explain how your positionl and mine, do not stand or fall together. Given the available evidence Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined:
|
I am always supprised how fare the religius bend scripture to suit their needs.
Big bang theory is science because the math holds up, the observable evidence holds up its predictions holds up. Creation by magic does not hold up because we have yet to obsrve magic in action, it has no predictive capabilities, and the math does not hold up. The theory of evolution and the fact of evolution hold up to the math, the evidence supports it, and its predictions hold up. Creation of lifeforms by magic does not hold up ecause we have yet to obsrve magic in action, it has no predictive capabilities, and the math does not hold up. Just because we do not understand something yet does not imply we have to use magic to explain it. A long time ago the earth was thought to be flat and floating on a giant turtle why noone knew the right anwser so they made something up, after that came the earth is the center of the universe theory noone knew so they made something up even locked people away who would say otherwise, not so long ago it was believed that life was made in its current form by a magic sky daddy noone knew so they made something up ..... You se where i am going with this if you cant back your claims up with evidence dont make shit up and preach it to be true just say we dont know it might save you some embarrisment in the future just ask the RCC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Big bang theory is science because the math holds up, the observable evidence holds up its predictions holds up. And the steady state theory was science because the math held up, until they decided it didnt. How long will the current theory last? As I tried to explain before this is not about theories, its about what evidence is available to us and what we are justified in concluding The good thing about the only two logical possibilites is that no amount of information ever gathered will provide an alternative suggestion, nor will it overthrow those choices. it cant be changed. Even if we found out which one was absolutely true, the proposition would be the same. Now pay close attention. For that reason, given that amount of scientific evidence, both positions should be shouted from the mountain top and defended and presented wihl all the vigor one may muster
You se where i am going with this if you cant back your claims up with evidence dont make shit up and preach it to be true just say we dont know it might save you some embarrisment in the future just ask the RCC The proposition of existence is as true as any can be. It is backed by the best possible evidence, reality Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member Posts: 3571 Joined: |
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??? Almost there. Reality, is what it is, laws and all. it doesnt need human measurement or perspective Hence there is only one actual explanation to the existence of things, while existence itself will allow only two logical possibilites or explanations This would be true if there were never anyone to contemplate those alternatives, because that is what eixstence will logically allow, with only one of those being true absolutely
How exactly does reality confer the 'why' of things? it does it in the form of limited existing possibilites, with other clues in the nature and finitness of eixstence itself, for one to make a more distinctive decision
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. Ah, very verbose and very reasonable. Now, since you are sure of your claim, show me your confidence, in the process itself. Where exacally in the process did you define the starting process of soley natural causes.? Could you pinpoint that for me and your can close the door on this argument Oh, you cant, thats right. So evidence would have to fall into what is logically demonstratable, not into a false sense of confidence and complete lack of the evidence you require of myself, correct?
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. You cant be serious. Im sure occams razor does have application where things can be explained. So Ill ask you again, what is it exacally that you think you can explain As I have explained to many times to mention, there is only A and B here there is not only no need for C, its not logically possible. If God and eternality are the A and B, where did you get a C/ Dont tell me ytouve found an alternative possibility Your back to square one.
Please provide evidence that the Universe is finite or has come from finite 'elements'. Now isnt this interesting, you wish that I provide evidence that the universe is finite and the only evidence that you have that the universe is a result of soley natural causes is because you observe natural cause in action, but not soley natural causes The evidence i have is the same as yours. I observe the life and death cycle, so on and so forth. Is my evidence as good as yours for your conclusions? This what makes even Hawking's estimation both illogical and unreasonable.Oobserve Stephen Hawking writes in A Brief History of Time:
"We could still imagine that there is a set of laws that determines events completely for some supernatural being, who could observe the present state of the universe without disturbing it. However, such models of the universe are not of much interest to us mortals. It seems better to employ the principle known as Occam's razor and cut out all the features of the theory that cannot be observed." these kinds of statements are not only illogical but unreasonable, because they deny the very evidence that logic and reality allow us to observe. we can observe the finite characteristics of a universe that seems to employ those characteristics in nearly every observable context and object. Why would one adopt a propsition of soley natural causes when those very causes are the destruction of all living things in all places Mr Hawking doesnt understand that one CAN observe rational, logical and sound alternatives, provided by reality itself. he disregards the very foundation of any of his discoveries. He sweeps aside the only logical approach and concludes illogically with Bertrand Russell, that finiteness may be true of somethings but not all things. But i suppose it helps sell books Why would one theorize that such things could be the cause of themselves. its only when one disregards common sense, that would allow them to make such comments as Mr Hawking's Even his skills wont allow him to answer such questions and they wonder why any thinking person wont buy into thier crapola
So the 'Gish Gallop' is all in our imagination is it? I dont know what he believes or teaches. perhaps you could provide an example of his evasion Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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. It really is that simple.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member Posts: 3571 Joined: |
There is evidence of natural causes. Great, now present the evidence that demonstrates that it is by SOLEY natural causes if and when you cant provide that I will know you dont have the information you need, to make the implication you are attempting
Please present the evidence of the creator or the method used by that critter to influence evolution. My evidence for the creator is the same as your evidence that existence is soley by natural causes. its called, existence, law, order,, purpose and design Just demonstrate that the things i have mentioned dont eixist or that they can eixst soley by themself and you will have demonstrated it to not be evidence Since I have now provided what you requested it is your obligation as an debater to respond to that rebuttal Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
So far the only evidence is that of natural causes.
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. It really is that simple.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3713 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined:
|
Dawn Bertot writes:
Then you have no evidence to say whether it was a creator or if it was nature - both are equally evidenced (according to you). My evidence for the creator is the same as your evidence that existence is soley by natural causes. its called, existence, law, order,, purpose and designYou have now moved yourself back to square one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Worse than that.
As I think I've pointed out to him there is evidence of Natural Causes which explain existence, law, order, purpose and the semblance of design but he has NEVER presented any evidence that there is some designer or any model of how that designer influences evolution. Frankly, Dawn Bertot's post are simply word salad at best.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024